Similar calls, along with demonstrations, have also been made by different parties within the Israeli peace camp. Associated with the Israeli peace camp since 1973, I have been actively fighting for peace since 1994. I believe that it is because I am a peace activist that I must call on the Israeli government to continue its operations in Lebanon.

 

Real peace, much more than a slogan, incorporates inherent rights and obligations that are fundamental to its existence.

Such, for example, is my right to a) live peacefully and safely, and my obligation to allow my neighbor to enjoy the same; b) my right to live in my own country, and my obligation to allow my neighbor to do the same.

Neighboring countries do not need peace agreements, per se, for them not to engage each other in open conflict. Countries can exist next to each other and not fight – even without a peace agreement. Countries cannot, on the other hand, perform atrocities to one another even given the absence of a peace agreement.

 

Lebanon is a sovereign state. Out of the blue, for whatever reasons, someone in Lebanon decided to abduct Israeli soldiers and fire barrages of rockets at its territory. Why? – What had Israel done to Lebanon? What could have been Lebanon's interest in initiating such a confrontation with Israel? Doesn't Israel deserve to exist in peace and prosperity alongside Lebanon, just as the US exists alongside Canada?

The state of Israel woke up one morning, to find its soldiers being kidnapped and its northern territories under heavy rocket fire. Had it (Israel) not responded, I would have been left with no choice but to leave Israel. In my opinion, any country that does not defend its residents is not worthy of having them.

 

What then, should be considered a suitable response to these attacks?

In a short article titled "The Third World War", which I wrote in 1995, I noted that there are groups currently in existence that have their goals set on undermining and ultimately destroying capitalism and democracy. I recommended in my writing that all the countries of the world unite under the United Nations and fight these groups together. I made the point in that article that this conflict, or war, is one that is between the free world as we know it and terrorist groups.

If any country were to provide shelter for these groups, I wrote, it would be up to the world to replace the leadership of that country - by force, if necessary.

 

Between when I wrote that article and the present day, the world has experienced hundreds of terrorist attacks - most of which were carried out in the name of Islamic extremism. Ironical perhaps, that what these terrorists primarily hurt was the very thing for which they were supposedly fighting – Islam.

Islam is a religion with advanced ethical and value codes. The overwhelming majority of Muslims reject and openly oppose extremism. Islam forbids the harming of innocent people. It opposes corruption, wickedness and cruelty. How then, we might ask, are these horrific acts of violence are being committed in the name of Islam?

Let us not forget that throughout history, acts of terrible violence have been committed in the name of Christianity and Judaism as well. Even today, we can witness the occupation of the Palestinian population in the name of Judaism.

 

If the leader of a country calls for the annihilation of another country, he must be removed from his leadership. If the leadership of a country decides to harbor and provide a sanctuary to terrorist organizations - allowing them to operate freely from within its borders - they must be forced to realize that their nation and their country will be forced to pay the price of terror as well.

 

Two thousand rockets have landed on Israeli territory in the past month. Over one hundred innocent Israeli civilians have been killed, thousands injured. Over forty soldiers, who had no other choice but to fight in the battle against Lebanon, have perished as well.

I am aware that hundreds were killed in Lebanon, and that thousands more were injured. I am saddened by these deaths. I am hurt by any harm that befalls innocent people. Nonetheless, for as long as terrorists in Lebanon operate from within densely populated areas, we have no other option but to warn these citizens that we must fight the terrorists within their midst, and notify them that if they do not want to be caught in the crossfire – they must leave their cities.

However ruthless and horrible this might be, I am not willing to hurt Lebanese citizens and I am not willing to agree to terrorists taking shelter among civilian populations, using them as a shield from behind which they are safe to attack us. As intricate and complicated as the situation is or becomes, the red lines must remain defined and clear. No, there can be no protection for any terrorist anywhere in the world. Yes, it is my duty to avoid the shedding of innocent blood. This is exactly why I am obligated to notify and warn the civilian population of Lebanon, as Israel has done.

 

The situation between Israel and the Palestinians is no less complex: The Arabic countries of Egypt, Jordan and Syria have attacked Israel in the past, in the attempt to destroy it. Since then, we have signed peace agreements with both Egypt and Jordan. The Palestinians, who were part of Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (the West Bank) before these wars, were left without a country. Egypt abandoned Gaza and Jordan abandoned the West Bank, leaving over 3 million Palestinians without citizenship or a country. Israel was then forced to decide whether to adopt the Palestinians and provide them with the right of Israeli citizenship, or let them establish their own sovereign state – the state of Palestine. To discuss all of the events from that point up until today would require much more extensive discussion than the extent of this article. Suffice to say that, at the end of the day, the Palestinians still do not have their own country, continue to live their lives under terrible occupation and suffer daily. To the Palestinians' eyes and my own, this is the very worst form of terror.

 

What is the difference then, if any, between Israel and the Hezbollah? What, if any, are the differences between Hammas, Israel and the Hezbollah? - In the end, all three of the above-mentioned parties commit acts of terror. Let me note here that there are in fact many people who see no difference between them - I disagree.

Lebanon is a sovereign state. The Hezbollah organization established a military militia in Lebanon that was at war with Israel for as long as Israel was in Lebanon (1982-2000). With the withdrawal of IDF forces from Lebanon in 2000, the Hezbollah no longer had anything to exist for. From that point on, the only thing fuelling the continued existence of the Hezbollah was the hatred of Israel.

Hizbullah is currently serving the leaders of Iran, who have set for themselves a religious goal of destroying Israel, and the leaders of Syria, whose desire to harm Israel stems from both military considerations and as a continuation to the Six-Day war in which they lost the Golan Heights. It is worth noticing that the absurdity in the Middle East has brought a secular country such as Syria, whose leadership is Sunni – enemies of the Shiite – to support the extremist Shiite religious organization of Hezbollah.

One of the most painful conclusions that should be reached as a result of the thousands of rockets that have been (and still are) fired at Israel, is that there is a need to stop Iran's nuclear program with any means necessary, before it arms itself with unconventional weapons. What we must conclude from the terrible attacks by Hezbollah is that Israel now has an obligation to make haste and take decisive actions against the possibility that Iran will arm itself with nuclear weaponry.