Extraordinary Precision: The Logic Of Israel's War On Civilians
By Ramzy Baroud
A Sky News newscaster, interviewing British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett on Sunday, July 30 demanded an answer to
this paraphrased question: if indeed Israel had precise intelligence that a Hezbollah operative was present in the
village of Qana, in South Lebanon, how could it possibly fail to realize that the area was also crowded with civilians?
The question was prompted by Beckett’s insistence that while Israeli attacks that victimize uncountable civilians — like
that in Qana which killed scores, mostly children — were "appalling", they resulted from tactical errors, and were never
deliberate. In fact, she referred to the "apparent deliberate targeting" --as described by UN secretary Kofi Annan — of
the UN peacekeepers compound in South Lebanon and the killing of four unarmed observers, as a "mistake." e
In effect, Israel is hardly accused — at least in the Western narrative of the Middle East crisis, as exemplified in
media coverage and political discourse — of deliberately targeting civilians, even among those who are daring enough to
describe Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s "provocation" — the capturing of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 — as
"disproportionate."
Israel often acknowledges — with "regret" — the high civilian tolls of its war; sometimes it goes as far as apologizing
for such unintended "mistakes." The Israeli government however is adamant that it will continue to carry out such
attacks; that it’s those who "hide among the civilian population" which deserve the blame, not Israel; that neither
Hezbollah nor Palestinian resistance groups seem to care much for the life of Israeli civilians, while Israel does care
for Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. In fact, and ironically, according to various Israeli politicians and media
pundits, one of Israel’s objectives is to liberate its neighbors from the suffocating grip of terrorists. An objective
journalist is expected to highlight both narratives, without pointing out the fallacies of one or the other.
Such "objectivity" has served Israel well, since facts on the ground are hardly consistent with its claims.
For example, out of nearly 4,000 Palestinians killed during the Second Palestinian Uprising — in the last 5 years — the
overwhelming majority have been civilians, many of whom are children. Such figures are also mirrored in much of the
damage inflicted by Israel’s military machine against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories: the great majority of
the wounded, the destroyed infrastructure, the confiscated land, the razed orchards, the bulldozed homes, etc, have been
overwhelmingly civilian. Wednesday, July 26, was hardly a diversion from that norm, as 29 Palestinian civilians, many of
whom were children as young as a few months old, were killed in northern Gaza, all in the span of 24 hours.
As of today, including the Qana onslaught, the number of Lebanese civilians confirmed dead has crossed the 750 mark;
more than one third of them are children, according to UN counts. Likewise, the destroyed Lebanese infrastructure, not
only in Hezbollah’s strongholds in the south, but across Lebanon were built primarily for the benefit of the civilian
population.
The handy excuse that Hezbollah and Hamas fighters launch their rockets at Israel from civilian areas, no longer
suffices. There is yet to be one shred of evidence, one video or bit of satellite footage — at least in the ongoing war
in Lebanon — that confirms such an allegation. In fact, it seems imprudent for Hezbollah’s fighters to expose their
operations to Israel’s informers, while they can safely fire from the numerous orchards dotting the south region and
quickly redeploy elsewhere.
Concurrently, the "unintended mistakes" theory, promulgated by Israel’s apologists — read the Bush Administration, among
others — is utterly inconsistent with claims promoted by Israel and its apologists that Israel is the "most moral army
in the world", and that Israel uses the most advanced war technology to avoid harming civilians.
These allegations cannot all be accurate, all at once. If Israel is indeed very "moral", then why does its army continue
to repeat the same "unintended mistakes", over and over again, for decades? Is it possible that the killing and wounding
of tens of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians as a result of those "unintended mistakes" didn’t induce a
very moral army to reexamine its tactics and adopt a decisive change in military policy?
Wouldn’t that be the "moral" thing to do? (Note that the small village of Qana was bombed by the Israeli air force in
1996, as civilians were seeking shelter in a UN compound, killing over 100 people, including many children and UN
peacekeepers.)
The second claim, that Israel strives to obtain high-tech (American) weapon technology to minimize civilian casualties,
is also fraudulent. Once again, the numbers indicate the precise antithesis; denoting that either the "fifth strongest
army in the world" is so horribly inept, that most of its military strikes result in blunders, or that the killing of
civilians is in reality part and parcel of Israel’s military strategy. This latter assertion, in my opinion, is the true
objective; but why?
Israeli officials may parrot to the media that Hezbollah (like Hamas) is an outsider force that holds no legal
legitimacy, and that its true strength arises from its terrorist links to Iran and Syria. Conversely, Israeli conduct on
the ground gives evidence to a different conviction: punishing the true party — ordinary Lebanese — that provide
Hezbollah with the needed support to sustain such costly military confrontations with Israel, or ordinary Palestinians
who elected Hamas to power.
Both Hezbollah and Hamas are homegrown; there should be little contention over this. But they cannot be scrutinized
divorced from their immediate surroundings: Hezbollah emerged as a result of Israel’s frequent bloodbaths in Lebanon and
its members are comprised primarily of victims of Israel’s past wars, while Hamas sprung from Palestinian refugee camps
in the Occupied Territories and has been sustained with the support of the poorest segments of the population.
Whatever strategic alliance they hold outside — Iran, Syria or whomever else that is willing to acknowledge their right
to fight Israel — is out of a desperate need for a safe haven, financial assistance and a political platform.
Israel knows well that "destroying" Hezbollah and Hamas is a losing battle — they’ve tried this time and again, and have
failed with each attempt. What is needed now is a concerted effort to deprive the leadership of these movements with the
popular support that placed Hamas at the helm of the Palestinian political equation and elected Hezbollah to the
Lebanese parliament.
The Israeli tactics, however, are reaping a conflicting outcome, as both Hezbollah and Hamas are emerging more powerful
than ever before, widely viewed as the only defenders of Lebanon and Palestine, as conventional Arab governments have
finally declared, and without reservation, their military impotence and political bankruptcy.
Regardless of its media utterances, Israel has committed yet another colossal strategic error, comparable in magnitude
and consequence to the American debacle in Iraq. Indeed, both governments are fighting two impossible wars, where
civilians are killed with extraordinary "precision."
-Ramzy Baroud is a US author and journalist, currently based in London. His recent book, The Second Palestinian
Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle, is available at Amazon.com. He can be reached at ramzybaroud@hotmail.com
*************
-Ramzy Baroud is a US author and journalist, currently based in London. His recent book, “The Second Palestinian
Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle” (Pluto Press, London), is now available at Amazon.com. He is also the
Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle