More than 6,000 rockets and drones have been fired into Israel over the past two months. In Metula, Israel’s northernmost town, residents have endured roughly 170 rocket sirens and another 73 alerts for drone incursions since Hezbollah began its attacks March 2 in the latest round of violence. In nearby Kiryat Shmona, the numbers are even higher - 180 rocket sirens and 87 drone alerts. That comes out to more than four sirens a day. Every day.
But even the word “residents” has become fluid. Before October 7, 2023, Kiryat Shmona had around 24,000 people. After Hezbollah joined Hamas in attacking Israel, the city was evacuated. Following the November 2024 ceasefire, only 16,000 returned, eight thousand less than had been there a year earlier. Today, fewer than 10,000 remain - roughly 40 per cent of the city’s prewar population.
And yet, if you follow much of the international media coverage of Lebanon, you wouldn’t know any of this.
Instead, the stories run according to the familiar script: Israel is once again striking its northern neighbour and has killed about 2,500 people in Lebanon. There is little mention of the relentless rocket fire, the daily drone incursions, or the refusal – or inability – of the Lebanese government to rein in Hezbollah. Israel is cast, almost exclusively, as the aggressor. The impact on Israeli civilians is reduced to a passing line, if it even appears at all.
This is the same storyline we saw two-and-a-half years ago when after the initial shock of the October 7 Hamas invasion faded, coverage of the war in Gaza shifted almost entirely to the suffering of Palestinians. That suffering was real and tragic, but the framing made it seem like there was only one side to the war and as if Israel’s actions existed in a vacuum, disconnected from the massacre that had triggered the conflict.
Now, the same pattern is repeating itself in Lebanon.
The headlines focus on Israeli strikes, rising death tolls, and continued fighting despite ceasefire extensions. The implication is subtle but clear: responsibility is shared equally, or worse, rests only with Israel. The fact that Hezbollah - a designated terrorist organization - is actively firing thousands of rockets and drones at Israeli communities and Israel is acting in self defense like any country that wishes to survive would do, does not fit into that narrative, and so it is sidelined.
This is not just a failure of facts. It is a failure of basic context.
In general, the way the media cover wars is by reducing them to a scoreboard - how many people have been killed on each side, who crossed which border and who struck who how many times. Looking at wars like this makes it seem like they are spreadsheets. But they are not.
Hamas invaded Israel on October 7. Hezbollah opened a second front from Lebanon. Israel did not choose these wars; it was forced into them.
And yet, once Israel responds – it sends troops into Gaza or operates inside Lebanon - the narrative flips. The initial act of aggression fades and is immediately replaced by images of Israeli military force. The result creates a distorted moral equivalence, where a sovereign state defending its citizens is seen in the same way as a terrorist organisation whose stated goal is destruction.
Israel does not want to be in Lebanon. No country that sanctifies life willingly sends its soldiers into another state if it has an alternative. The preferred outcome has always been a quiet border, enforced by the Lebanese government. But that possibility does not exist today.
Do people expect Israel to simply evacuate again an entire swath of the country? Should it tolerate a situation where communities live under constant threat of rockets and drones? Should it simply concede territory, and hope that restraint will be met with restraint?
That might look nice on paper, but we already know that a unilateral retreat would not end the conflict. It would only embolden Hezbollah and send a dangerous message across the region - that sustained attacks on civilians provide results.
This is why the call for moral clarity matters. Not because Israel needs sympathy, and not because criticism of the war is illegitimate. Democracies should be scrutinised, especially in war.
Moral clarity is needed because when media ignores who initiated the war and why it continues, it does more than misrepresent Israel. It undermines the ability of countries and societies everywhere to distinguish between offensive action and self-defence.
Because one day, another country – perhaps one currently quick to judge – may find itself facing a similar threat: rockets fired at its cities, armed groups operating just across the border, civilians forced from their homes.
When that moment comes, the question will not be theoretical. It will be immediate and real: What would you do?
Yaakov Katz is a co-founder of the MEAD policy forum, a senior fellow at JPPI, and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post. His latest book is While Israel Slept.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.