Last Tuesday, just after beepers started exploding in the hands and pockets of Hezbollah terrorists, journalist Laura Rozen, who over the years has written widely about the Mideast and US foreign policy for various publications, posted this question on X/Twitter:
“Is the Government of Israel trying to provoke Hezbollah to escalate so it has a pretext to invade southern Lebanon?”
That question was astounding – as if after 11 months of unprovoked rocket, missile, and drone attacks on Israel that depopulated a large swath of Israel’s North and killed nearly 50 people, the country needed a “pretext” to invade southern Lebanon.
No, Israel was not seeking a pretext to invade southern Lebanon. It was, however, intent on delivering a deadly, precision strike against Hezbollah terrorists who have declared war on the Jewish state while ensuring minimal civilian casualties.
Israel would have been well within its rights to invade southern Lebanon and clear out Hezbollah months ago but opted not to do so because it did not want to open up a second front and wanted instead to focus on destroying Hamas in Gaza and freeing the hostages.
However, the “pretext” was there once Hezbollah opened fire on the country on October 8 and has since fired over 8,000 projectiles at Israel as a show of solidarity with Hamas.
Rozen’s post was a harbinger of what was to come: The pager explosions and the subsequent attacks that followed – walkie-talkie explosions, the killing of Hezbollah’s No. 3, the decimation of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan force’s leadership – would be seen in some diplomatic, academic, and journalistic circles abroad not as something praiseworthy or as beneficial for the West, given that it dealt a blow to a jihadist terrorist organization, but rather as more hostile Israeli behavior.
Israel defends against Hezbollah
As if those bloodthirsty Israelis are just looking for any pretext to go to war.
Just as after October 7, when some on the far Left astonishingly rallied around Hamas – questioning how dare Israel retaliate with full force against a barbaric organization that carried out a pogrom – so too after the beeper attack last Tuesday, some voices were raised rallying around Hezbollah.
THESE VOICES essentially were screaming: How dare Israel rig Hezbollah pagers? How dare Israel work to incapacitate those who want to destroy it? How dare the Jewish state preemptively strike against terrorists who want to kill its citizens?
There was Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign policy czar, who said on Wednesday, “I firmly condemn today’s new attack via the explosion of a high number of electronic devices across Lebanon, which has caused several casualties and a high number of injuries. Once again, the indiscriminate method used is unacceptable.”
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres was equally alarmed: “I think it’s very important that there is effective control of civilian objects, not to weaponize civilian objects – that should be a rule.”
Far Left New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez determined that “the attack clearly and unequivocally violates international law.” She called for a full accounting of the attack and answers from the State Department on whether “any US assistance went into the development or deployment of this technology.” Right, because the congresswoman wouldn’t want US money going to fight terrorists.
These responses demonstrate that in certain circles, Israel simply has no right to defend itself. Many of the same people who condemn it for alleged “indiscriminate” bombing in Gaza – itself a lie – are now damning it for the most discriminate and precise attack imaginable against terrorists.
How, then, should the Jewish state defend itself? The only ones holding the pagers and walkie-talkies that exploded last week in Lebanon were Hezbollah operatives.
By delivering a severe blow to Hezbollah, just as it decimated Hamas in Gaza, Israel is doing the world a favor.
Hezbollah is a global jihadist terrorist organization, recognized as such by numerous countries around the world, including the US. It has taken over Lebanon and is Iran’s main proxy in its war against Israel and in its efforts to take over the Middle East ultimately.
Most people are aware of this. That Israel’s actions to incapacitate the organization are not being universally applauded in the West is a further sign, as if any more were needed, of moral abdication.
EVEN THOSE countries that nodded in understanding toward Israel’s actions last week talk about their fear that this will lead to a broader conflagration. Here, too, the pressure is misplaced.
For instance, French President Emmanuel Macron, who expressed sympathy and empathy for the Lebanese people at this time, reportedly scolded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a phone conversation for leading the region toward a wider war.
Netanyahu’s reply, according to press reports, was that instead of pressing Israel, Macron and France – with historical ties to Lebanon – should lean on Hezbollah.
Netanyahu is right. If Hezbollah would stop firing and pull its troops away from Israel’s border, enabling the 60,000 displaced residents to return home, Israel would silence its guns and cease bombing inside Lebanon. There would be no escalation in Lebanon. Simple as that.
These reactions bring to mind similar responses in the past when many in the world condemned Israel for violations of sovereignty and risking escalation immediately after a daring operation, only to have that operation later recognized as having served the international community.
The best example was the Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, widely condemned at the time – with former president Ronald Reagan even withholding arms shipments as a result – but now viewed quite differently.