The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a political disaster, not to mention that from many viewpoints, it was unethical. Israel not only attacked a newly elected democratic government, but destroyed billions of dollars of infrastructure. The images of burning Lebanese buildings did nothing to help Israel's precarious international image. Far worse, however, is the fact that over 1000 Lebanese civilians were killed. It is certainly possible that many were willing human shields, sacrificing their lives for the greater cause of weakening international support for Israel. What is most troubling, however, is that roughly one-third of those killed were children. If the bulk of these children were human shields, they were not in that position out of any free will on their part. In normal hostage situations, all precautions are taken to ensure minimum causalities. In times of war, the same standard holds. It sounds cliché, but for Israel, this is especially true. There are times when Israel must take controversial actions, no matter how tragic, that are truly in the best interest of Israel and the world as a whole. It is to Israel's benefit to garner as much international support as possible, and by minimizing civilian causalities in operations, Israel will be in a better position to justify unfortunate but necessary causalities when they occur. The events of November 3 greatly support this position.

The first several words of a New York Times article on November 3 states: "Israeli troops fired at a large crowd of unarmed Palestinian women in the Gaza strip today…" If a person were to read only these several words, then the conclusion that Israel is a barbaric apartheid state would certainly seem logical. The sentence continues, however: "as the women approached a mosque to help Palestinian militants holed up inside." It is certainly true that Israel has found itself in many questionable situations in which the deaths of civilians appeared brutal and avoidable. This is not only true for Israel, but all states in conflict. The difference is that there is an international bias against Israel. It is not important whether or not this bias is justified; all that matters is that it exists and does not work towards Israel's benefit. Nonetheless, Israel must defeat Palestinian militants, and the security of Israel comes before how it is received by other countries. This, however, does not mean that international opinion should be disregarded. If it is possible to change how the world views Israel without hindering its security, then Israel should seek to actualize this possibility. When it comes to the unfortunate shooting of these Palestinian women, Israel acted correctly. Those who aid terrorists should not be treated any differently than terrorists. When pushed hard enough, it is sure that the international community will cede this point. It would be better, though, if supporters of Israel did not have to push this point. Given the history of the conflict, however, it is difficult for observers to willingly differentiate necessary civilian causalities from the alleged "massacres." Every action Israel takes to protect itself will be viewed as another instance of "Zionist aggression."

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya demanded that the global community "come [to the mosque] and witness the daily massacres that are being carried out against the Palestinian nation." The Prime Minister certainly has the right to make the case that massacres are being carried out against the Palestinian nation, but by including this incident in the list of massacres, he has lost all credibility. To compare this incident to the alleged Jenin massacre is a travesty. It is clear that Ismail Haniya has no concern for the loss of innocent Palestinian lives, he only cares about spinning the situation to fit the agenda of his political party: Hamas. If we are to expect Israel to enter honest dialogue over its questionable actions, then the Palestinian government must also maintain intellectual honesty. Otherwise, no problems are going to be solved and innocent Palestinians, actual innocent Palestinians, are going to continue to die. This is not because Israel directly targets civilians, but because civilian causalities are a fact of any conflict, and in this conflict, it appears that civilians are used as human shields.

No state, especially Israel, should sacrifice its security to adhere to standards created by organizations that have never had to deal with a prolonged conflict. Let Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemn Israel for its most recent actions. They do so from the comfort of their main offices in the West. The death of peace activist Tom Fox in Iraq should have sent a clear message to such groups that they are speaking in favor of those who want them dead. Sometimes, it is not possible to talk things out, and sometimes, unfortunate but justified deaths will occur. This is not to say that such groups have not raised valid concerns over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but it does not follow that all or even most of Israel's actions have been unethical. At the same time, Israel has the responsibility of convincing the international community that whenever an incident occurs similar to that on November 3, it was absolutely necessary. Israel must leave no elbow room for valid condemnation. For those states that invalidly condemn Israel, let us remind them of a critical Biblical passage: "For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you (Matthew 7:2)." It is no states interest to condemn Israel for that which itself would do given the circumstances.