Warning Systems and Civilian Vulnerability
Is it acceptable to enter South Lebanon and tell people, "You have until tomorrow morning," and if you don't leave your homes and neighbourhoods, we will drop a 2,000-kilogram bomb? That is a war zone. When Hisbollah is firing rockets into Israeli cities every day, this is indeed a conflict area — comparable to the war in Ukraine. When Israelis experience rocket attacks from South Lebanon directed at their cities daily, they do have the right to defend themselves. The means and the measure of that defence — these must always be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I am not claiming responsibility for Israeli military conduct, but the fact that one has the right to defend against attacks from South Lebanon and Hisbollah is a different matter entirely.
The Reality of Advance Warnings
What we call "knocking on doors" or "pre-warning" — whatever term we use — the lived reality is this: those who leave first are often exactly the ones you intend to strike. Hisbollah members will not sit in their apartments and homes waiting for Israeli bombs to arrive. They will certainly do nothing of the sort. That is precisely why so many civilians are killed. So I ask again: Is this something we would say is acceptable? I am not making a judgment. I am not saying "war crime," I am not invoking "international law." I am simply asking: As an empathetic person, can this approach be justified?
Humanitarian Constraints on Evacuation
I do not understand why you are asking me the question about pre-informing people, because that is precisely the humanitarian aspect — informing people in advance. But this form of warfare has revealed a significant problem. There are people who simply cannot flee. There are people who may be too ill to escape. Do we intend to hit them? Do we intend to hit the woman caring for them? Do we intend to hit the small child going to school? Can we seriously continue operating this way? And where are these people supposed to flee? Where exactly? Do they have access to Hisbollah's infrastructure? Do they have the financial means to say, "Fine, then I will move to Beirut," where everything is incredibly expensive? Or move north or wherever else? I struggle with this question because the fact that Israelis provide advance warning before attacking, before defending against Hisbollah attacks, does show that they are giving civilians a chance to find safety elsewhere. And many have indeed left — we see that happening. They have gone to Beirut or further north. But where exactly are they supposed to go? Concretely, where?
The Cycle of Violence and Regional Dynamics
Once again, I simply ask myself: how much longer do we want to continue this game we have been witnessing — this endless cycle of violence — in this way? And let me be clear: I am not evaluating or judging anyone or anything. I am simply asking whether this is seriously the path toward something about which we might eventually say, "Okay, perhaps things could work out differently at some point." I do not understand it. So long as we are dealing with a system in Iran that exports terror and brings it into other regions — a system that has taken Lebanon hostage, a country that actually wants to move toward freedom and democracy — as long as Iran, through its support of Hisbollah, cuts off the country's air and deprives people of their freedom, the region will continue to suffer. My focus is not on Hisbollah militias. And as long as we have such a system in Iran, the region, along with the Houthi rebels, with Hamas as we saw in Gaza, will unfortunately have to live with this terror that emanates from Iran — terror that does not come from Israel, that does not come from other democratic states, but that comes from Iran.