The Case For Firm Action

The Army is already being criticized for its “heavy-handed” shelling of the Palestinian camps. But it would be wrong for it to soften up now.

The Army’s actions are popular in Tripoli. (Reuters)

To viewers watching Al-Jazeera’s coverage of the Lebanese crisis, the Lebanese army’s shelling of the militants’ hideouts in the Nahr el Bared camp appears as a ruthless, heavy-handed shelling of areas with a lot of women and children. Although they don’t say it, their sub-text is clear: The Lebanese Army is behaving like the Israelis in Gaza and Americans in Baghdad. Also, the international media has begun counting the civilian casualties (8 until now)

Indeed, terrorists hiding among civilians pose a moral dilemma, and the humanitarian crisis should not be ignored. But does that mean that the Army should somehow start “talking” with terrorists whose only aim is to destabilize Lebanon?

A lot is at stake in the Army’s zero-tolerance policy. A “softer” and “more understanding” Army will send the wrong signals to would-be-terrorists that it is ok in the future to attack the military. Moreover, the Army has to send a clear message to the residents of the camps: Not handing the terrorists over will cost you much more than keeping them around.

But what about those women and children? Can the army’s reputation survive satellite TV footage of dead boys and girls who died Qana-style from their shelling? Besides, it would be wrong to turn the people in the camp against you

A solution would be to ask women and children to get out to a temporary safe place under the Army’s protection and have humanitarian passages for medics and the wounded. The men, especially Hamas and Fatah, will be then asked to bring in the militants with a clear deadline, after which the shelling would resume.

The Army didn’t ask for this war, but it must finish it. If it is to err, it is better to err on the side of firmness.