ISRAEL is taking a pounding for having killed civilians in its successful strike Tuesday on Hamas terror-leader Sheik Salah Shehada in Gaza.
But just how “innocent” were those civilians?
No – no one’s suggesting that any of them personally took part in terror attacks against Israelis (not that it would be all that surprising if some had).
But based on appearances, there is strong evidence that (the grown-ups, at least) knowingly, actively, willingly harbored a major terror thug, intentionally putting themselves and their kids at risk.
Think about it: If Osama bin Laden were to show up at your house one day, would you put the children to bed and then sit down for a nice, long cup of coffee with this butcher?
Even if he were a family member?
Shehada was said to be visiting his wife and kids.
But that doesn’t cleanse his record as a murderer. Or lessen his family’s responsibility to dissociate from him. Or, at the very least, take precautions to protect themselves.
Shehada was Public Enemy No. 1 in Israel. He’s responsible for the deaths of hundreds of truly innocent Israelis.
And Israel has powerful weapons. And is willing to use them to capture those who kill its people. The “bystanders” should have expected the Israelis to strike.
So what could they have done?
How about:
* Locked the door when Shehada arrived and told him to beat it – fast.
* Urged him to renounce terror and turn himself in.
* Shot him – particularly if he refused to leave.
* Invited him in, then tied him up and called in the Israelis.
* Run for their lives.
Any of these measures would have signaled true innocence.
And, likely, saved lives.
But no one in the building or nearby did anything of the sort. Instead, they gave Shehada refuge.
And then paid the consequences.
President Bush was said to be “visibly angry” at Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for having OK’d the strike.
But Bush missed an opportunity to lay some important rhetorical groundwork for the dirty war that America still must wage to defeat terror.
As Bush’s dad learned, Saddam Hussein will not hesitate to use human shields, to erect “milk factories,” to hide among civilians to save his own hide.
Although Iraqis who oppose Saddam are surely not going to be America’s primary targets, they may be subject to collateral damage.
Because of the threat that Saddam poses, because of the evil that he represents, Iraqi citizens have a moral obligation – to themselves and the rest of the world – to actively aid in his overthrow, just as Shehada’s family should have turned him out.
To claim innocence, Iraqi citizens must take every measure to protect themselves and their kids. They must ensure that they are not made into hostages. And that Saddam – and his supporters – are given no quarters.
Sure, this is risky: How can helpless civilians be expected to resist Saddam’s armed thugs?
Indeed, those who oppose the Baghdad Butcher do so at their peril.
Unfortunately, though – as Bush himself has said – there simply are no neutrals in this war: Either you’re with the terrorists or against them.
If Iraqis join the side of America, if they rise up and fight, in whatever way they can, alongside U.S. troops – and they well might – then they can count on America to give them all the protections against friendly fire that it gives its own troops (and, probably, then some).
If not, though, they cannot expect to be viewed as neutral “innocents” or even hostages.
And their safety cannot be guaranteed.