Qana: An Anlysis

Mainstream media coverage of the latest Mideast conflict has been lax. There is a notable absence of objective analyses, context and commentary. Rather, media outlets have embraced sensationalism and deliberately inflamed the situation by instigating people's intolerance. The objective of this post is to restore the complexity of the conflict and motivate my central thesis- the Israeli Defense Force is acting ethically.

Qana: a Hizbullah Aberation
Several days ago, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) engaged Hizbullah targets in the Southern Lebanese city of Qana. In excess of 60 people were killed, more than half of them children. The UN deplored the act as "deliberate and ruthless" and the UNSC prepared a document criticising Israel for "disproportionate" use of force. In the midst of the tragedy, few news agencies bothered to objectively report the facts. However, News Radio (Australia- 1278 AM) broadcast a compelling BBC interview. The foreign British correspondent, based out of Southern Lebanon, extended an ostensibly objective analysis into the incident. Despite attempts by the programme's host to bait the journalist into editorialising, he calmly maintained his neutral stance and asserted the facts. So what are the facts?

Prior to the IAF's attack on Qana, the IDF employed its airforce to cover the city in leaflets imploring civilians to evacuate. The tactic, which has been employed aggressively throughout the campaign, cited that Hizbullah terrorists had seized the town as a platform from which to launch rocket attacks against Israel. The civilians were in effect held as human collateral aimed to dissuade Israeli airstrikes. Aerial surveillance footage captured a particularly despicable instance of inhumanity when Hizbullah terrorists, dressed as plain-clothed civilians, fired a rocket from the balcony of a private residence. Naturally, when the 24 hour deadline concluded, the IAF struck Qana.

According to the IDF's preliminary investigation and eyewitness testimony, Hizbullah terrorists effectively enforced a siege over the town. Gunmen prevented locals from leaving and the terrorist group tactically decentralised itself. When Israel struck its objectives, the civilian density localised proximal to the targets were maimed and killed. And Hizbullah had further subverted international opinion.

Critcism
Israeli advocates, myself among them, appreciate that Israel errs. However, we maintain that any criticism of Israel should be proportionate and balanced. This precludes agitation fueled by intolerance. The UN charge of "deliberate targeting of civilians" is an absolute fallacy and an indictment of the organisation's central tenent of neutrality. The IDF's manifesto of mitigating civilian casualties supersedes ALL of its military objectives. For example, the IDF blatantly eliminates the element of surprise by declaring its targets in advance. Moreover, the IDF employs ground troops and actively engages in guerrilla warfare against terrorists in dense urban environments. Does an errant Israeli rocket ever kill civilians? Yes. Are civilians sometimes caught in the crossfire? Yes. But it's a huge stretch to suggest that Israel intentionally targets civilians. Legitimate criticism might involve questioning the wisdom of using the airforce to engage hostiles in an urban setting, while recognising that terrorists cannot be allowed to operate out of civilian areas with impunity. In any case, the conflict is complex and has depth. Linear analyses, slander and emotive jargon based on anti-Israel sentiment doesn't constitute valid condemnation.

Photographed near my university. This is an example of myopic, unjustified and intolerant criticism.