By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In southern Lebanon, an Israeli airstrike killed 11-year-old Jawad Younes and his cousin as they played soccer, and wounded other children. This strike targeted Jawad’s uncle’s home, and while the uncle was also killed, the family maintained he was a civilian, despite their loyalty to Hezbollah. Jawad is among over 170 children killed by Israeli strikes during six weeks of renewed conflict, with families accusing Israel of war crimes due to the high civilian casualties. The Israeli military stated its strikes target Hezbollah facilities and militants, adhere to international law, and regret any civilian harm.
Read the original article here
The tragic reality of children being killed in Lebanon due to Israeli strikes, hitting homes far from the actual front lines of the conflict with Hezbollah, paints a devastating picture of the ongoing violence. It’s difficult to comprehend how such actions can be justified, especially when the targets appear to be civilian areas, leading to the deaths of innocent youngsters. The notion of “collateral damage” feels profoundly hollow when it refers to the lives of children, suggesting a disturbing indifference from those carrying out the attacks.
The IDF’s claims of targeting Hezbollah operatives, while providing scant evidence to support such broad assertions, raise serious questions about the validity of their operations. When the primary outcome of these strikes is the loss of young lives in areas not directly involved in the fighting, it becomes hard to accept official explanations at face value. The accusation that Israel is engaging in cold-blooded murder and committing war crimes is a grave one, amplified by the sheer number of incidents and the perceived lack of international accountability.
It’s perplexing how the global community seems incapable of effectively intervening to stop this bloodshed. The repeated instances of war crimes, met with what appears to be shrugs from world leaders, only emboldens the Israeli state, according to some perspectives. This inaction leads to a feeling of helplessness, as the cycle of violence continues unabated, with children bearing the brunt of it.
The assertion that the IDF is among the biggest terrorists in the Middle East, based on casualty numbers, is a stark condemnation of their actions. If a government views unarmed children as acceptable collateral damage, it fundamentally challenges their moral standing and their claims of being on the side of good. The idea that killing children will somehow de-escalate a situation is counterintuitive and deeply disturbing.
Furthermore, the commentary suggests that the narrative of this conflict is being manipulated, and that continuing to believe it’s solely about Hezbollah allows for the continuation of these devastating strikes. Israel’s alleged practice of justifying every death by simply claiming the victim was a Hezbollah operative, without concrete proof, is seen as a cynical tactic. This leads to accusations of Israel being a terrorist state engaged in daily war crimes, allegedly aided by complicity from media and politicians who are either paid or pressured to look the other way.
The contrast between the horrific events unfolding today and the memory of Lebanon as a vibrant, resilient country is stark. The scars of past conflicts are visible, yet the country’s spirit and its people’s ability to rebuild offered hope. The current Israeli actions in Lebanon are condemned as heinous, and there’s a sense of shame regarding the involvement of one’s own government in supporting such violence.
The way media outlets report on these tragedies, often framing the killing of children far from the battlefield as if it were a common, almost unavoidable occurrence, is also criticized. The familiar “tragic but necessary” line from both sides offers little solace when children are the victims. It’s suggested that supporting organizations that document war crimes and aid displaced families is a more constructive response than passive observation.
The accusation that Israel is simply taking “free shots” at citizens when it can, followed by dismissive statements like “oops did we do that?”, highlights a deep frustration and anger. There’s a perception that the fondness for killing children is disturbingly evident, and a plea for politicians to overcome their fear of being labeled antisemitic and call these actions what they are – potentially systematic genocide.
Distinguishing criticism of Israel’s actions from antisemitism is crucial. It’s argued that labeling legitimate criticism as antisemitic is a way for Israel to hide behind a shield, which is seen as a disgusting tactic. This perspective views Israel’s actions as reminiscent of a “fourth reich” engaging in Zionist war crimes and committing terrorism.
The feeling of helplessness is profound when witnessing such events. Some believe that Israel stopped being at war with Hezbollah a long time ago, and that their current actions are indiscriminate bombing without clear goals or endgame plans, seemingly just “bombing the shit out of their neighbors.” The notion that the IDF is the only terrorist group, and that Hezbollah doesn’t exist, is a radical re-framing of the conflict’s dynamics.
The argument that terrorists don’t exclusively fight on front lines and can hide amongst civilians is often used to justify widespread military action. However, when children are consistently the victims, this justification becomes increasingly difficult to accept, especially when there’s a lack of visible protests regarding the Lebanese war itself.
The comparison of political figures to historical figures like Putin, and the labeling of a group of leaders as the “Axis of Evil,” reflects a deep sense of moral outrage. Statistics highlighting the disproportionate number of child deaths in Israeli campaigns compared to other conflicts further fuel this anger.
The belief that the IDF doesn’t treat Palestinians as human, while Russian soldiers might see their own children in the faces of Ukrainians, suggests a fundamental difference in perceived empathy and humanity. The nickname “Bibi the Butcher” encapsulates the harsh criticism directed at Israeli leadership.
However, there are counterarguments suggesting that figures like Trump and Netanyahu take precautions not to harm civilians, and that blaming them solely ignores the role of organizations like Hezbollah and Iranian leadership in initiating conflict by targeting civilians. The assertion that it’s “100% Hezbollah” and has been for decades presents a different understanding of the conflict’s origins and continuity.
The strong support Israel receives from the US, and the bipartisan agreement on this support, is seen as a major factor in the lack of international accountability. The concept of “might makes right” is invoked, suggesting that without significant power to enforce consequences, war crimes will continue to be ignored.
The idea that the Lebanese government once considered Israeli children as both collateral damage and intended targets, firing missiles at civilians for years, is presented as a counterpoint, suggesting that trying to protect one’s children makes one the “good guys.” The possibility of conscripted children becoming eligible targets, if used by armed forces, is also raised, though this does not seem to align with the current scenario of Israeli strikes on civilian homes.
The phrase “Anyone who runs is Hezbollah. Anyone who stands still is well-disciplined Hezbollah” succinctly captures the perceived indiscriminate nature of the Israeli military’s targeting. The absence of a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is noted, and the fear of being labeled antisemitic is seen as a barrier to open condemnation.
There are suggestions that Israel’s actions are driven by a desire to annex Lebanese territory, fueled by a sense of entitlement to the Middle East and a belief that divine providence grants them ownership of land. The influence of TikTok propaganda and the lumping of all conservatives with extreme figures like Trump are also discussed as complicating factors in public perception.
Ultimately, the core of the outrage stems from the heartbreaking reality of children being killed in Lebanon, in places far removed from the front lines of the war. The lack of clear justifications, the persistent claims of targeting militants that result in civilian deaths, and the perceived inaction of the international community all contribute to a profound sense of dismay and condemnation.