Kevin, before a brief reply to your post, here's a value neutral snippet from your linked article. I found it interesting.
Quote:
|
The hospital's owner, Dr. Nazih Gharious, said it was too early to tell Rmeity of his loss, which might prove to be too much of a shock. Rmeity's brother-in-law, Ibrahim Jomaa, repeatedly warned visitors not to slip and tell Rmeity that his children were killed.
|
Rmeirty is the subject of the article. What a strange position to be in as a journalist, although granted, if it truly is news -- after all, suffering is news, and if it bleeds, it leads -- you can only fault that individual for choosing to be a journalist in the first place.
It's good that you're aware Israel's been bombing Beirut's southern suburbs (and at times other areas) now. They have been doing so for some time.
I assume you do know that:
1)Hezbollah is headquartered in Beirut;
2) Amal (whose turf your article says this area is), is an ally of Hezbollah at this point, and has become the "junior partner" in that alliance;
3) Israeli weaponry could be targeted at civilians -
which it has not been to this point.
That civilians are caught in the crossfire is bad. We agree on that. That any war will result in civilian casualties is also bad. It's also bad to intentionally inflate and trump up casualty counts, war reports, and other items of international interest, as proponents of Hezbollah have done via Reuters, and as the PM of Lebanon did in the wake of the "one-man massacre."
Infinitely worse than all of that would be what you suggest Israel is engaged in, the intentional targeting of the civilians strictly to kill civilians.
We won't speculate on Israel using non-conventional weapons, like Syria has done, against civilian populations (by the way, 15,000 at a go? Now
that's a massacre.) Israel neither talks about unconventional options, nor has employed them, unlike her adversaries.
But it's worth noting that if, as you assert, Israel's goal is to massacre civilians, 1,000 is a piss-poor total for a month's "work;" that's barely a day's work, by the standards such slaughters force us to use.
I am not concluding that it's "good" or "okay" to go out and kill 30 a day, for the sake of killing them. But if, as you say, that is Israel's goal, why is the total so low?
It's an insane argument to assert that Israel is doing her level best to systematically wipe out Lebanon's civilian population. It is also worth noting that the amount of damage and the number of deaths in the country does not represent what the news photos suggest, which is a whole country bombed into rubble.
I've just worked for about 3 days straight, so I'll keep it brief (for me.) Here is the situation:
Disarm Hezbollah, and remove them from South Lebanon, and this stops. The Israelis say they're encouraged that Lebanon says they'll send 15,000 guys. I would hope they hold out for real soldiers, who weren't being touted as "incapable" of disarming Hezbollah a month ago.
The cause of the destruction may be the hero of the story, in the eyes of the Times of London, and the five people one reporter chose to quote or reference. A few days ago Jumblatt was
not "muted" in his criticism of Hezbollah, and I suspect in the future the same will be true. Finally, how can those interviewed be afraid of "slipping into civil war" as the result of attacks that have "unified the country behind Hezbollah"?
They should really label op-ed pieces as such.
All Israeli soldiers -- including the kidnapped ones -- need to go back to Israel. Hezbollah needs to be disarmed, as previously agreed. Israel's North must no longer live under fire. These are the unreasonable "demands" of the "terrorist" state of Israel.
If they are met, it seems there will be no further problem. Stay tuned.... I know I will.
Dan