New at Reason

|4.19.06 @ 8:42AM|#

Um, you might want to fix the link to the article. I want to read it, not send it an e-mail.

|4.19.06 @ 9:21AM|#

Why would Reason post such a one-sided pro-Israel article? I am sure what Sullum said is true, but also woefully incomplete as a description of what happened and is happening over there. Usually Sullum is more intellectually honest than this, at least when he writes about smoking.

Let me suggest the libertarian approach to Israel: the US gov't should get out of the Israel business.

|4.19.06 @ 9:23AM|#

Ah, the Bund meeting has let out, Dave?

|4.19.06 @ 9:30AM|#

Why would Reason post such a one-sided pro-Israel article?

Perhaps on this particular issue Israel are in the right?

I think it's fair to say that there needs to be some sort of 'moral judgement' shown by the Palestinian authorities on terrorism.

|4.19.06 @ 9:32AM|#

No, I had a breakfast meeting with some of the AIPAC guys. Nice 4 goyim. We were discussing whether I might like to be paid to write HnR thread responses that I would be writing anyway.

|4.19.06 @ 9:34AM|#

Didn't the US claim self-defense when they attacked Iraq? Doesn't Israel claim self-defense when killing people at random in bombing raids? How is this any different? It is a silly argument from Hamas, of course, but it isn't their invention.

|4.19.06 @ 9:57AM|#

killing people at random.

Are you saying that Israel just drops bombs willy-nilly, no particular military/terrorist target? Like at felafel stands? Or pizzarias?

R C Dean|4.19.06 @ 9:59AM|#

killing people at random in bombing raids

Fascinating locution, in the service of our old friend moral equivalency.

Israel aims their raids at specific targets whose legitimacy is at least arguable, so the raids are not random. Of course, modern weaponry has a way of killing bystanders, and you never know who might be randomly around. Is that "killing people at random"? It seems a stretch.

Now, strapping somebody with a Semtex vest and sending them out to blow up buses, pizza parlors, weddings, whatever - that is "killing people at random".

|4.19.06 @ 10:12AM|#

Israel aims their raids at specific targets whose legitimacy is at least arguable, so the raids are not random. Of course, modern weaponry has a way of killing bystanders, and you never know who might be randomly around. Is that "killing people at random"? It seems a stretch.

What if the bomber targets (successfully or not) an Israeli soldier? Does that make it okay? Were any of the dead or injured in the falafel bombing Israeli soldiers?

|4.19.06 @ 10:13AM|#

While I'm sure the point has been made several times before, if they had the means, I think the majority of Palestinians would support the extermination of all Jews within a 300 mile radius of Jeruselum. The Israelis could probably kill every single Palestinian if they chose to do so. (And if Pat Buchanan, et al. are correct that the Israel lobby controls US foreign policy, the Israelis could use their secret Jew beams to convince the US to exterminate all Arabs in the Middle East). Last time I checked there were still quite a few Palestinians and Arabs living in the neighborhood. Perhaps despite Israel's technological and military superiority they're just down-right incompentent when it comes to the pursuit of genocide.

|4.19.06 @ 10:15AM|#

What if the bomber targets (successfully or not) an Israeli soldier? Does that make it okay? Were any of the dead or injured in the falafel bombing Israeli soldiers?

Yes, I think it would make a difference.

|4.19.06 @ 10:15AM|#

. . . I think . . .

Warren|4.19.06 @ 10:16AM|#

I agree with Dave W on this one. Yup the Palestinian authorities are total scumbags. But it's not like the Israeli authorities are any less so. The Palestinians use suicide bombs, the Israelis use helicopters and rockets. Their targets may not be 'random' but they've demonstrated that they're perfectly happy to take out a few innocent children when targeting (alleged) terrorists, even when they miss the target.

There are no good guys in the Middle East. I am very disappointed in Jacob. No doubt, his perspective is influenced by his personal involvement. But really Jake, if you want to be part of the solution (as opposed to perpetuating the "their side is evil" problem), get your niece out of that fucked up part of the world. That's as much as you can do. The people of the Mid East are committed to killing each other and nothing will ever change that.

|4.19.06 @ 10:16AM|#

The IDF prescribes the death penalty for teenagers throwing rocks.

Both sides have the blood of intentionally targeting innocent civilians on their hands.

Zionism and Jewish/Israeli nationalism seems anti-liberal/libertarian and so does radical Islam -- until this changes, the blood will continue to flow.

|4.19.06 @ 10:26AM|#

I didn't see any excuses for anybody's misdeeds in Jacob Sullum's piece. The fact that he didn't pull a Cathy Young and say "Of course, on the other hand..." doesn't mean he was excusing anything else.

I see nothing with writing an article with a narrow scope.

|4.19.06 @ 10:34AM|#

While being firmly in the camp of "a pox on both their houses", I agree with Thoreau's defense here. Sullum can only write so much at one time - he's got deadlines and such to meet, so focused articles should be seen in that light.

Now, if he demonstrates a repeated blindness for a part of reality, ala Mr. Young, you can rightly call him on it. For now, though, I don't think he's established that bias.

|4.19.06 @ 10:38AM|#

A front page news story should give you the facts.

And article like this is more a piece of 'comment'. If you don't agree with it, then you don't agree with it.

|4.19.06 @ 10:43AM|#

I agree with Dave W on this one.
Me too.

The whole situation shows what happens when you don't obey the Golden Rule: mind you own business and keep your hands in your own pockets.

The people of the Mid East are committed to killing each other and nothing will ever change that.
Perhaps ignoring the Palestinians' property rights, such as they may have been, in order to establish a wacky religious State contributes to it.

|4.19.06 @ 10:48AM|#

The Palistinians put soke the shrapnel in their suicide bombs in rat poison so that when it hits people they bleed to death before they can get to a hospital. Their leaders get the young, desparate and impressionable to throw their lives and souls away killing innocent people. You never see some rat bastard Arrafat conducting a suicide attack. They leave that to suckers.

As far as you people who claim that Israel is just as bad, when has Israel ever put poison in its bombs? When has Israel ever gone out of its way to specifically kill as many innocent people as possible? How exactly is Israel supposed to defend itself from these attacks if it can't use its military, which you people claim is the same as blowing yourself up in a group of civilians? What exactly should Isreal do short of national suicide to respond to this problem that would keep them from being "as bad as the Palistinians" in your eyes? Yeah, if those pesky Jews would just hurry up and die, we wouldn't have these problems. We turely live in dark times when educated alledgedly reasonable Americans can believe such things.

|4.19.06 @ 10:49AM|#

I am continually amazed at the calculus that equates Israeli operations with Palestinian nail-bombs detonating in pizzerias. Whatever the relative merits or demerits of the Jewish and Palestinian cultures prior to the creation of Israel, can there be any doubt that Palestinian society today is a diseased creature? Can there be any real peaceful accord with them?

If anything Israel's restraint is remarkable.

|4.19.06 @ 10:50AM|#

Expresing revulsion at the wanton killing of innocent Jews. Very one-sided! Oh, sorry, there are no innocent Jews.

|4.19.06 @ 10:57AM|#

Sullum can only write so much at one time - he's got deadlines and such to meet, so focused articles should be seen in that light.

Okay, so Sullum decided to write about the pizza bombing. OF COURSE, the first thing RCD and I are wondering is whether any of the victims were Israeli soldiers. The idea is that if there were Israeli soldiers among the dead, then this was merely a military strike with collateral damage (something we are all very comfortable with from a moral standpoint).

Hate to put all the blame on Sullum, tho. I was looking around GOOGLE news to try to do Sullum's work 4 him. Turns out that none of the media sources seem to have this info available. Almost like there is some kind of conspiracy of silence on this important point about whether the target was military or civilian . . .

Here is what I could find out about the victims (just the dead, not the injured):

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1143498874430&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Inconclusive.

|4.19.06 @ 10:58AM|#

errr, falafel bombing. Are falafels especially popular with Israeli soldiers does anyone know?

|4.19.06 @ 11:00AM|#

"I am continually amazed at the calculus that equates Israeli operations with Palestinian nail-bombs detonating in pizzerias."

Well, it is a matter of capability. When the roles were reversed, the proto-Israelis had no problem with similar tactics.

And has been noted (but you apparently can't/won't comprehend) both sides knowingly kill innocents. Palistinians are more intentional, yes, but how about you go into a court of law and defend a murder charge by arguing "I didn't intend to kill that baby, but I knew I would and felt it was worth it". You may escape the chair, but you've seen the last day of your freedom. So I wouldn't say they're equivalent, but I don't say either one is innocent. I'm not going to give a pass to the 3rd degree murderer just because there is a 1st degree murderer in the same neighborhood...

|4.19.06 @ 11:01AM|#

Even if it were a military strike, that doesn't justify using poison. Moreover, yes you can kill civilians in a military strike, but the military value of that strike has to outweigh the damage to innocent civilians. How exactly does killing some private on leave from the military outweigh killing innocent people? It doesn't and there is no way that such logic would stand under international law. It was a criminal act, not an act of war.

It really pains me to lower myslef to respond to this crap. It is just unbelievalbe the contortions people will go to defend and justify Palistinian murderers. But as was said above, in some people's eyes, there aren't any innocent Jews, so I guess their calculations work differently than mine.

|4.19.06 @ 11:03AM|#

I repeat quasibill, what exactly are the Isrealis supposed to do that would satisfy you short of national suicide? Why dont' you just come out and say the truth which is that you wish the Jews would just die and get out of everyone's way.

|4.19.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Isn't the whole point of this article that the Palestinian Authorities need to be 'heard' in denouncing terrorism, even if they're not seen doing it.

They need to look political - like Sinn Fein needed to (even though we all know they still prop up, to a certain extent, the 'Real IRA').

|4.19.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Even if it were a military strike, that doesn't justify using poison. Moreover, yes you can kill civilians in a military strike, but the military value of that strike has to outweigh the damage to innocent civilians.

What does this mean in practical terms? That the number of military personnel killed has to be greater than the number of civilians? Has the US followed that policy consistently in its strikes? Has Israel?

Or do you look at some other facts when deciding whether the collateral damage is outweighed? If so, what other facts do you look at when doing this deciding?

|4.19.06 @ 11:07AM|#

Ding, Ding, Ding.

John has reached the singularity. And that was quick.

"When you have nothing to support your argument, be sure to call your opponent a Nazi. That way you can claim moral superiority."

Thanks for playing.

|4.19.06 @ 11:12AM|#

I don't know what The Bund is, but I thought that that guy won.

|4.19.06 @ 11:15AM|#

"What does this mean in practical terms? That the number of military personnel killed has to be greater than the number of civilians?"

Generally yes. If you kill more civilians than military, then it probably not a legal strike. Certainly, the U.S. military today would not launch an attack which it knew would kill more civilians than military. Of course, mistakes happen. What matters is what you knew at the time you launched the attack. It is really a judgement call. The point of the rule is to end the indescriminate bombing of civilians that happened during World War II and to end the specific targeting of civilians in hopes of destroying the enemy economy.

Has the US followed that policy consistently in its strikes? Has Israel?

Yes they do. Considering the firepower of the Israeli Air Force, if the Israelis did not follow the rule and just area bombed entire populations of Palistinians, there would be tens and probably hundreds of thousands of Palistinian dead.

Or do you look at some other facts when deciding whether the collateral damage is outweighed? If so, what other facts do you look at when doing this deciding?

You have to look at the military value, meaning the damage it does to a nation's ability to make war. The point is that civilians cannot be specifically targeted regardless of how much terrorizing and killing civilians would help your war effort. The Palistinians are specifically targeting civilians in order to terrorize the Israeli population and make the war unbearable and destroy the Israeli economy and make life there unliveable. There is no way to defend such actions.

|4.19.06 @ 11:15AM|#

I know as libertarians we're used to saying both sides are wrong, but give me a break. Step back and realize what you are saying, these people strap bombs on themselves and pick a place where they can kill the most civilians as possible, preferably youths. The Israelis fire a missle targeted at the man who plans and fascilitates many of such acts of terror as well as many unsuccessful ones. Unfortunately, there is collateral damage at times (which in contrast is not cheered in the streets of Israel), but why is there collateral damage? Because these men whose only goal in life is to murder and kill as many innocent people as possible aren't apprehended or shunned by their people, but are celebrated heroes that walk among them. They are doing their part as human shields, much like the boys that throw rocks at soldiers as their fathers stand behind them firing guns and hurling molotov cocktails.

Of course it would make a big difference if they targeted military targets, that's why they don't. Just because they call themselves resistance fighters doesn't make them so; they are terrorists, they inflict terror among the populace. They wouldn't be nearly as effective if only military bases and soldiers were potential targets. Moreover, their goal is not the destruction of the Israeli military, it is the destruction of Israel and all of its inhabitants.

|4.19.06 @ 11:46AM|#

quasibill,

Never answer a question or justify a disgusting and indefensible argument, just condem everyone else for pointing out how disgusting it is. I repeat again, what exactly could Isreal do in response to Palistinian attacks that would not make them murderers in your opinion?

|4.19.06 @ 11:46AM|#

Of course it would make a big difference if they targeted military targets, that's why they don't.

We don't know if the falafel bomber targetted soldiers or not. We don't know where he was going when the falafel stand security guard tried to frisk him.

Why do you guys assume that you know whether the suicide bombers are targetting soldiers or not?

I don't know if they are or if they aren't, but I don't assume I know this. Since the press seems to conspicuously avoid mention soldier / civilian casualty breakdowns in both Israeli strikes and Palestinian suicide bomber ones (as well as similar data for US strikes in Iraq), it makes sense to me to reserve judgement, wait for the civ/mil casualty ratios to come in and only then decide who the more guilty of these two guilty sides is.

|4.19.06 @ 11:55AM|#

Of course it would make a big difference if they targeted military targets, that's why they don't.

We don't know if the falafel bomber targetted soldiers or not. We don't know where he was going when the falafel stand security guard tried to frisk him.

Why do you guys assume that you know whether the suicide bombers are targetting soldiers or not?

I don't know if they are or if they aren't, but I don't assume I know this. Since the press seems to conspicuously avoid mention soldier / civilian casualty breakdowns in both Israeli strikes and Palestinian suicide bomber ones (as well as similar data for US strikes in Iraq), it makes sense to me to reserve judgement, wait for the civ/mil casualty ratios to come in and only then decide who the more guilty of these two guilty sides is.

|4.19.06 @ 12:04PM|#

"I don't know if they are or if they aren't, but I don't assume I know this. Since the press seems to conspicuously avoid mention soldier / civilian casualty breakdowns in both Israeli strikes and Palestinian suicide bomber ones (as well as similar data for US strikes in Iraq), it makes sense to me to reserve judgement, wait for the civ/mil casualty ratios to come in and only then decide who the more guilty of these two guilty sides is."

How can you possibly say that targeting shopping malls and funerals is targeting legitimate military targets. Further, even if the majority of the people killed were soldiers, there is little or no military value in killing Israeli private Pile on pass at a pizza place. That value wouldn't justify killing one innocent person letalone the 100s that have been killed. Moreover, the Palistinians have made it clear that their goals in conducting these attacks is to kill enough civilians to make life in Israel unbearable. They have never said their goal is to kill off duty soldiers and bleed the Israeli military dry. The fact that they make no secret of their desire to kill civilians makes the strikes illegal and immoral.

As Israel being so guilty, I will ask you the same question I keep asking that the terror apologists on this thread refuse to answer; what exactly could Israel do defend itself from these terrorists short of national suicide that would keep you from calling them a guilty party?

|4.19.06 @ 12:07PM|#

Well, the logic of Hammas and similar groups (disclaimer: I don't agree with it) is that there is universal compulsory military service in Israel; therefore, there are no innocent civillians.

And yeah, I don't have love for either of them.

|4.19.06 @ 12:10PM|#

"The Palestinians soak the shrapnel in their suicide bombs in rat poison so that when it hits people they bleed to death before they can get to a hospital"

An urban myth -- poorly documented and, assuming they were used, completely ineffective:

http://www.slate.com/id/2067819/

http://www.slate.com/id/2067937/

|4.19.06 @ 12:12PM|#

Well, the logic of Hammas and similar groups (disclaimer: I don't agree with it) is that there is universal compulsory military service in Israel; therefore, there are no innocent civillians.

That's the weakest argument ever!

|4.19.06 @ 12:12PM|#

How can you possibly say that targeting shopping malls and funerals is targeting legitimate military targets.

If there are soldiers there, then they are military targets.

As far as your question goes:

I think that Israel should admit that it is at war with its occupied territory, negotiate peace in better faith than they have yet, stop terming collateral damage against Israelis as "terrorism" and stop using the "terrorism" as an excuse to justify bad faith negotiation.

They should also not be spying on the US.

To show a little more balance than Sullum:

I think the Palestinians should make sure their bombers are at least trying to kill Israeli soldiers, negotiate peace in better faith than they have yet, stop calling for the destruction of Israel and stop using the mere fact of Israel's existence as an excuse to justify bad faith negotiation.

They should also not be spying on the US.

|4.19.06 @ 12:17PM|#

I think the Palestinians should make sure their bombers are at least trying to kill Israeli soldiers

For example, the decision by the Palestinians to denounce or not denounce a particular bombing should be decided based on how many Israeli soldiers it got. If a bombing got no soldiers, for instance, then they should announce the bombing for that reason and make it clear to the world why they denounced that particular attack.

|4.19.06 @ 12:17PM|#

--denounce the bombing--

|4.19.06 @ 12:24PM|#

For example, the decision by the Palestinians to denounce or not denounce a particular bombing should be decided based on how many Israeli soldiers it got. If a bombing got no soldiers, for instance, then they should announce the bombing for that reason and make it clear to the world why they denounced that particular attack.

So what happens if it get's three soldies, four innocents, one innocent's arm, a soldiers forehead and a couple of dogs?

Or, easier, what if it gets one soldier and fifty innocents?

|4.19.06 @ 12:27PM|#

"That's the weakest argument ever!"

Didn't say it was particularly strong.

But I don't think saying that because your ancestors used to live in a certain country 2,000 years ago, your entire ethnic group has an inherit right to move back to that country while displacing the local population is a particularly strong argument, either.

Seriously, how do you think the Italians would respond if the millions of homeless gypsies in Europe decided to make Sicily their homeland? Probably not very well.

And Im not saying I don't recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli State. I do. Its there, and it is going to stay, and the Palestinians need to make the best deal they can with them. Im not saying the Palestinians are totally innocent in the whole conflict either--they clearly are *not* Its simply not one sided.

Im just saying that the United States reallly shouldn't have any dog in that fight.

|4.19.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Seriously, how do you think the Italians would respond if the millions of homeless gypsies in Europe decided to make Sicily their homeland? Probably not very well.

Oh I agree - they'd probably do what the Spanish did with the Moroccans gypos and send them off into the desert under armed escorts.

With no tapas...

|4.19.06 @ 12:37PM|#

So what happens if it get's three soldies, four innocents, one innocent's arm, a soldiers forehead and a couple of dogs?

Or, easier, what if it gets one soldier and fifty innocents?

Well, it depends. If I were RCD, then I would say that any military target justifies pretty much any amount of collateral damage. If I were RCD, this number is all I would need.

Thank goodness I am not. To me, I would need to compare this number to corresponding stats for Israeli strikes. Although there is some limited utility in comparing civ/mil casualty ratios on an event by event basis, it is probably better to aggregate all the suicide bombing casualties, aggregate all the Israeli strike casualties, and compare the overall ratios for each side. If the ratios favored Israel then it would increase my sympathy for Israel and decrease my sympathy for those in the occupied lands.

|4.19.06 @ 12:45PM|#

If the ratios favored Israel then it would increase my sympathy for Israel and decrease my sympathy for those in the occupied lands.

Here is a free markets, free minds concept writ large: ultimately I would like to see both sides *competing* to see which side can target their strikes more closely; to have both sides actively trying to keep their civ/mil ratios as low as possible to better court world favor.

|4.19.06 @ 1:12PM|#

The people of the Mid East are committed to killing each other and nothing will ever change that.

Warren, you had me at that point. Dooming the Middle East forever is like looking at Europe from 1800-1945 and saying, "yep, those people will never stop." It's a tragic state of affairs, but we've seen plenty of will for peace in certain instances. (Egypt-Israel treaty, e.g.)

Jacob knows better than to run drivel like this rant (o so I hope, as an editor of a major magazine). While he's in Tel Aviv, he should go check out a West Bank town with 60% unemployment, curfews, and 5000 checkpoints where armed soldiers
strip you down based on a whim, and that's before you get to the PA's corruption and idiocy.

|4.19.06 @ 1:20PM|#

Also, the dose that you could get from dipping a piece of shrapnel in the compound would be trivial and certainly ineffective.

As I understand it, most of the non-explosive damage
done is by ball bearings in the bomb, not rat poison.

Where as Israelis just use bullets, shells and the like. Much more humane.

|4.19.06 @ 1:40PM|#

We don't know if the falafel bomber targetted soldiers or not. We don't know where he was going when the falafel stand security guard tried to frisk him.

He went to a falafel stand. I think any objective analysis quickly reveals that it is not a high priority military target. It's rather safe to conclude that the target was civilians, let me repeat, he went to a falafel stand.

While he's in Tel Aviv, he should go check out a West Bank town with 60% unemployment, curfews, and 5000 checkpoints where armed soldiers strip you down based on a whim, and that's before you get to the PA's corruption and idiocy.

5000 checkpoints and armed soldiers performing searches, cause of suicide bombings or result of suicide bombings?

But I don't think saying that because your ancestors used to live in a certain country 2,000 years ago, your entire ethnic group has an inherit right to move back to that country while displacing the local population is a particularly strong argument, either.

No, but purchasing "uninhabitable" land for inflated prices does give you the right to move there. And leaving your land to help fascilitate an attack on your neighbors so you can claim the land they transformed from useless to productive doesn't give you an inherent right to return when the attack fails.

|4.19.06 @ 1:49PM|#

As I understand it, most of the non-explosive damage done is by ball bearings in the bomb, not rat poison.
Where as Israelis just use bullets, shells and the like. Much more humane.

Ignoring that one weapon targets civilians, and the other self-proclaimed military targets, bombs with ball bearings are designed to injure as many people as badly as possible. Whereas the Israelis clearly don't choose their weapons to maximize collateral damage.

|4.19.06 @ 1:49PM|#

My understanding of the Israeli situation is a bit like this:

Imagine you live in Yonkersville, USA, where your family has been for generations. Slowly, over a number of years, people start moving in from the outside. This isn't really a problem, as Yonkerville is growing into a nice little town. At least until the newcomers decide to declare that from now on, Yonkerville is not part of the United States, but is now known as Yonkerstate, an independent nation. And through the gradual accumulation of immigrants, although they are not a supermajority, they now have enough control of city insitutions to see this plan through.

You're not particularly fond of this development, as you think of yourself as an American. You know that the army is going to come rectify the situation, though, and so when they finally do, you pack your bags to get out of the way of the fighting, and head for the hills, planning to come back with the crazy Yonkerstaters have been done away with. Some of your neighbors are afraid for their property and don't want to go, but the Yonkerstaters seize the opportunity to push them out as well.

Unexpectedly, though, the Yonkerstaters win. And having fled, you lose everything. So you end up sitting in a refugee camp, angry as hell at the Yonkerstaters for pushing you out of your own home in your own country.

|4.19.06 @ 1:50PM|#

Arguments about which side is acting "morally" in how they go about fighting the other miss the main point of Jacob's article. The current Palestinian leadership supports a policy of destroying Israel as a state and expelling the Jews from Palestine. Due to Israel's overwhelming military superiority, the tactics to support this strategy have been reduced to low-level attacks on "soft" civilian targets (the vast majority of which are unsuccessful), combined with the supporting tactic of making sure there are thousands of new Palestinians born each year (superiority through demographics). As Jacob points out, this approach can be sustained indefinitely, and there is no reason to think that it won't be.

Of course, the article begs the question of what to do about it, if anything. I'm not sure there will ever be a final answer to that. The dispute is over land, but any political resolution of the dispute will require a committment by the parties to supress anyone who attempts to commit violence once (or before) a deal has been reached. Israel clearly has the means to fulfill their end of the bargain, but the Palestinians do not, and arguably never have. Right now, Hamas couldn't stop the Fatah terrorists even if they wanted to, because they have insufficient military strength to do so. That is why Israel has not automatically painted a bullseye on them after the Tel Aviv attack, despite Hamas' inflammatory rhetoric.

The real problem is that there is no one on the Palestinian side with the capability to restrain terrorist acts against Israel. Israel could agree to withdraw to 1948 borders and they would still be attacked. They could agree to abandon their state and be confined to settlements, as they were during the British mandate, and they would still be attacked. I would argue that nothing Israel does would have a material impact on terrorism, even over the long term, without a comprehensive effort on the Palestinian side to suppress terrorism, which they are currently utterly incapable of doing.

Some pundits, aware of this problem, have suggested over the years that Syria and Jordan take over the Palestinian areas. The problem was that neither of these governments had or has the capability or the will to exert the necessary control (holding Hezbollah's leash is one thing, controlling millions of Palestinians quite another).

Daniel Pipes seems to think if the Palestinians were just punished enough (I think the term was "experience total defeat") they will come around to the "right" way of thinking eventually. I suppose the concept of "transfer" espoused by the Israeli settlers is too hot of a potato for Daniel to espouse in the U.S., but we know that's what you really mean, Daniel.

Sharon decided that since "transfer" wasn't achievable in view of international geopolitical realities, Israel should consolidate its holdings and build a fence around those. The Jewish settlers like the fence idea; they just think its perimeter should encompass all of Palestine, and the non-Jewish inhabitants handed one-way tickets out.

In the end, though, the fence will be completed, the terrorists will try to get through with occasional success, and there will be lots of posturing for the foreseeable future, but we are not going to see peace there in our lifetimes.

|4.19.06 @ 1:50PM|#

He went to a falafel stand. I think any objective analysis quickly reveals that it is not a high priority military target. It's rather safe to conclude that the target was civilians, let me repeat, he went to a falafel stand.

A falafel stand with soldiers in it, or a falafel stand with no soldiers in it?

That is the issue I am getting at. If it is a falafel stand with soldiers in it, then it is a military target. Let me break it down 4 u:

- Israeli soldiers are part of the Israeli military;

- therefore Israeli soldiers are a military target (eg, any one of them could be the one hopping in a helicopter next week and doing some collateral damage of her own in the occupied lands);

- if they go into a falafel stand, then they make the falafel stand into a military target;

- the presence of human shields and other civilians will have an effect on how much collateral damage needs to be done to reasonably hope to take out the military target (that is, the soldier(s));

- the presence of human shields and other civilians does not convert a bombing against a military target into terrorism, however.

|4.19.06 @ 2:05PM|#

"Whereas the Israelis clearly don't choose their weapons to maximize collateral damage."

Except for when they drop a 2000-lbs bomb on an occupied apartment complex at night to try to kill a single individual: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2153948.stm

|4.19.06 @ 2:13PM|#

In fairness, SR:

1. there was no reason to believe that they were selling falafels at the apartment complex so it is a totally different thing.

2. Jacob's junket probably didn't go to Gaza City -- you can't expect the author to cover everything -- deadlines, time to bond with neice, etc, etc.

|4.19.06 @ 2:20PM|#

My understanding of the Israeli situation is a bit like this

Your understanding is ahistorical.

|4.19.06 @ 2:26PM|#

Like they said in the Wall Street Journal:

Earlier this week, Israel succeeded in [two soldiers from the occupied lands]. A dozen Palestinian civilians died in the attack . . . The civilian deaths may be lamentable, but they also were justifiable. [The soldiers] used . . . relatives and neighbors as shields [at the apartment that was bombed from the air], and they died with him. Their deaths were [the soldiers'] fault, not Israel's.

|4.19.06 @ 2:26PM|#

Hey, I have an idea. How about we condemn Israel when it lobs a big bomb into a crowded neighborhood AND the Palestinians when they send suicide bombers into felafel shops? We could support moderates among the Israelis who believe in giving up land so the Palestinians can have a viable state AND moderates among the Palestinians who recognize Israel's right to exist. Sound too radical?

|4.19.06 @ 2:35PM|#

Maybe we should think about this in terms of what Israel has NOT done.

They could, with moderate to severe cost, wipe out the gaza strip, west bank, and any other small areas around them they did not like. And by wipe-out I mean kill every living thing and groom the land like a ski slope through the use of conventional ground and air weapons. there would be no attempt at "de-Hamasification" or any such handicapping. Just pure death.

Then, when the certain, and morally valid, outcry and strong responses come from around the world, they could raise their middle fingers high as they kept their thumbs poised over the nuclear button.

But they didn't, don't, and won't. No amount of equivication is going to get you to a state where the IDF are picking any or all McShwarma's in Gaza and leveling them with hand grenades.

So I guess John's asking a valid question when he wants to know what Israel could do to not come off as the heavies. I think the answer lies in what they haven't done.

|4.19.06 @ 2:38PM|#

Then, when the certain, and morally valid, outcry and strong responses come from around the world, they could raise their middle fingers high as they kept their thumbs poised over the nuclear button.

This would be the end of Israel. To believe otherwise is plain stupid.

|4.19.06 @ 2:48PM|#

Dear Unhinged Lawyer,

At whose hands? Who would step up and be the first (any maybe only) other power to be detroyed. Would it be the end of Israel? maybe, but no one has been willing to make that first big move in a long, long time.

That's not my point though. The unwritten point is that they could do this and don't because they're not the death-worshipping moral idiots blowing up pizza parlors and hair salons.

|4.19.06 @ 2:49PM|#

SY is quite right. In reality, the Yonkerstaters were defeated in the Battle of Old Main Street because they're army had been drinking all night at Ye Olde Saloon and failed to actually show for the fight.

Still, one can imagine what would have happened otherwise.

|4.19.06 @ 2:49PM|#

The conflict is hopeless. Completely, utterly, and apocalyptically hopeless. The Jordan river valley has too little arable land and way to little water to support its extraordinarily huge and insanely growing population. (Gaza has either the highest or second highest birthrate in the world. Orthodox Jews in Israel also have an idiotic birthrate, plus Israel actively encourages Jews to return, thus keeping up the demographic battle.) There won't be a solution to this in the next 500 years.

|4.19.06 @ 2:52PM|#

AND moderates among the Palestinians who recognize Israel's right to exist

Great idea if there were any moderate Palistinians and if there any act on the part of the Palistinians depraved enough to elicit condemnation for the likes of Shalom and quasibill. The other problem is that if the Palistinians succeed in destroying Israel or even obtaining full statehood through suicide bombing, the use of suicide bombing of civilians will become the standard procedure for every resistance movement in the world. It would be a tragedy.

One last thing, Soldiers are only lawful targets when they are wearing a uniform and participating in the military. A soldier home on leave, not wearing a uniform is not a lawful target. He is a civilian. This idea that the falafal stand is a legitimate military target because off duty soldiers may be there is just bunk. I don't understand why it is so hard to admit that people who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up at fast food stands are murderers.

|4.19.06 @ 2:58PM|#

That's not my point though. The unwritten point is that they could do this and don't because they're not the death-worshipping moral idiots blowing up pizza parlors and hair salons.

The strong can afford to be generous. You can bet that if Israel's actual survival were threatened, the response would be quite different. As it is, the Palestinians are only an annoyance, and so they're treated as one.

|4.19.06 @ 3:07PM|#

A soldier home on leave, not wearing a uniform is not a lawful target. He is a civilian.

Says who? Neither side respects this rule in the war now under discussion. Therefore this rule helps neither side insofar as the larger equities are concerned.

|4.19.06 @ 3:09PM|#

Karen: Years ago, when I was in college, I became acquainted with the son of Jewish West Bank settlers and (separately) with a Palestinian. It didn't take me too long to figure out that there would never be a resolution to the conflict, short of total extirpation of one side or the other; which, interestingly, I think either of those people I knew would have been perfectly happy with, regardless of who came out on top.

|4.19.06 @ 3:20PM|#

Dave W,

Says the Geneva conventions and the international law of armed conflict. By that logic, it would be okay to bomb populated areas of no other military value because soldiers lived there. Moreover, where is your evidence that the Israelis ignore the law of war. The Israelis act with great restraint and do not indescriminately bomb civilians. If they did, there would be thousands of dead Palistinians, not just hundreds.

|4.19.06 @ 3:24PM|#

Actaully, I believe the first to use suicicde bombers as a tactic of resistence were the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist resistence group. They used to hold the record for suicide bombings, but I doubt they still do. The tactic doesn't seem to be getting the Palestinians anywhere, and it is curious that their fervent supporters don't do more to discourage it. Think where they would be had they practiced a non-violent resistence to Israeli occupation. It is hard to believe that those who make Israel out to be the most monstrous occupier in history are not motivated by something other than sympathy for the Palestinians.

|4.19.06 @ 3:24PM|#

I had the same experience, but as an adult. Both sides are perfectly convinced they're right and each side has the atrocities to prove it. There is no solution. None.

|4.19.06 @ 3:29PM|#

John, if your initial ad hominem weren't enough, this:

"if there any act on the part of the Palistinians depraved enough to elicit condemnation for the likes of Shalom and quasibill."

Just confirms that you are nothing more than a talking points spewing troll. When I said that I won't excuse 3rd degree murderers (Israelis) because of the 1st degree murderers in the neighborhood (Palestinians), I was most definitely condemning the Palestinians (as if the "pox on both houses" wasn't enough to enlighten you from the start). Just because I don't buy into the neo-con talking point that Israel is an innocent victim of circumstances beyond its control does not mean I don't condemn the wanton acts of violence perpetrated by the Palestinians. Unlike you, I treat all criminals equally, whether some talking head says they are heroes or not. Since I'm sure this will fly over your head for the third time, welcome to the land of the ignored.

|4.19.06 @ 3:29PM|#

where is your evidence that the Israelis ignore the law of war

You said a soldier at home and out of uniform is not a legitimate target under the rules that you believe apply.

One of the other posters gave a link to a story where Palestinian soldiers were home at their apartment with their families when they got targetted.

The story at that link is proof that the Israelis haven't been following the rule you think they have been.

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 3:34PM|#

Dave W and John are both correct. Such is the nature of how this conflict is discussed.

Dave W is correct because Israel bombs people not in uniform and who are technically civilians.

John is correct because the people Israel targets are those they suspect of being directly involved in directing terrorist missions. Others who are hit constitute what we nowadays call "collateral dammage". These missions might be best called military-styled extra-judicial executions.

Are they as "bad" as Palestinian bombings targetting Jewish Israeli citizens?

I would lean towards saying no, they are not, and that the terrorist bombings are worse.

But I don't know that the distinction is as clearcut as some would say. Hell, it's war, and war is hell. Moral distinctions like these seem meaningless when you consider your cause worthy of killing and dying for. Maybe that's the biggest problem there. Is settling for less real estate really worth it to the Palestinians? While I don't equate eliminating Israel to eliminating Jews myself, the Palestinians' means of making their point only intensifies Israeli Jews' belief that political control of their own nation is necessary for survival.

|4.19.06 @ 3:39PM|#

Are they as "bad" as Palestinian bombings targetting Jewish Israeli citizens?

Fyo, What if the bomber is targetting, and in fact kills, an Israeli soldier in one of these pizza / falafel / bus bombings? Just to make it interesting, lets say the soldier is even in uniform and is killed just as intended.

Would this render the suicide bombing mission equivalent to one of those Israeli strikes you refer to?

|4.19.06 @ 3:43PM|#

Moral distinctions like these seem meaningless when you consider your cause worthy of killing and dying for.

These might be irrelevant to the people directly involved. However, the distinctions are highly relevant to me as a person who is trying to decide which side to root for, as a voter, etc, etc.

|4.19.06 @ 3:51PM|#

Quasibill,

You still never answered the question, what is Israel supposed to do to defend itself that would not cause you to condem them as murders? Is Israel supposed to sit there and let suicide bombers carry out their missions and do nothing to defend itself? How do you stop these people without hunting then and their enablers and supporters down and imprisoning and killing them. Your position seems to be that since Israel has no right to exist or stole the Palistinians land, any act of self defense no matter how measured is equivilent to Palistinian terrorism.

No I dont' think you are Nazi. I think that you are taking positions which have the same effect as being a Nazi or an anti-semite but are just too dumb to understand that they are.

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 3:53PM|#

Dave W,

Since the soldier is not in the act of combat, and since the bombing serves no military purpose but only a purpose of terror, it would have little effect on the morality of it.

Why ask anyway, other than for purely philosophical reasons, since this is clearly not what the Palestinian bombers do?

If Palestinian bombings were aimed primarily at Israeli military bases from which Israeli assassination missions were flown, the classic justifications for military violence would come more into play.

That said, I understand that at least part of the explanation for the nature of Palestinian bombings is that it's the only means available to them. It's easy to say they're violating the rules of war when those rules favor your own side (and Americans relate a lot more to the western styled state of Israel). But it seems to me that when you sanction the killing of individuals who don't personally want to do you harm, morality starts to become a bit of a blur. That's war.

|4.19.06 @ 3:53PM|#

Fyodor:

Anyone interested in ridding the world of Jews couldn't ask for more than having them all gather on one small strip of land. Jews will survive even if Israel is destroyed if only because we don't all live there. Sill, it would be nice if the conflict could be resolved without the total destruction of one side or the other.

|4.19.06 @ 3:55PM|#

"Fyo, What if the bomber is targetting, and in fact kills, an Israeli soldier in one of these pizza / falafel / bus bombings? Just to make it interesting, lets say the soldier is even in uniform and is killed just as intended."

Killing one soldier does not have enough military value to justify killing dozens of innocent civilians. Further, the Palistinians have never tried to say that they are attempting to bleed the Israeli military by suicide bombing. They have made no secret that their intention is to kill civilians. Once you intentially target civilians, you are wrong even if that targeting incidentally kills a military target or is of some military value. You are turning proportionality on its head and argueing that targeting civilians is justified by some collateral military damage. That is wrong. The target must be military from the begining. You can and should never intentionally target civilians.

|4.19.06 @ 3:59PM|#

"But it seems to me that when you sanction the killing of individuals who don't personally want to do you harm, morality starts to become a bit of a blur. That's war."

There are gradiants of behavior. I don't think that it is a good thing to say that since all war is immoral all acts taken during a war are equally immoral. There is a difference between targeting a soldier in a firefight and specifically blowing up civilians who have nothign to do with the fight. Both immoral in an ultimate sense, but one is clearly worse than the other. Further, the sad fact is that war is a fact of the human condition. We should not let its immorality prevent us from trying to set at least some guidlines to contain its barbarity.

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 4:00PM|#

the distinctions are highly relevant to me

Fair enough, but the question arises, how sure are you that you would not act the same if you were put in the situation? In a way it's a nonsensical question, because maybe to be put in the situation you wouldn't be "you" anymore. But try it, as best you can, and see what you come up with. I come up with bombing people in a falafel line is distinctly worse than bombing suspected terrorists (and whoever else is nearby). Even if both violate established rules. And both clearly suck.

|4.19.06 @ 4:02PM|#

Sorry Fyodor,

I misunderstood what you said. We both agree.

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 4:07PM|#

There are gradiants of behavior. I don't think that it is a good thing to say that since all war is immoral all acts taken during a war are equally immoral.

John, you are either not reading my entire posts or not reading them very carefully. I agree entirely that there are "gradiants" involved and I have made clear that I think the Palestinian terrorist bombings are worse than the Israeli targetted executions, thus they not equally immoral.

I do, however, take umbrage at folks who dismiss killings that seem to fall more on the "justified" side of the line as no big deal while those which fall on the other side of this somewhat arbitary line are the deeds of evil barbarians. I'm for looking at these acts in terms of gradiants, I'm against see the one as okay and only the other as bad.

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 4:09PM|#

Ah, sorry I replied before I read your apology!!

|4.19.06 @ 4:13PM|#

Fyodor,

I agree that killings should not be taken lightly even if they are legal. It is just sometimes there is no other choice but to go to war and of course war means killing.

|4.19.06 @ 4:16PM|#

Since the soldier is not in the act of combat, and since the bombing serves no military purpose but only a purpose of terror, it would have little effect on the morality of it.

I don't understand. Killing an enemy soldier always serves a military purpose.

Why ask anyway, other than for purely philosophical reasons, since this is clearly not what the Palestinian bombers do?

You don't know that. You don't even know whether any soldiers (uniformed or not) were killed or injured in the falafel bombing we are discussing today. You don't know whether uniformed soldiers have been killed or were intended to be killed in any of the suicide bombings. You think you know apparently. Fact is, you don't. Don't feel bad -- neither do I. :)

. . . the rules of war . . . blur

If you are interested in a neutral method for determining which side is worse, I proposed just such a method at my 11.46 post. We need more info to apply the method (Looking at you Sullum), but I think it captures the overall fairness of what is going on once we have numbers to plug in my ratio formulas.

|4.19.06 @ 4:19PM|#

John

Do you classify the following as terror attacks or legitimate military attacks?

1. The US use of the atomic bomb.
2. The bombing of US marine barracks in Lebanon.
3. Israel's bombing of the UN shelter in Qana.
4. The Al-Qaeda bombing of USS Cole.

|4.19.06 @ 4:19PM|#

I come up with bombing people in a falafel line is distinctly worse than bombing suspected terrorists

How many in that line were uniformed Israeli soldiers?

Furthermore, if the suspected terrorist is a "terrorist" only because he sent ppl on previous missions to bomb uniformed soldiers, the terrorist is a soldier, not a terrorist. Once again: we should be reserving judgement until the relevant facts come in.

|4.19.06 @ 4:36PM|#

How would you like to be a guard who checks bags at a felafel place? Living in Israel must be very stressful. Living under Israeli occupation is probably no picnic either. Those clever Elders of Zion have sure fucked up, huh?

|4.19.06 @ 4:39PM|#

How would you like to be a guard who checks bags at a felafel place?

I would make and enforce a no-Israeli-soldiers policy and advertise that prominently. That way I probably wouldn't have to deal with any bombers. Also, the non-military customers would feel somewhat safer and make up for the loss of military business.

|4.19.06 @ 4:41PM|#

Annon,

There is not enough wine or enough time to discuss the amount of ink that has been spilled over the Atomic bomb. Your answer really depends on whether you think it was necessary to end the war and thus avoid the blood bath that would have happened had the US invaded Japan. The best answer I can give is that considering the attitude toward area bombing at the time probably yes, but it is a close and debatable call

The U.S. Marine attacks in Lebanon were a clearly a military target. The problem is that there wasn't a war going on. There was an internal armed conflict going on in Lebanon, but the Marines were not on either side. They were not fighting in the conflict and thus were probably not lawful targets.

I am not familiar with the facts surrounding the Israel bombing on the UN center, so I will have to abstain on that one.

The Al Quada bombing of the U.S. Cole was illegal for several reasons. First, Al Quada is not a nation but a supra national criminal organization. Second, the Al Quada terrorists who did this wear not wearing uniforms and did not in any way indicate that they were hostile. They just dressed as civilians and pulled up next to the ship and blew themselves up. Further, the U.S. was not at war with Yemen or anyone else at the time and there was therefore not a conflict to give the perpetrators of the Cole bombing combatant immunity.

|4.19.06 @ 4:43PM|#

"I would make and enforce a no-Israeli-soldiers policy and advertise that prominently. That way I probably wouldn't have to deal with any bombers. "

Dave they are not targeting soldiers. The Palistinians are targeting civilians. The point is to kill as many as possible. Your policy would not work. Please do not leave this thread with the idea that the suicide bombs are designed to kill the Israeli military. They are not.

|4.19.06 @ 4:49PM|#

They are not.

You don't know that. Don't feel bad, neither do I. However, if I were put in the difficult position of Tel Aviv falafel stand guard, I would cast my lot as I said and hope that they decided to take out the falafel stand across the street with all the soldiers in it. Not much else you can do in that sitch.

|4.19.06 @ 4:54PM|#

"A report by Amnesty International in July 2002 summarizes the arguments cited by the Palestinians as reasons for targeting civilians. The Palestinians claim that

they are engaged in a war against an occupying power and that religion and international law permit the use of any means in resistance to occupation; that they are retaliating against Israel killing members of armed groups and Palestinians generally; that striking at civilians is the only way they can make an impact upon a powerful adversary; that Israelis generally or settlers in particular are not civilians

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15979

Is that good enough for you Dave? The Palistinians make no secret of their targeting of civilians.

|4.19.06 @ 4:56PM|#

It's hard to imagine a patriotic Israeli excluding Israeli soldiers from his felafel shop. I doubt very much that the lowly guard could exclude soldiers on his own. But who's stupid enough to believe that terrorists strike only soldiers? What kind of terror would that be?

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 4:59PM|#

Shalom and Dave W,

Sigh. There are knowing things and there are knowing things. I don't "know" that the drivers in the oncoming lanes of traffic won't veer into my lane and kill me. But I have pretty damn good reason to believe they won't, and I wouldn't be able to function in daily life without treating that pretty damn good reason as absolute fact. Palestinian suicide missions have been going on for quite some time now, and I think their pattern is pretty clear. As far as killing any soldier, even one who is not involved in any combat duties, having a military purpose, sigh again. Maybe yes, maybe no. The logical extension of that is that killing babies who might grow up to become soldiers might also be considered to have a military purpose. I'll agree there's a degree of blurring to it all. At the same time, is killing a random, soldier in a falafel line going to have any measurable effect on the Israeli military's plans and capabilities? Again, if soldiers near bases which act as staging grounds for particular missions were targetted, this would go a ways toward justifying the bombings under traditional rules of war and come closer to being defensible as self defense. But that's clearly not what's happening, my lack of specific knowledge of the victims' current military status notwithstanding.

|4.19.06 @ 5:03PM|#

Is that good enough for you Dave?

Frankly, no.

Important threshold issue: when they say "targetting civilians" I don't know whether they mean targetting only civilians, or whether they mean selecting targets where civilians are almost certain to be present along with soldiers.

Other problem: how would Amnesty know? Did they actually talk to the suicide bombers or their commanders? How would I know that?* Do you generally trust Amnesty International, John?

FOOTNOTE

* Reminds me of a story. One time on Reason online, Cathy Young wrote an article speculating about the motives for the train bombing in London. Then a videotape came out and explained his own motives. Of course, Cathy didn't come back and do an article on the tape. She was probably embarrassed because the comments on the tape did not match her speculations. If I can't trust Cathy Young on this kinda stuf, I sure as heck ain't gonna trust Amnesty on it.

|4.19.06 @ 5:06PM|#

John,

1. So, targetting civilians is O.k. if you think it is necessary to end the blood bath and/or will reduce the overall civilian deaths?

2. I guess you forgot the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon and US alliance with Israel.

4. I wasn't asking whether it is legal or not. I was asking if you consider it a terrorist attack or not.

|4.19.06 @ 5:08PM|#

I think their pattern is pretty clear

I think the pattern the media feeds you is pretty clear. They never identify how many soldiers were killed and over time you come to believe people prejudiced against the people in the occupied lands to tell you who the real targets are. It is a cumulative effect of years of articles like the pice o crap column Sullum submitted today.

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 5:09PM|#

Important threshold issue: when they say "targetting civilians" I don't know whether they mean targetting only civilians, or whether they mean selecting targets where civilians are almost certain to be present along with soldiers.

Dave W, all I can say to that is, LOL.

Maybe you have a good point about trusting AI, I don't know, but your logic in the passage I quoted is mind boggling.

|4.19.06 @ 5:11PM|#

Shalom,

I don't trust Amnesty International completely, but that is because I know their biases. One of their biases is certainly not favoring Israel over the Palestinians. Therefore, when Amnesty admits that the Palestinians are targeting civilians, that is pretty reliable. I would just point you to Fyodor's post above. Think about the number of bombings done in Israel. They have bombed movie theaters, the funeral of a 13 year old girl who died in a bombing. They bombed a university center. They have never once bombed a barracks or a military post. All of the bombings have been at public places. How can you possibly argue that the Palestinians are not targeting civilians? Further what evidence do you have to rebut the overwhelming evidence that they are? Lastly, even if they were targeting off duty sodliers, the marginal military value of that could never justify the innocent people who have been killed.

|4.19.06 @ 5:15PM|#

Let me explain then:

There is a linked article above about how the Israeli military dropped a bomb from a plane onto the apartment building with one of these "terrorists." However, they dropped a big enough bomb at such a time when they knew civilians would present and killed.

This could be described as "targetting civilians."

Now you might point out that you would not call this "targeting civilians," but then I would point out to you (gotchastyle) that you weren't the person out there working for Amnesty who polled these questions. Even more importantly, you weren't that person's Arabic translator.

|4.19.06 @ 5:17PM|#

1. So, targetting civilians is O.k. if you think it is necessary to end the blood bath and/or will reduce the overall civilian deaths?

2. I guess you forgot the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon and US alliance with Israel.

4. I wasn't asking whether it is legal or not. I was asking if you consider it a terrorist attack or not.

1. Because it was the only thing that could have brought the Japanese to the surrender table and prevented an invasion and both cities had large military value, then yes it might have been legal. Beyond that, the legal regime was different back then. Under 1945 law, it was clearly legal, but as I said it is debatable and not really the topic here.

2. As far as the U.S. being "allied with Israel" so what. The U.S. was not a part of the conflict, had not declared war and was not participating in the conflict. Further, the Marines were there on a U.N. approved peace keeping mission. They were not lawful targets.

3. The attack on the Cole was not lawful for the reasons I stated; the purpetraitors did not identify themselves as combatants, they were a part of an international criminal organization not a nation state and thus not entitled to combatant immunity, and there was not a conflict going on at the time to provide combatant immunity even if they had been eligible for it. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

|4.19.06 @ 5:23PM|#

They have never once bombed a barracks or a military post. All of the bombings have been at public places. How can you possibly argue that the Palestinians are not targeting civilians?

I am not arguing that they are not targetting civilians. I am arguing that we don't know the answer to this question.

I certainly don't know that they have never bombed a barracks or the like and I am not particularly inclined to believe your assertions in this regard. However, moving to the real answer, the barracks are probably guarded a lot better than the movie theatre. They probably figure they have a better chance to get close to a soldier in a soft civilian setting. If that is what they think, they are probably right, too.

Lastly, even if they were targeting off duty sodliers, the marginal military value of that could never justify the innocent people who have been killed.

Does the military value of the Israeli targets outweigh the collateral damage to the innocents on the other side? Is this another one of those things where you have one set of standards for Israeli combatants and a different scale for bombers from the occupied lands?

Like I said at 11.46 am: I want the ratios for each side. Only then will I decide who is eviller here.

|4.19.06 @ 5:25PM|#

"There is a linked article above about how the Israeli military dropped a bomb from a plane onto the apartment building with one of these "terrorists." However, they dropped a big enough bomb at such a time when they knew civilians would present and killed."

First, the Israelis were targeting a lawful target. Since it was a lawful target some collateral damage, civilian death, is lawful as long as it does not outweigh the military value of the target. How many civilians were killed and who were they bombing? It may have been an illegal strike depending on the answers to those two questions.

Second, even if it was illegal, there are gradients of wrong. The Israelis did not specifically drop the bomb with the sole purpose of killing civilians. It is therefore not the equivalent of suicide bombings.

As far as the contention that the Palestinians really didn't say that. There reaches a point of ridiculousness in this whole discussion. I point above the overwhelming evidence and number of suicide bombers in markets, theaters, ect and complete lack of suicide attacks on military targets and ask for one shred of evidence that they are not targeting civilians.

You are clearly holding Israel to moral standards that you would never hold the Palestinians to. Why is that? What is it about Israel that makes it so worthy of these special standards? What makes it such a special case?

|4.19.06 @ 5:28PM|#

"I am not arguing that they are not targetting civilians. I am arguing that we don't know the answer to this question."

If I walk into a crowded restaurant or student center and blow myself up, how can you say that you don't know that I am targeting civilians? Is there any standard of proof that you would accept? I already gave you quotes from a legitimate organization that says they are and anyone who has read a newspaper in the last five years certainly knows that there have been suicide bombings in all sorts of public places like restaurants. That is just rediculous.

|4.19.06 @ 5:31PM|#

From FOX:

Bomb Kills 17 Israeli Bus Passengers
Wednesday, June 05, 2002
STORIES BACKGROUND

MEGIDDO, Israel � A Palestinian suicide bomber pulled a car packed with explosives alongside a moving bus and blew it up Wednesday in a huge fireball that killed 17 passengers � 13 of them Israeli soldiers. The military warned that Palestinians were shifting tactics to kill more Israelis each time they strike.

|4.19.06 @ 5:35PM|#

Is there any evidence they knew soldiers were on the bus? It looks to me like they blew up a bus full of people and it happened to contain soldiers. Even if it did, killing 13 privates is of little or no military value and probably would not justify killing 5 innocent people.

It is just appalling to me the contortions people will go through to defend these killers. The only conclusion I can come to is that because they are killing Jews, it just doesn't matter as much. Clearly, if this were happening in any other context, no one would go to these lengths to justify the murder of innocent people. It is just madness.

|4.19.06 @ 5:38PM|#

After the mall I headed back to the station and got on the bus toward Beer Sheva through Mitspeh Ramon, the huge incredible crater in the middle of the Negev. The bus was mostly empty at first, so I got a window seat and took photos of Eilat and Aqaba receding to the rear. But it was soon clear we�d fill up quickly. We stopped at one military base after another, none of them on my map, until there was standing room only. By the time the bus stopped at the Mitzpeh Ramon rest stop, I may have been the only civilian on the bus. Soldiers were sleeping on the floor in the aisle. There were guns everywhere pointing in all directions. This may technically have been a civilian bus, but I realized that it was, for all practical purposes, troop transport.

|4.19.06 @ 6:02PM|#

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html

This site has something close to what I was looking for, but ruins the statistics by defining "comatants" too narrowly.

If they did the same analyses and graphs, but made the categories as "civilian" and "military" (instead of combatant / non-combatant), then I would be able to tell you who I am rooting for in this whole Israel / Palestine war thing.

|4.19.06 @ 6:02PM|#

I love quizzes.

1. The US use of the atomic bomb.

Depends on what you think of the strategic bombing campaign. Not a terror attack in my opinion but a reversion to older forms of warfare when the citizens of a beseiged city were subject to bombardment and sack.

2. The bombing of US marine barracks in Lebanon. Legitimate military target. No doubts there. Whether or not the perpetrators committed a legal act under the Law of Warfare is another question. I would think not, but I'm not a lawyer.

3. Israel's bombing of the UN shelter in Qana. If the attack was intentionally on the civilians, it was a serious war crime. If it was intentionally on the UN, a possible crime but that's contentious. If it was an accident, c'est la guerre.

4. The Al-Qaeda bombing of USS Cole. Legitimate military target, just like the Pentagon in 2001. Whether or not the perpetrators committed a legal act under the Law of Warfare is another question. I would think not, but I'm not a lawyer.

timekeeper|4.19.06 @ 6:05PM|#

Dave W, Shalom:

Are you arguing, then, that the attack on the WTC was justified because there might have been a soldier in the building at the time?

That Timothy McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City was acceptable because there was a military office in the Murrah building?

That the bombing attack on the abortion clinic in Pensacola was just fine because there was an (off-duty) police officer protecting the staff?

These are all consistent with the views you've been spouting.

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 6:25PM|#

John, you state that the target of the Israeli bombing was a legal target, but was the means "legal"? Those means being execution without trial and in a manner that endangers others? I'm not so sure Israel's actions are really considered "legal" (even assuming international "law" can be genuinely considered that).

|4.19.06 @ 6:52PM|#

That is the problem, is terrorism warfare or police action. Like the atomic bomb question, it is a bigger question than this forum can handle. Clearly the Palistinians are treating it as a war by using military means such as bombs. The question is do we expect Israel or any other targeted country for that matter not use military means to respond and only use police. One thing is for sure, if the target of the bombing was not legal and it was just a criminal action, then the Palistinians have even less ground to stand on because if it is not a war, then every Palistinian who shoots or kills someone is just a criminal regardless of whether he targets a military member or not.

|4.19.06 @ 6:55PM|#

Fyodor,

I meant the above post as an answer to your question.

One other point, just because someone is in the military does not make it okay for anyone to shoot them at any time. There have been some posts above who suggest that the 9-11 attack on the Pentegon is somehow legitimate because it is a military target. In a declared war between too nations, yes the Pentegon is a lawful target. That does not mean that any person with a beef has a right to blow the Pentagon up.

fyodor|4.19.06 @ 7:28PM|#

John,

Your logic is quite reasonable, but your post didn't anwwer my question, which is it accurate to call Israel's executions "legal" under international law. My point being, and this follows up on what I've said earlier, that it is not accurate to describe what Israel does as legal and while describing what the Palestinian bombers do as not, as if there is a concrete or tangible distinction. This is a separate issue, although perhaps related in a way, to whether one takes any kind of killing lightly, and I'll accept your assurance that you do not without question. Again, I'm perfectly okay with saying that what the Palestinians are doing is definitely more abhorrent than what Israel does. But I object to language that makes one justified and the other not in such stark terms. I have several reasons for this, but if you cannot tell me unequivocably that the Israeli actions fall within the bounds of what is allowed under some recognized convention of war, then right off the bat I will point out that you should not be using language that directly implies otherwise and that the difference in the morality of the respective acts is not as distinct as that language implies.

And again, to make clear, my whole point is to say that it's not so clear! :-) Even if I agree with you in the abstract.

|4.19.06 @ 7:32PM|#

Jacob,

I'm glad that your niece is ok and my wishes are that you continue to have a safe journey as well.

Not a lot of room for negotiation there.

The state of Israel was born in a murderous ethnic cleansing of which the vast majority of contemporary Jewish Israeli citizens are totally innocent of any wrongdoing. During this episode, 750.000 Palestinians lost their homes and land that their people had owned for centuries. Many who resisted paid with their lives. (see: : Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by: Norman. Finkelstein http://tinyurl.com/g5ct4)

With all the time that has past, surely the contemporary Israelis have the right to live there. But so too does the Israeli government have an obligation grant the Right of Return to the displaced Palestinians or offer compensation. Governments of Israel have acknowledged the Right of Return but never acted on it or even negotiated concerning it in good faith.

Also, it should be pointed out that 15-20% of Israeli citizens are Arab Israelis-not to be confused with the folks in occupied Palestine. These Arab Israelis face 2nd class legal status and are the victims of legal discrimination at the hands of the Israeli government. Sharon shamefully advocated "Jews only" housing laws on government land in open discrimination against them. BTW, since a terrorist is one who victimizes innocent civilians with violence or the threat of violence, Sharon has certainly been a terrorist.

|4.19.06 @ 7:35PM|#

"Although this situation seems untenable, it can continue indefinitely."

Maybe. But Israeli Jews have an average of 2 children per woman. Women from the West Bank and Gaza average 7 children per woman. The slow but irresistable force of demographics will eventually change the situation.

|4.19.06 @ 7:38PM|#

http://www.masada2000.org/nobel.html

|4.19.06 @ 7:43PM|#

Rick:

Can you provide a list of nation states that weren't "born in a murderous ethnic cleansing"? Also, can you name one Arab country where Arabs have more democratic rights than Arab citizens Israel have?

|4.19.06 @ 7:54PM|#

Granting all Arabs that were expelled from Israel the right of return would mean the end of Israel. Some would not consider that a bad thing. How about granting all Germans who were expelled from Poland or Czechoslovakia the right of return? How about the Armenians expelled from Turkey?

|4.19.06 @ 8:01PM|#

Are you arguing, then, . . . WTC was justified . . . attack in Oklahoma City was acceptable . . . bombing attack on the abortion clinic in Pensacola was just fine because there was an (off-duty) police officer . . .

First of all, let me clarify that there needs to be a war going on. The actual WTC attack, the actual Okla City bombing and the actual abortion bombing because there was no war (neither de facto nor de jure) going on.

After fixing your hypothetical so that there is an enemy and a war, then you know from my spouting that what matters to me are overall civ/mil casualty ratios. Under your hypothaetical, what is the civ/mil casualty ratio that the enemy has inflicted on the US? What is the civ/mil casualty ratio the US has inflicted on its hypothetical enemy?

You give me these two ratios and I will tell you which side is behaving less acceptably.

|4.19.06 @ 8:04PM|#

Rick's concern for Jacob's niece is touching.

|4.19.06 @ 8:48PM|#

The uses of Norman Finkelstein

http://www.davidduke.com/?p=83

|4.19.06 @ 8:55PM|#

It would seem that not everybody who takes up the Palestinian cause does it out of a love of Palestinians.

|4.19.06 @ 9:01PM|#

Rick's concern for Jacob's niece is touching.

Is she civ or mil?

|4.19.06 @ 9:10PM|#

Jack:

Can you provide a list of nation states that weren't "born in a murderous ethnic cleansing"?

I don't know of any other Mid-east states that were founded upon ethnic cleansing, let alone one as murderous as the Israeli state's. Can you name one?

can you name one Arab country where Arabs have more democratic rights than Arab citizens Israel have?

Talking civil liberties, perhaps Lebanon. I'm not sure. Also, there are economic liberties too, the right to be capitalistic. In this area, I wouldn't be surprised if residents of Dubai enjoyed more economic liberty than even Jewish residents of Israel. Of that though, I'm not sure either. But it's not the point anyway. The point is that the fact that the Israeli government discriminates against its own Arab citizens is another good reason why our government shouldn't be forcing us to give our money to the Israeli government.

Also, we would do well to stop our government from supporting such an overtly anti-freedom action as the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which is a double tragedy since Israel is a freer place then most of the Arab world, at least for its Jewish citizens, that many Arab nations would do well to emulate, but this brutal US government financed occupation is a huge disincentive.

|4.19.06 @ 9:20PM|#

Uri:

Granting all Arabs that were expelled from Israel the right of return would mean the end of Israel.

No it wouldn't. It would just mean that Israel, as a whole, seemed less Jewish. And ya know, when Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union flooded in, Israelis complained that they made Israel seem less Jewish! Knowing a number of Russian Jews (I'm not Jewish), they're probably right.

|4.19.06 @ 9:25PM|#

Rick's concern for Jacob's niece is touching.

Thanks, joe. I can relate. I'm an Uncle too. And I know that all of our hopes are with Jacob for a safe journey.

|4.19.06 @ 9:32PM|#

Rick:

I also don't like our tax dollars going to support Israel's expansionist policies. I didn't care for our support of Indonsia's brutalization of East Timor either. You're "not sure" about some key issues. Maybe you should do a bit more research before you become chief critic of Israel. My point is that Israel is not unique in establishing itself on territory occupied by others and Israel's occupation is not the most brutal the world has ever seen. Arab Israeli citizens enjoy far more democratic rights than Arabs in any Arab country. They struggle for their civil rights in much the same way that American Blacks have struggled for theirs. This thread has been mostly about the Palestinian tactic of suicide bombings that target innocent civilians. Why don't you address that instead of trotting out Norman Finkelstein. The Palestinians bear some responsibility for their plight. Your one-sidedness calls your motives into question.

|4.19.06 @ 9:36PM|#

Gosh, you do know a lot about Israel.

|4.19.06 @ 9:44PM|#

Arafat attempted to take over Jordan in 1970, and was kicked out of Jordan after King Hussein's Bedouin Army slaughtered between 10,000 and 20,000 Palestinians. Arafat escaped to Lebanon where he again tried to take over the Lebanese government in a 12 year Civil War that killed over 100,000 Lebanese civilians. It's a tough neighborhood.

|4.19.06 @ 10:00PM|#

Jack:

You're "not sure" about some key issues. Maybe you should do a bit more research before you become chief critic of Israel.

Jeeze Jack, you sound like a politician. You know that I said that what I'm not sure about are those relative specific rights in Lebanon and Dubai vis a vis Israel. Are you? And you didn't answer my question. You just tried to dodge it.

Arab Israeli citizens enjoy far more democratic rights than Arabs in any Arab country.

Jack, quit BSing, you aren't a politician and this isn't TV. Read my comment again as to why your question is not the critical point anyway.

My point is that...Israel's occupation is not the most brutal the world has ever seen.

Wow. That's bold. It's still brutal and we shouldn't be paying for it.

trotting out Norman Finkelstein

And ya know, sometimes when i write about libertarianism, I trot out Hayek.

Your one-sidedness calls your motives into question.

I call em as I see em. Are you threatening me with the race card?

|4.19.06 @ 10:05PM|#

Rick:

I also don't like our tax dollars going to support Israel's expansionist policies. I didn't care for our support of Indonsia's brutalization of East Timor either. You're "not sure" about some key issues. Maybe you should do a bit more research before you become chief critic of Israel. My point is that Israel is not unique in establishing itself on territory occupied by others and Israel's occupation is not the most brutal the world has ever seen. Arab Israeli citizens enjoy far more democratic rights than Arabs in any Arab country. They struggle for their civil rights in much the same way that American Blacks have struggled for theirs. This thread has been mostly about the Palestinian tactic of suicide bombings that target innocent civilians. Why don't you address that instead of trotting out Norman Finkelstein. The Palestinians bear some responsibility for their plight. Your one-sidedness calls your motives into question.

|4.19.06 @ 10:07PM|#

I didn't care for our support of Indonsia's brutalization of East Timor either

I didn't know that our tax dollars went to that. Sadly, I guess it doesn't surprise me.

|4.19.06 @ 10:11PM|#

Jack,

You just double posted with a 33 min interval. That might be a record.

|4.19.06 @ 10:15PM|#

Rick:
If you didn't know we supported Indonesia, maybe you're too focused on Israel. What is it about Israel that especially offends you? Have you investigated Saudi Arabia's human rights record? Have the Palestinians done anything you disaprove of?

|4.19.06 @ 10:33PM|#

Jack,

That's a different question. Did our tax money go to the East Timor slaughter?

What especially offends me about Israel is their government and their occupation and that the government gets more of our tax dollars to prosecute that occupation than any other government.

What does Saudi Arabia's human rights record have to do with this? That's funny. Read where you were just telling me that I was off topic! You're just hoping that the Israeli government will look good by comparison.

Yeah, I disapproved of the thieving PA. Which, BTW was in cahoots with the Israeli government. See: How Israel Lost : The Four Questions by Richard Ben Cramer

http://tinyurl.com/kfgfx

|4.19.06 @ 10:33PM|#

Jack:

Maybe Rick Barton is a Palestinian whose family was dispossed.

|4.19.06 @ 10:35PM|#

If you didn't know we supported Indonesia, maybe you're too focused on Israel.

No, you just wish that I wouldn't focus on the Israeli government. Sorry, it's kind of a natural for libertarians.

|4.19.06 @ 10:37PM|#

Rick:

You're right, I was off topic. So you did disapporve of the PA's corruption, but ultimately it was Israel's fault. I see. Well, thanks for the enlightening discussion.

|4.19.06 @ 10:41PM|#

joe,

Well, I do have a Palestinian chess buddy whose family was dispossessed upon the founding of Israel. I also have an Israeli chess buddy who loathes the Israeli government's occupation.

|4.19.06 @ 10:46PM|#

Jack,

Read carefully. I didn't say that the PA's corruption was ultimately Israel's fault. I said that the Israeli government was in cahoots with them. That's well known. Read the Cramer volume. He documents it well.

|4.19.06 @ 10:47PM|#

Rick:

Well, that explains your passion. Does the Israeli usually win?

|4.19.06 @ 10:53PM|#

Rick:

Right, but the Palestinians haven't done anything you disaprove of that The Israelis weren't somehow involved in. Correct me if I'm wrong.

|4.19.06 @ 11:23PM|#

joe,

:) Actually it's pretty competitive among the three of us. I'm winning a little more that 50% of the time against both of em but I take it a tad more seriously than either of em. I love chess. I'm not near as good as I should be for how much I love it. Do you play chess? Are you in Boston? I'm thinking that's a pretty good chess town. I've played in Harvard square in Cambridge when I've visited.

|4.19.06 @ 11:43PM|#

Jack,

When you talk in terms of "the Palestinians" and "the Israelis", it's so collective. My only problems with Israel are the government and the fundamentalist religious nut balls. I also don't have anything against "the Palestinians". I hate those Palestinians who kill innocent Israelis. But that's a tiny minority of em. I disapprove of the Palestinians lefty leanings and I understand that that is changing.

Now Jack, may I ask; what is this thing you seem to have concerning Israel? Also, I want you to know that I would never hold the actions of the Israeli government against the whole country. Governments do hideous things with depressing regularity.

|4.20.06 @ 12:34AM|#

Jacob:

The terrorists can cause Israel pain, but they do not pose an existential threat.

But they calculate that the pain might motivate the Israeli government to end its brutal occupation of Palestine so they trying their brutal bombings. I'm thinking that ending the occupation might well diffuse the tension. Shouldn't our government quit paying for it, for sure?

|4.20.06 @ 12:40AM|#

Rick:

The Palestinians have just elected a government that thinks killing innocent Israelis is legitimate resistence, so I'm not sure how much of a minority it is. Democratic governments don't have an entirely free hand. You and I dislike American tax money going to support Israel's occupation, but support for Israel among Americans is quite high. I doubt a majority of Americans begrudge the tax money going to Israel. American tax money has funded horrible regimes all over the world.
I was interested in this thread because of its focus on the suicide bombers. I don't think anything Israel has done justifies that particlar tactic, and I think it ill serves the Palestinians.
I'm a Jew, so I feel a special responsibility for Israel. I have probably misread you. I thought you were defending Palestinians who kill innocent Israelis. I see that you aren't. I have taken your anti-government stand as an anti-Israel. You think all governments are murderous. Fair enough. Your knowledge of the region is obviously weak. You should probably read more widely. The Arab governments will yield plenty of grist for your mill.

|4.20.06 @ 12:46AM|#

...make that: "so they trying *keep* their brutal bombings"

|4.20.06 @ 1:08AM|#

Jack:

I don't think anything Israel has done justifies that particlar tactic

There is nothing that the Israeli government could possibly do that would justify killing innocent Israelis.

I'm a Jew, so I feel a special responsibility for Israel.

You needn't. It would be grossly unfair to blame you for the actions of the Israeli government unless you gave support to that government.

Your knowledge of the region is obviously weak.

I know that you don't really believe that.

|4.20.06 @ 1:21AM|#

Jacob:

The Israeli government can continue its program of unilateral separation

And that separation takes on an increasingly thieving nature as the wall inhumanly cuts into huge swaths of Palestinian land that the Israelis covet.

|4.20.06 @ 1:29AM|#

Rick:

But I do support Israel, just not all its policies. Don't you feel some responsibility for the U.S.? I do. Why do you think I'm being insincere when I say your knowledge of the region is weak? Do you think you know a great deal about the Middle East?

|4.20.06 @ 1:55AM|#

Jack,

My point was that you should not feel responsibility for the actions of the Israeli government just cuz you're a Jew. Yeah I do feel some responsibility for the actions of the U.S. government. But it's limited. I feel more responsibility for the actions of the Colorado government cuz I'm in a better position to influence them.

It seemed like you were trying for a quick one upsmanship shot like you did earlier in the thread when I then told you that you sounded like a politician. But Yeah, I guess I do consider myself pretty well informed on the Mid-east especially vis a vis Israel.

I wanna crash now but it's been nice having this exchange with you. Thank you. As you said, we do agree that American tax money should quit going to support Israel's occupation. Perhaps it's good that we didn't establish that too early or we might have forgone all this interesting back and forth.

|4.20.06 @ 2:12AM|#

Rick:

This is what you wrote. Doesn't sound very well-informed to me.
can you name one Arab country where Arabs have more democratic rights than Arab citizens Israel have?

"Talking civil liberties, perhaps Lebanon. I'm not sure. Also, there are economic liberties too, the right to be capitalistic. In this area, I wouldn't be surprised if residents of Dubai enjoyed more economic liberty than even Jewish residents of Israel. Of that though, I'm not sure either. But it's not the point anyway. The point is that the fact that the Israeli government discriminates against its own Arab citizens is another good reason why our government shouldn't be forcing us to give our money to the Israeli government."

Pleasnt dreams.

|4.20.06 @ 9:14AM|#

Jack,

That's way too small a data set for that conclusion. Also it's not really germane.

|4.20.06 @ 9:59AM|#

Rick:

While you're wringing your hands about the poor victimized Palestinians who can't be held accountable for any of their choices, take a look at this: http://www.uaeprison.com/index.htm

You're an arogant ignoramus who thinks swallowing Norman Finkelstein whole makes you a Middle East expert.

|4.20.06 @ 10:46AM|#

Jack,

I think that you're trying to make defenders of the Israeli government look silly.

M.Simon|4.20.06 @ 2:00PM|#

The Saudi Government discriminates against its Jewish citizens.

What? No Jewish citizens in Saudi?

I rest my case.

M.Simon|4.20.06 @ 2:15PM|#

American tax money out to quit supporting the Palis.

Let them earn their own way?

And how do the Palis earn their money? Arabs and others pay them to attack the Israelis. So you see they are perfectly capable of earning their own way in the world.

They have a business model and are sticking to it.

M.Simon|4.20.06 @ 2:22PM|#

Rick says he doesn't hate Palis - only those who do the suicide bombing schtick.

So how many Palis support the suiciders? Latest polls put it between 60 and 70%.

So Rick - does that mean you hate 60 to 70% of the Palis?

Hmmmmmmmm.

*

M.Simon|4.20.06 @ 2:41PM|#

The Israeli occupation of Gaza is over.

How is self government going there?

Once the fence is done the West Bank will have its own government as well. I expect the Palis will do the government bit really well there too.

M.Simon|4.20.06 @ 4:46PM|#

Rick,

I agree ethnic cleansing is not well done in the ME, except that the Palis get cleansed from where ever they alight. A charming people no doubt.

But that guy Mo started a religious cleansing thing. In fact if you believe the early reports he started with the Jews.

Some things never change.

Reason.com