We can't bear pictures of the dead. Hezbollah want to see nothing else

AT 6.30am on Sunday, from a two-tree hillock on Hampstead Heath, I stood looking out over London — me, a few feral parakeets and a little black dog. The city was mauve and placid; no sirens, no explosions, no dead children. I had just heard the overnight news from Qana, and I wasn’t imagining that I loved my three children any more than the Lebanese man who that night had lost his three.

They’d been given warning to leave their homes, but it seems that the Shalhoubs and the Hashems — the two large families who were wiped out in the bombing — just didn’t have the money or the ability to make the journey. Even before the events at Qana, David Miliband is said to have asked at a meeting of the Cabinet: “Where will this all end?” On Monday a moderate member of the Lebanese Cabinet told the BBC that the violence was putting Lebanon back years. Ann Clwyd MP — a woman I greatly admire — lent her voice to the call for a quick ceasefire.

How, after all, can this be borne? We should stop it now. There should be no more killing. We should stop it even before Israel has secured its border, even while Hezbollah’s military force is still intact. How can you argue with the impulse to save innocent life?

“Asymmetrical warfare” is a term usually employed to describe the deployment of insurgent and terrorist techniques against a massively better-armed adversary. It almost suggests that such an approach is defensible. But there is a second sense in which the phrase might be used. We weedy democrats and life-loving liberals cannot bear what the ideologues of Hamas and Hezbollah find all too bearable. We argue about whether we even want to see the pictures of the dead. They seem to want to look at nothing else.

We understand the problem. Israeli violence may damage the democratic and reform movements in Lebanon and Syria. But Hezbollah’s violence, apparently, serves only to strengthen the forces of religious ecstasy. To us, hitting a UN force is a humanitarian outrage. To Hezbollah it’s a tactic. To Hezbollah every civilian is a warrior.

Take the Israeli killing of four UN soldiers last week, condemned by Kofi Annan as “deliberate”. On July 18 one of the doomed officers e-mailed home to say that Israeli ordnance was landing nearby and that, “this has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity”. A retired Canadian general interpreted this for Canadian television. “What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favourite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields, knowing that they can’t be punished for it.”

Reporters from Qana said that, the day after the Israeli attack, “there was little evidence of fighters”. But the Israelis have released footage claiming to show rockets being fired at Israel from within the village. Other aerial sequences clearly depict rocket launchers being fired from behind apartment blocks and launcher trucks being driven to hiding places in garages and under houses. It was this kind of action that prompted Jan Egelund, of the UN, to call upon Hezbollah to stop this “cowardly blending . . . among women and children”. He added: “I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”

Today, on the website of Hezbollah’s own propaganda agency, al-Manar, you can find the boast that on one day at the end of last week: “Islamic resistance fighters launched barrages of rockets at northern Israeli settlements . . . According to Israeli media, some 20 settlers were injured in today’s attacks.” “Settlements” is Hezbollah for towns and villages, and “settlers” is Hezbollah for civilians. So when a 240lb Hezbollah rocket slammed into the Israeli countryside last week, it should have prompted the thought that when the Israelis miss their targets they hit civilians and when Hezbollah misses, they don’t.

Getting in among the UN positions and the civilians, firing at “settlers” while seeing the other side condemned for its inhumanity, is part of the new asymmetry. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is pretty good at hitting the soldiers too. If you recall those TV pictures in the 1980s of chaps in keffiyehs blindly firing off their RPGs and Kalashnikovs round a corner and then running like buggery, that has all gone.

Some clue as to how things have changed was offered on Sunday night’s Panorama. Though it was incidental to its story, what the programme showed is how organisations such as Hamas propagandise the children and adults in their care, exulting martyrdom and teaching them to embrace death. We saw schools that celebrate suicide bombers and school computers full of jihadoporn. Had you been watching the evening drama on al-Manar recently you could have seen a Syrian drama series on the Jewish plot to take over the world. One scene was set in a brothel where a Jewish prostitute thinks she is dying from some disease. “I implore you,” she tells the Madam, “send me only Christian clients. I don’t want any Jew to be infected by me.” It’s The Forsyte Saga as scripted by Heinrich Himmler.

If that’s the cultural you can imagine the political. But just in case you can’t, let me help you. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah (thinks, how exactly did he become leader of Hezbollah?) is a prolific speaker, but is credited with meaning what he says. Nasrallah believes that the Jews “invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities”. That Israel “is a cancerous body in the region” that “must be uprooted”. More magnanimously: “Let us spare bloodshed. Let the Yemenite Jews return to Yemen, the Moroccan Jews to Morocco, the Ethiopian Jews to Ethiopia, the European Jews to Europe, and the American Jews to America.” Though even that is generous because: “Anyone who reads the Koran . . . sees what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history . . . Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer.”

This is the chap with the long-range missiles (getting longer range) sitting on Israel’s northern border. And while Hezbollah might bring out the Lebanese flags for the press in Beirut, in their southern fastnesses the only banners are theirs. And what do we say, knowing this? That Bad Blair should lean on Worse Bush who should put the squeeze on Murdering Olmert and it’d all be over. That’s the new orthodoxy.

God alone knows, the Israelis have, in their history, committed crimes and terrible errors. Sabra and Chatilla, the refusal to recognise for many years that Palestinians actually existed, the brutalities of the occupation, the settling on the West Bank and in Gaza and so on. The Palestinian organisations have their own track record of deceit and murder. Consequently, each slow step towards a peace has been agonising, and now the new asymmetry makes progress almost impossible. As of today, I have no answer.

Comments

[Moobs]

You are right that there is an asymmetry in the standards that we apply. We expect our own troops and those of our allies to meet higher standards than we expect of those they are fighting. I think implicit in your piece is a feeling that there should be symmetry and that it should be achieved by imposing a common high standard. If that is what you are implying I agree entirely.

I get angry when it is suggested that Israel should be free to behave in any manner it wants because it's enemies are brutal. Similarly, my skin crawls to listen to some of my former friends on the Left who say implicitly or (increasingly) explicitly that every terrorist act of the last 5 years has been about the West and its allies getting what they deserve and justifying any atrocity on the basis that there are, somewhere, historical or contemporary wrongs that justify the acts like blood-soaked indulgences.

[Robin Bather]

A well balanced calm article David but with no solutions unfortunately.

What say you about the theory that the Greater American Empire, with no balance from the ex USSR, is now hell bent on expanding into every corner of the earth with its banners flying and its war cry of "Regime Change" and "A new Middle East" --presumably with the dream of countless millions of moslems and arabs eating at McDonalds, drinking Coke and enjoying fun filled weekends at the Tehran Disneyland instead of planning trips to Mecca.
All of them concientious voters, and, who knows, a local AIPAC office could be set up in Damascus to lobby and hand out free fact finding trips to Israel for lawmakers and their wives.

PS
Today is Monday 31st July 2006 the Day of Mourning for 37 Lebanese children and 20 Lebanese adults killed by an Israeli bomb.

[Nick (South Africa)]

>As of today, I have no answer.<

Good article David, but you studiously avoid discussion the underpinning ideology of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqusas Martyrs brigade, Jamaat-i-Islami,the Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban, Al Qaida….even the MCB as well as the rest of the Helal alphabet soup – Koranic Literalist Islam.

What's happening in the Eastern Mediterranean is but one part of a global war. It is but one theatre in a pan-global Jihad. A Jihad committed and supported by Koranic literalists whose ideology is totalitarian, completely intolerant of non-Muslims, seeks global hegemony, and has been bought to fever pitch all over the world with by petro dollars and modern travel and communication technology.

Until the problem is identified in clear by a critical mass of folks, it's not going to be addressed....It's rather like alcoholism, the first step to recovery is recognising the problem. There is still massive denial in the Western in general and in the media in particular as to what's going on, we still need to recognise the problem. To continue with the alcoholic analogy, we are still binge drinking and in denial that there is a problem.

Sadly, amongst the 1.3 billion Muslims globally, the dominant, prevailing ideology amongst the devout is Koranic Literalism, the Koran is the literal world of Allah dictated by the angel Gabrial to the ‘prophet’ Mohamed and transcribed without flaw as the Koran. That premise underpins almost all interpretations of Islam, given the content of the Koran it’s a recipe for extremism. It brings forth an ideology which is imperial in aspiration, totalitarian, rabidly intolerant and unbelievably barbaric. Moderate Muslims - those whose values are egalitarian, liberal, genuinely tolerant and not at odds with the values of enlightened, reason based liberal democracy - are very much on the back-foot in terms of Islamic Jurisprudence.

For those that confront this problem, that identify it for what it is accusations of ‘Islamaphobe’ and ‘racist’ follow in short order, not just by Koranic Literalist Muslim extremists such as the MCB, but by quite a few supposed educated folks who are genuine advocates of egalitarian liberal democracy. For you personally to do it David, being of Jewish origin, will – as night follows day – identify you to many, as a shrill for Israel and bring up great gobs of Jew-hatred, which seems to be undergoing something of a resurgence, particularly on the left of the political spectrum.

[Al]

Well said, David, to the point as usual. And there are no magic answers, only to keep "buggering on" as Churchill would have said, until the West "wakes up" to the threat from these medieval terrorists who want to take us all back to the 7th Century. Meanwhile, those who see the dangers and try to do something will continue to be villified by the smart-arses in the media. All very depressing -fortunately I wont be around when it all ends in tears!

[Ali]

Violence is frequently the last resort. It comes from frustration, helplessness, feeling ignored. As Bob Dylan said: "When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose". The source of this frustration is America's apparent blind support for Israel, no matter what they do. The US can not even bring itself to publicly condenm the massacare of 54 civilians, mostly children. The feeling among most arabs and islamic nations is that the US doesn't care about their people, only about their oil. Unless there is a clear shift in US's tone and policy towards the Middle East, I have to say not only today we can not see an answer , for many tomorrows any amount of diplomatic activity and UN resolutions will not solve this problem. The hatred, distrust and frustration is deep rooted and will require major concessions by all parties, and a transparent shift in the US policy, to have any hopes. Let us not forget that Hezbollah was born out of these feelings of helplessness, grievances and frustration.

[Wombat]

I thought it was rather a rambling piece but it made some valuable points that too often go unmade. Hezbollah, Hamas and their fellow travellers represent a nasty, intolerant, violent creed that abuses genuine political grievances for short term advantage. As you say, it is very much in Hezbollah's advantage that we see the dead and dying innocents of Qana. Perhaps Israel should do the same, but maybe they've more pride.

That said, I remain to be convinced that the best way to fight irregular, guerrilla forces (terrorists if you prefer) is with conventional force. Even modern laser-guided ordnance is only accurate to a few tens of metres and that is quite enough to completely miss a target the size of a small truck. When that ornance is a 500lb bomb it still does a lot of damage but in the wrong place.

The stupid thing is that we in Britain know this. We learned the hard way in Ireland that using regular forces against irregulars just ends up radicalising the civilian population. Some will take up arms themselves, others will support and shelter them. That is surely more of a disaster for Israel than a couple of rockets? Just because you've warned the civilians to get out doesn't make it alright to bomb indiscriminately. Hopefully Israel's military leaders can learn from this. It doesn't make their campaign wrong, just that some of their tactics need improvement.

Ultimately what will make Israel safe is a stable, peaceful, prosperous and democratic Lebanon. They almost had that and we can again. But the violence has to stop first.

[kitefighter]

It's hardly a surprise to read that pro-war pundit David Aaronovitch has no answer. In his monomaniacal mind, he tries to imagine an immediate call for peace and like his hero Tony Blair (and his hero's heroes, George Bush and Rupert Murdoch) he gets the answer, "does not compute"

Some of the comments above consider David Aaronovitch "balanced". Really. In his article above, 8 of the 13 paragraphs are critical of Hizbollah, 1 critical of Israel, 1 critical of peace and the rest is just meaningless handwringing.

Ironically,in an article supposedly critical about asymmetry, his own views are hopelessly one sided.

[ian]

David - if the threat to us all is as you describe it, and I believe that it is, then there is no need to trouble yourself with the 'question' let alone the 'answer.'

Defeat for our enemies and victory for us and our allies is the only outcome that is acceptable - anything else does not bear thinking about.

[Hanna Hofbauer]

I read your article and have to congratulate you on how you have grasped the situation and had the courage to put it down on paper
Thank you so much for putting just one or two points in writing about the UN Officer who sent an email home also about the tactical approach to the UN and using civilians woman and children as human shields. Same goes for ambulances, food tracks which hidden arms were found by the Israelis
Israel values and worships life and would never destroy innocent people on purpose
Unfortunately this human way of the IDF in Israel does not appear in the papers and is never written about in the UK
So Thank you again for wrting the artice

[Rippon]

"As of today, I have no answer."

Well shut up then. What a load of drivel Aaronovitch writes.
The answers are simple:
*The US and Israel should change their attitude to the UN from contempt to respect (and stop vetoing UN resolutions) - then they might have some credibility in insisting that others, eg Hezbollah, respect UN resolutions.
*Israel should withdraw to its '67 borders.
*Israel should negotiate prisoner exchanges to get their soldiers back (after all, they have thousands of Lebanese in their dungeons to choose from); their past leaders, including that dove Sharon, have done plenty of this in the past. This would be better than bombing Lebanon to oblivion.

Their captured soldiers are not actually a concern of Israel. If they were, then Israel wouldn't have started its bombing orgy because there is the obvious danger that their own bombs would kill their own soldiers (who they claim they want back but, actually, whose capture is just their flimsy, transparent pretext for unleashing their rage).

[Richard Holt]

It is true that in our criticism of Israeli actions we sometimes forget to condemn the actions of Hezbollah. But this is because most intelligent commentators are reacting to a willingness in western political circles to accept Israel's Orwellian language.

We need to judge each side on what they do. Israel says the difference between them and Hezbollah is that they don't deliberately target civilians. But if the results of your actions (air strikes and artillery fire) is inevitable (the repeated killing of civilians) then your intention to target civilians becomes implicit in your actions. The actions of both sides should be judged, not the ability of each side to deal in western diplomacy.

[arnoldo]

So Rippon has the answer that David finds elusive. Israel and the USA merely have to follow his prescription and all will be well - Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and all Islamic fundamentalists will then recognise Israel's right to exist and Jihadist dreams of the Caliphate will be abandoned.
Just imagine - Peace in Our Time!

[Francis Sedgemore]

Out of respect, I think it's worth naming the fallen Canadian UN observer who provided the information on Israeli shelling, and Hezbollah activities around his observation post, to General Lewis MacKenzie and the Canadian media. He was Major Paeta Hess-von Kreudene.

Maybe I'm wrong, but of all the more well-known media commentators offering their opinions on the Qana tragedy, it seems that only David Aaronovitch has seen fit to give name to the victims: i.e., the Shalhoubs and the Hashems. RIP.

[Rippon]

arnoldo offers us the usual cliche garbage about Israel's right to exist. This is the usual drivel about Israel being under siege, surrounded by enemies, blah blah blah.

Israel does exist. Israel is not going anywhere. It doesn't matter what mad mullahs might say - no country in the Middle East can lay a glove on the regional superpower. But Israel loves to milk its fraudulent 'victimhood' ad nauseum - and this is how it 'justifies' (attempts to) its terrorist attacks, which, btw, we're not meant to label as 'terrorist' because laser-guided-made-in-the-usa is more moral than katyusha.

The US was condemned by the World Court back in the 80s for pulling a similar stunt with Nicaragua. The US 'justified' its terrorism against that minnow by claiming Nicaragua threatened the USA's existence.

Words are cheap and meaningless. Actions are the only things that count.

If mad mullahs want to spout words about the 'end of Israel', so what? The US, UK and Israel exploit these meaningless words of fantasy to sell us the lie that the world is at risk from them.

Israel would be very secure behind its '67 borders. It only faces a terror threat (miniscule compared to the terror it inflicts on others) because its always grabbing more and terrorising those who attempt to resist. As Paxman put it very well last night: "The message is, 'If you can't love us, then you WILL fear us!'"

F. Sedgemore (in classic Aaronovitch style) is going on about 'giving name to the victims RIP' [violins and tears] - what's that all about? Sedgemore and Aaronovitch didn't even know those people (did they?). If they want to milk the event to prove they 'feel' and 'respect', then wouldn't it have been more respectful to seek next-of-kin permission to 'give name' to these victims (whose killers' they implicity condone and excuse).

[Nick (South Africa)]

>srael says the difference between them and Hezbollah is that they don't deliberately target civilians. But if the results of your actions (air strikes and artillery fire) is inevitable (the repeated killing of civilians) then your intention to target civilians becomes implicit in your actions<

No it does not. I think you need to read the Geneva convention to which Israel is a signatory...the relevant part of the 4th convention reads...

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations"

[Rippon]

Thats rich - the suggestion, from Nick, that Israel gives a damn about international conventions.

But note, Nick quotes a part which proves useful to Israel's purposes and intentions - its appetite for bombing.

Israel does 'care' about international conventions in a mendacious kind of way: It keeps bleating on about Hezbollah's breach of UN resolutions - while conveniently ignoring its own shameful record in this respect.

[eliXelx]

To those who defend the point of view that there is a hidden Islamist agenda, that what is happening in Israel, and what happened on 9/11, 3/11, 7/7 and countless other dates and places are all part of it, let me refer you to the last time history saw this kind of confrontation when Islam was feeling its oats--Spain between the 8th and the 15th century!
Everytime during those years that the Muslims managed to unite, there was hell to pay for the Christians. Everytime the Christians pushed back they seriously weakened Muslim power.
The important point is that the front line was NEVER at the centre of the Caliphate, always on the far outskirts.
And it was never well-organized;
Razzias (blitz attacks on villages);kidnappings for ransom or slaves;targeted assassination by "hashishin";
all were tried and tested tactics for whichever new usurper sheikh had a little momentary power and the will and desire to use it!
Like in backgammon--you throw the dice and if you win you win! If you're in a promising position you up the ante; after all winning and losing aren't within man's control; It's god's will!
So it behoves us to read and learn from that history.
THERE IS NO ISLAMIST AGENDA, JUST A LOT OF PISSANTS THROWING DICE AND HOPING FORTUNE FAVOURS THEM.
Taking out their leaders is useless! there is always another mindless mullah available to start another deadly game!

[Al]

With respect to UN Resolutions, the most important one in the ME conflict is the one that created the State of Israel. Assuming that all "UN Resolution Quoting Correspondents" accept that Israel is thus a legitimate state, then Resolution 242 is the next most important. 242 has two key clauses, neither of them binding.
1. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
2. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;.
So when we quote Israels failure to adhere to 242 Clause 1, we must not forget to also condemn the Muslim States or groups that do not adhere to the second clause. Simple, really.

[Al]

Quite so Eli, the Muslims were involved in Crescentades long before the Crusades - why do our media types never make that point when the Muslims call us Crusaders?
We need to ask our peace loving Muslim brethren what a Muslim army was doing in France in 732 - but I don't imagine that fact is taught much in Muslim schools. But Eli, I digress, what exactly was your point?

[Rippon]

"Simple, really," Al says.

What tosh. He's suggesting that Muslim states and Israel are equally to blame: condemn one, condemn the other too.

If there's no bad guy here, then it's certainly not "simple". With no bad guy, upon whom we must apply pressure, then the conclusion is both sides are to blame. Well, that's simple for those of us who are comfortably living far away from the catastrophe. But then it's hideously complex for Arabs and Jews in the region because, if no one / everyone is to blame, then the cycle of violence continues.

What is simple is part 1 of Resolution 242. And part 2 is obviously just a footnote of wishful thinking about the respectful attitudes one hopes the different states will adopt. Like I said before, actions are all that count. And part 1 calls for clear simple action: Stop grabbing other people's land through terror (forcing them into poverty and destitution). Part 2 is just words. But part 2 is also far more relevant to Israel than any other state: States (eg Palestine) shouldn't have to suffer "acts of force" from others who exceed their "recognised boundaries".

So, Israel, go back to your recognised '67 boundaries and stop terrorising those who try to resist your Zionist expansion. We get it: You're far tougher than anyone else on the block. But mankind has evolved beyond the law of the jungle. Your terror and violence is not going to cow your opponents. You have generated so much hatred that those sub-humans (don't pretend you regard them more highly than that - with your sickening crocodile tears over civilain deaths) who keep getting in your way now embrace death if that's the price in opposing you.

[greenmamba]

rippon handily illustrate's Israel's problems:

"no country in the Middle East can lay a glove on the regional superpower."

Well what do you call 100 rockets a day?

Add to that a worlwide outcry whenever it tries to defend itself and they're screwed. (And if you think there's a different way to dislodge Hizb'allah, let us know what it is.)

As for the '67 borders, they weren't OK for the Arabs in '67, what on earth has changed to make them OK now? There's just uneasy peace with Egypt & Jordan but their populations are still anti-Semitic. We now have Iran, Hamas & Hizb dedicated to no Israel.

"1967 borders" is a lefty bleat spewed by do-gooders prepared to sell out their allies.

[Charles Simmonds]

I thought that this article was a fair analysis but Aaronovitch did not follow it through to its logical conclusion which must be a ringing endorsement of Israel.

Hizbullah deliberately and quite cynically places innocent civilians in the line of fire

a) to exploit the reluctance of the Israeli military to inflict civilian casualties, thereby tying the Israeli army's hands tactically

b) to precipitate incidents such as Qana which are grist to Hizbullah's propaganda mill. From Hizbullah's point of view the more innocents killed in such incidents the greater the beneficial propaganda effect. Therefore Hizbullah has a clear incentive to maximize such casualties.

Israel has no choice but to eliminate Hizbullah as a military force. If this means more civilian casualties, the blame clearly lies with Hizbullah.

[Rippon]

greenmamba says:

"What do you call 100 rockets a day?"

Well, given the quantity and technology of those rockets, I call that peanuts - compared to the awesome firepower of Israel, which glories in demonstrating its strength, and then boasts that this is 'restraint' because it's only a tiny fraction of the hell they could choose to reign down. Of course, Israel is absolutely correct in this, but it is truly sickening when a gangster boasts how strong he is ('you ain't seen nothing yet'), in the smug confident knowledge that the Godfather will continue to supply his arsenal, and defend his crimes.

100 katyushas a day vs the Israeli army and airforce. It's like Palestinian teenagers throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and tanks. 'We had to fire rounds and shells at those boys - with evil in their hearts - because they were threatening us.'

"And if you think there's a different way to dislodge Hizb'allah, let us know what it is."

Well, first of all, Hezbollah's birth was a consequence of Israel's invasion in '82 and subsequent occupation of South Lebanon. So if Israeli aggression hadn't created the problem in the first place, they wouldn't now be feeling the need to destroy Hzbh.

It is impossible to 'destroy' Hzbh (or Hamas); they are only growing politically stronger. This is not difficult to see or predict, so it does make you wonder what Israel's true agenda is.

What you can do is drain the swamp of support for such groups. Negotiate with Hzbh - exchange prisoners. Reverse your invasion of Lebanon completely (Sheba Farms). Get out of the occupied territories. Stop treating the Palestinians as sub-human, and stop grabbing their resources (eg water).

The problem, of course, is that the Zionists construe such options as concessions, and, worse, signs of weakness - because, remember, their proudest quality is their strength. They simply cannot stomach the truth that they have committed crimes for which they should be paying reparations. It's unthinkable that the Jews could be guilty of crimes against other peoples and war crimes; they can never be oppressors, only victims, as history shows. (- so the script goes)

"1967 border is just a leftie bleat."

So you are clearly of the opinion that land and resources are not major issues leading to conflict. That's a truly ostrich position. Well done.

And on this site there's also plenty of that drivel about civilian maiming, killing and misery: It's all Hzbh's fault, because they keep running away and hiding from us when we want to fire at them. When we have our surgical-strike ordnance trained on them, then, if they had any decency, they would stand still, in open fields well away from civilians, and give our surgery a chance to work its magic.

[Joy Springreen]

We are all horrified by the pictures of dead women and children. There is nothing to celebrate in their deaths. Only to mourn.
I have to ask one question though: Where are the bodies of their men?

[sonic]

Oh those evil Hezbollah with their human shields, making sure Israel killed children through the evil tactic of not actually being anywhere near the place.

"As the Israel Air Force continues to investigate the air strike, questions have been raised over military accounts of the incident.

It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html

But hey they might have been there! whats a few dead civilians between friends.