New York Post wrote:
July 31, 2006 -- Yesterday's Israeli missile attack on the Lebanese village of Qana, which killed 54 civilians, including 37 children, was precisely the kind of human tragedy that Hezbollah and Syria have been instigating for weeks.
Much of the international community, led by the utterly predictable U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, harshly condemned Israel - which responded, perhaps unwisely, by announcing a 48-hour stand-down on aerial strikes.
But Qana did not happen in a vacuum.
Over the past three weeks, at least 150 rockets have been fired into northern Israel from the Lebanese village. Qana was a focal point for the firing of Katyushas at the Israeli towns of Kiryat Shmona and Afula - which already has killed 18 people and wounded hundreds of others.
The specific building that was hit yesterday was apparently sheltering Hezbollah guerrillas - they'd been seen ducking into it after firing their missiles - as well as Katyusha rockets and launchers.
The fact that non-combatants - including children - were inside as well shouldn't surprise: Hezbollah routinely places innocent lives at risk by using civilians as human shields.
The purpose for that is clear enough: To provoke precisely the kind of incident that occurred yesterday - along with the anti-Israel, anti-American hysteria that followed in train.
And why not?
Ten years ago, "international" pressure brought the last major Israeli operation against Hezbollah to an end after artillery shells killed 100 Lebanese civilians in the same town of Qana - which even then was a Hezbollah stronghold.
Second verse, same as the first?
Hezbollah, Iran and Syria hope so.
But if any condemnation is called for, it should be aimed at Israel's tormentors - and at the United Nations itself; the world body has failed utterly to implement its own Resolution 1559, which demanded the disarming of Hezbollah and which in turn would have rendered the Israeli border action unnecessary.
Let's be clear: Any self-respecting nation would do the same in similar circumstances: protect the lives of its citizens, even if it means endangering civilians in adjoining belligerent territory.
Fortunately, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, despite fierce criticism, have stood fast.
"Our hope for peace for boys and girls everywhere extends across the world," Bush said yesterday - adding that America "is resolved to work for a sustainable peace . . . that will enable [parents] to raise their children in a hopeful world."
That is to say, any political solution that fails to disarm Hezbollah will be a recipe for further violence.
As Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns observed yesterday, "this has not been a good two-and-a-half weeks for Hezbollah from a military point of view, and they've got to be worried about continued Israeli offensive operations."
While it is not altogether clear that the offensive is achieving - or even if it can achieve - its military objectives, there is little doubt that bringing it to a premature conclusion is not going to result in a lasting peace.
Not even close.
The administration yesterday reiterated that point. "We want to avoid a situation where we essentially put a Band-Aid on something," said Burns. "We have to have a sustainable cease-fire. We have to make sure Hezbollah is not allowed to be in a position to strike again."
Wise words.
In the rhetorical firestorm that is building, Washington must not lose sight of the fact that an Israeli defeat now would be a stunning - perhaps turning-point - victory for global terrorism.
And Israel needs to hunker down and complete successfully the distasteful, but absolutely necessary, campaign forced on it by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/edito ... orial_.htm
31 Jul 2006, 10:51 am
