Okay, Tom, I haven't made my mind up yet but I�ll bite. Try these on for size.

1) I don�t have the statistics/breakdown of how many innocent civilians were killed by Israeli strikes in areas in which there were Hezbollah military targets (eg. rocket-launch sites, intelligence stations) compared to pretty much only civilian-populated areas/infrastructure� But in principle, while attacks on the latter can be easily condemned, what about in the case of the former? If an organisation like Hezbollah is launching rockets or planning operations within civilian areas, what is an acceptable course of action by a state under attack? Must it not act because of the cynicism of a Hezbollah?

2) You suggested that the Lebanese government perhaps try getting ââ?¬Å?the other Lebanese factions to take on the Iranian-funded Hezbollah and replacing Hezbollah fighters with the Lebanese army on the border.ââ?¬Â As there is, I believe, already a UN resolution calling for the latter and the Lebanese authorities have not been willing or able to carry it through, what alternative steps should Israel have taken to ensure this was done?

3) Because Israeli authorities kept their eye on the rockets being launched into its country and the fate of their kidnapped soldiers, rather than seeing how the politics of Iranââ?¬â?¢s nuclear threat played out at the G8 you interpret their actions as ââ?¬Å?striking out in angerââ?¬Â. Perhaps Israel does see Hezbollah right on their border as a real threat and by answering it immediately it would not only help address the threat but also draw attention to their theory that if Iran is willing to work with Hezbollah on attacking its borders, just imagine what they would do if they had nuclear weapons. Just because the nuclear topic was pushed out the way and thus Israelââ?¬â?¢s strategy was fundamentally flawed does it mean they had no strategy at all and were just ââ?¬Å?striking out in angerââ?¬Â?

In addition, because Iran�s nuclear programme was so high on the G8 agenda and is thus seen as a serious threat, if it didn�t come up would its members just walk away from the conference and forget about the issue? Similarly, perhaps Israel thought it was important that Hezbollah�s presence right on their border came up at the G8. I could be wrong but I don�t think it was very high on the list of topics (if it was on it at all). Wouldn�t the G8 members in turn have just walked away from the conference and done nothing about it, as they had before? Isn�t there a chance, at least in theory, of this now occurring?

Sauber argumentiert, LB!
Plus there is nothing such as a PM of Israel ââ?¬Å?striking out in angerââ?¬Â. Israel is no one-man system. It is a democracy, it has a parliament. If I may disagree, with all due respect, with your friend in Lebanon: this is not a war between two theologies but a war between a democracy and a terrorist organization that has inflitrated a sovereign country and also kidnapped citizens of a neighboring country. NV

I agree with you 100%, Dr. Palmer. The problem with the Israeli response, aside from its horrifying disproportionality and effect on civilians is that it is quite self-defeating. Through this strategy of collective punishment, Israel has made the recently probable event of a disarmament of Hezbollah totally out of the question for the next 20 years. Such attacks only serve to radicalize the civilian population, not turn it against Hezbollah, who are now grudgingly held up even by moderate Sunni Druze, and Christian elements in Lebanon as the best defense that Lebanon has against an Israeli state that they see as wantonly aggressive.

I cite Jbeil (Byblos) as an example. As you know from your travels, it is a peaceful residential town with an astounding ancient history but no real strategic importance today. It is an hour north of Beirut and far too removed from the border to be useful as a staging ground for attacks on Israel. Furthermore, it is a mostly Christian town with very few Shiia at all, let alone Hezbollahi. Yet still the harbor was bombed in an act that can only be described as tragic.

Finally, most disturbing has been the astounding racism and ignorance rampant in the American public on this issue. Naturally Americans aren't going to want to stand up for a civilian population that they see as one and the same with terrorists. Neither are they going to feel heartache when Beiruti icons like the charming herds of cats at AUB scatter with every explosion and Monot Street sits quiet and deserted. And that is a shame that is going to take more than a cease-fire to resolve.

I think you are correct Tom. Nor do I think this a battle between democracy and authoritarianism. Bush was democratically elected but at heart is theocon/neocon with authoritarian tendencies. The American Congress apparently has little sway with the man and I suspect Isreal is not all that different with the Knesset not really setting policy. I sincerely doubt that the destruction of Lebanon was debated and democratically voted upon. The US invasion of Iraq has just emboldened the Israelis to shun anything but direct military confrontation. Israel is intent on perpetual war.

LB raises some fair questions.

Here are my thoughts:

1. I agree that putting missiles in a civilian area is illegitimate. But the responses are not only to potential missile sites. Bridges, port facilities, and the airport have been targeted, as well as cars traveling on the roads. That is going beyond targeting military targets that are sited among civilian homes. What is the justification for targeting infrastructure in the north of the country?

2. My point may not have been well formulated. I wondered whether the Olmert government might be trying to force such an outcome. It does not now seem very likely. I don't think that they thought through the implications of the course of action they have chosen.

3. Israel has a very real and legitimate interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of the rulers of Iran. They could have tried to support a G8 plan to do so. If Olmert is correct, then they undermined their longer term interests by not waiting to strike until after the G8 meeting. That suggests to me that they were suckered into doing just what the Iranian government wanted them to do. My point is not to dictate to the Israelis what their own interests are (I think that they have a pretty good sense of that already), but to suggest that they may be acting in a way that undermines them. Omert's remarks imply that they were suckered. And usually that happens when people fail to think strategically, and that often implies that they are acting in anger.

Nathalie's comments don't quite engage my points. I have no problem with fighting against Hezbollah. They are vicious bastards and can hardly pose as "freedom fighters" defending their own country. They sent a small invasion force into a neighboring country and captured some soldiers on Israeli territory. They send rockets over the border to terrorize Israeli towns. The question is whether bombing bridges throughout the country from which they came and destroying the ports and the airport -- and with them the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians -- is a reasonable response. It certainly doesn't seem so to me.

I am hardly a knee-jerk Israel basher. I think that Hezbollah is clearly the initial aggressor. Nonetheless, I am shocked at what the Israeli government is doing, not to attack Hezbollah, but to aggress against a neighboring country, most of the inhabitants of which have done nothing to harm Israel.

Tom,

Those bridges and roads and ports and "infrastructure" are the conduit for rockets and ballistic missiles being launched against Israeli civilians.

Lebanon committed acts of war against Israel by invading its sovereign territory, attacking its military, and firing rockets into civilian areas. Not that this was the first time it happened.

Lebanon cannot distance itself from the Hezbollah actions. It tolerates and permits Hezbollah to operate within its territory. Moreover, Hezbollah is actually part of the Lebanese government.

I am sorry for the Lebanese civilians who are being hurt, but they should understand that when their country goes to war, these are the natural and legal consequences. The most obviously predictable consequences are cutting off the supply routes for rearmament.

There is no concept of "proportionality" here. Israel was attacked, deliberately, without cause. The attack continues. It has the absolute right to do whatever it wants within the laws of war to defeat the enemy. What country would NOT attack an enemy's "infrastructure" in a war?

This is a very modern concept, the notion that in war, no civilians must be hurt, or that there is some way of fighting a war that somehow has no impact upon a belligerent's civilians. It simply is not realistic. There is a reason we should dislike war. War is unpleasant. But occasionally, war is also just and necessary. For Israel, which did not choose this war, its defense is just and necessary, whether it is convenient for the aggressor's civilian population, or not.

As for the Iranian nuclear issue, I think it fortuitous that this Hezbollah-Israel business is taking place right now. As things are going, the world doesn't seem to be serious about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Now, the question is clear: what will these Hezbollah missiles look like in three or five years if the Iranians get a nuke?

Your first Lebanese friend's point is silly. Even granting that Jewish theology is as anti-Muslim as Islamic theology is anti-Jew, which I think is obviously not the case, Israel is a predominantly secular country. They're very open and tolerant (I believe today is the anniversary of the hanging of two gays in Iran -- such a horror awaits no homosexuals in Israel.) Furthermore, they have shown on numerous occasions a desire to have a dialogue and establish a compromise.

Though I thoroughly disagree with your analysis (and nod assentingly with those who offered lengthy rebuttals), I appreciate your ability to be level-headed when criticizing Israel, Tom. It's a quality many lack.

All of that aside, I just hope to God everything turns out all right.

Alan,

I do understand the role of infrastructure to deliver missiles. But there are no missile emplacements in the north and yet that has not stopped the Israeli military from destroying bridges and roads there, as well.

Moreover, missiles are not delivered to the airport, yet the Israeli government has blasted the Beirut airport. One could go on. The civilian infrastructure is under attack. Warfare that is waged against civilian populations is inherently abhorrent. Killing mothers because they might bear future enemies is never justified. The people of Lebanon should not be the target of the Israeli government's attacks. If there are to be targets, they should be the leadership, soldiers, and military assets of the Hezbollah.

It is hardly a modern position that in war, no civilians must be hurt. Quite the contrary. The medieval rule was that, in general, noncombatants were not the legitimate targets of violence. It is the modern position (dating from the French Revolution), not the medieval consensus, that civilians are legitimate targets, since it is "nation against nation," rather than ruler or dynasty against ruler or dynasty. I agree that sometimes war is necessary and justified, but I do not agree that it is legitimate to seek to attack the civilian population of a foreign state.

The Lebanese government is not in much of a position to take down Hezbollah. Many would like to do so, but they are incapable of doing so. They "tolerate and permit" Hezbollah because they cannot disarm them. Hezbollah has its own army and receives many millions of dollars every month from the Iranian government, as well as support from the Syrian government. Hezbollah holds a ministerial seat in the Lebanese government only because they have the power to extort recognition.

One can imagine cases in which breakaway regions of other states are used as staging grounds for attacks on neighbors. Would the neighboring state be justified in attacking the regions from which the aggression was not launched?

I agree entirely with the worry about Hezbollah missiles, and more especially about the possibility of Iranian nukes. Those are very serious issues, indeed. I do not think that attacking the ports of Lebanon or attacking convoys of civilian passenger cars fleeing combat is justified by those serious concerns.

Ben,

I think my friend was not contrasting Judaism with Islam, but militant versions of the religions. Followers of the militant versions of Judaism are certainly less numerous than followers of militant Islam, but they have had a disproportionate share of power in Israel. The settlers, for example, held the entire population of Israel hostage to their fantasies and, for some of them, at least, their hateful bigotry against Arabs and Muslims was deeply harmful to their co-religionists. (It took a tough figure whose Zionism was not in doubt -- Ariel Sharon -- to draw their teeth.) Such fanatics have held the bulk of Israelis hostage. My friend was pointing out that the fanatics of Hezbollah have a similar influence in Lebanon and that in both cases fanaticism has made it harder for the moderate majorities to coexist in peace.

There is plenty of blame all round and not all of it lands on Israel's leadership. I blame Arafat for much of the suffering of the Palestinians because he rejected the offer made by the government of Ehud Barak, who had agreed to almost the entirety of Arafat's earlier demands. But that doesn't stop me from criticizing what seems a clearly disproportionate reaction to what was clearly aggression by Hezbollah against Israel.

Tom,

Assuming there are no missile emplacements in the north, there is something else in the north.

A long border with Syria.

The missiles are made in Syria and Iran. They must travel into Lebanon somehow, be that as it may through sea ports, air ports, and yes, roads, even in the north of the country.

The other day the IAF bombed a truck in Lebanon. The Iranian-made Zilzal ballistic missile inside the truck shot off and crashed. The Lebanese first thought it was a downed Israeli plane. Nope. Just the "civilian infrastructure" being targeted.

It has long been an accepted tactic of war to impose a blockade. Roads and ports have been legitimate targets of war since time immemorial. I cannot recall ANY war where the targeting of ports was decried as an unfair tactic owing to its impact on the civilian population.

Lincoln, for example, blockaded the south in the civil war, causing immense suffering to the civilian population of the southern states. Some of those people are still unhappy. Was it right? If you believe the war was justly prosecuted by the union, as I do, then yes.

Of course, if one thinks a war is unjust, then just about everything done in prosecution of the war is unjust. But this is no unjust war. It is, like all wars, very ugly and has horrendous consequences. The consequences would be far worse if Israel allowed the Lebanese free access to their neighbors, and freedom of access inside the country. Hezbullah would be forever re-armed, and without the other Lebanese not internalizing the externalities of their permissive behavior toward the group, it would be emboldened to continue its outrageous behavior.

Let's not forget the very recent history here. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 because under cover of that nation's civil war, the PLO was bombarding Israel with katyusha rockets. The PLO left town, for Tunis, but the Iranians formed Hezbollah to take its place. Israel left and withdrew behind the UN border, with the understanding that its security would be guaranteed by the Lebanese disarming Hezbollah.

Six years later, Hezbollah is worse than ever, and the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about Israel's security, so Israel has to go back in there and clean up. The Lebanese need to get the message: attack Israel, and Israel will come in and remove the threat to its population.

Also, Israel is not targeting civilians. Yes, some civilians are killed, regrettably and unavoidably, as happens in war. But the Israelis are even going to lengths of advising civilians to leave dangerous areas, using air-dropped leaflets, loudspeakers, and radio broadcasts. There are remarkably FEW civilian casualties considering the intensity of the bombing, and that is largely a reflection of Israeli restraint. This is hardly Dresden, or Hiroshima.

What is a "proportionate" reaction? How about, one that puts Hezbollah out of the missile-lobbing business. Bombing the ports and "infrastructure" is an absolutely necessary and legitimate means of doing so.

Tom,

I don't know what leads you to believe that militant versions of Judaism "have had a disproportionate share of power in Israel." The classic example of extremism within Israeli ranks is Kach. Wikipedia has a nice, concise description of how they fared:
-----------------------------------------------
Kach candidates ran for seats in the Knesset in 1973, only two years after Kahane's arrival to Israel. It failed to attract the minimum number of votes (at the time, one percent). It continued to fail to win the minimum number of votes in the elections of 1977 and 1981. The party finally gained a Knesset seat in 1984 with Kahane as its only representative.

This caused significant alarm among the Israeli political elite. In 1985, Basic Law: The Knesset (one of the Basic Laws of Israel) was amended to add section 7a, "Prevention of Participation of Candidates List." This provision ensured that:

A candidates' list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
(1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people;
(2) negation of the democratic character of the State;
(3) incitement to racism.

The first clause was specifically targeted at the Progressive List for Peace, and the third clause at Kach. Both parties had been elected for the first time to the Knesset.

Before the 1988 elections, the Central Elections Committee disqualified both parties. Both appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel. The court upheld the disqualification of Kach, finding that its principles constituted "incitement to racism," but reversed the disqualification of the Progressive List for Peace. This effectively ended Kach's existence as a political party.
-----------------------------------------------

Tom,

I appreciate your concern for innocent Lebanese civilians, and I agree that their situation is tragic.

However, it's outrageous to write "Killing mothers because they might bear future enemies is never justified." leaving the inference that this is what the Israelis are doing.

If you have an idea for a more effective strategy for dealing with terrorists who are launching missiles and conducting other activities among civilians, and who are being supplied by outside countries, without harming any innocents, I'm sure that Israel (and the rest of the world) would be happy to hear it.

It only makes sense to judge Israeli actions against realistic alternatives; not against a fantasy world where the bad guys just stop and no innocents suffer.

>>Killing mothers because they might bear future enemies is never justified.

Normally liquidation of mothers is unjust as a means of defense, because most conflicts will be over long before their children can carry a rifle. The probability that such children will pose a threat to "your team's" civilians is very small. In the occupied territories, on the other hand, we have the unusual situation where the vast majority of the male offspring will be indoctrinated into a mindset of permanent genocidal conflict, one which has been going on for decades and shows no signs of improvement. (Street vendors in Gaza sell pictures of suicide bombers on streets named after suicide bombers.)

I'll stipulate that the Israeli government played a decisive role in fostering this anti-Judaism and general barbarism through decades of brutal occupation. This doesn't change the present reality: the population of the occupied territories now consists largely of ravenous demons. These creatures are counting on the "weapon of the womb" to eventually overwhelm the Jews through demographics. Under these extreme circumstances, are not Palestinian women literally the "breeding grounds for terrorists?"

Imagine you're talking to an IDF general. How would you convince him that letting the Palestinians survive and breed in their open-air prison is in the long-term interests of the people he's being paid to protect?

I must say that this is one of the rare moments when I disagree with Tom Palmer.

I think Alan Gura sums up more or less what I believe, and I will only add one more observation: The modern definition of the state as a monopoly on violence is not merely a descriptive one, which would be apt to break down when significant nonstate actors engage in violence. It is also a normative definition, meaning that states should be held to account for the violent acts that originate within their borders. States must either own up to these acts by offering them state approval -- or pursue the offenders and punish them, indicating that this private violence was not approved.

When a state does not punish an act of violence that originates within it, and when it makes absolutely no effort to do so, that state is necessarily identified with the act of violence itself, whether or not the state professes to endorse it. Talk means nothing here; we do not create something so fearsome as the state merely to express a polite disapproval.

The monopoly on violence is a standard, then, by which states are rightly judged. Were this not the case, the result would be an arbitrary enforcement of even the most elementary laws against murder or robbery. The rule of law would cease entirely, as would the distinction between state and nonstate and the one between civilian and military. Which, of course, is just what Hezbollah would like to see.

Lebanon is responsible for Hezbollah, whether they like it or not, because Hezbollah acts within its territory. Lebanon's government cannot possibly allow Hezbollah to continue to exist while avoiding all responsibility for it on the international level. Either they must side openly with the group or they must make good faith efforts to destroy it. If they do not, then someone else will be justified in doing the job for them.

As to T. J. Madison's contention, "the population of the occupied territories now consists largely of ravenous demons," and that therefore killing women (and presumably children) is legitimate, I cannot agree.

A just war will reinforce rather than erode the distinction between military and civilian. Further, it hardly needs to be said that if Israel fought by the same rules as its enemies fight -- that is, if it killed civilians as often as it got a chance -- then in short order there would be no Palestinians left to complain about it.

Nothing in life is sure, except:

Death

Taxes

That Rothbardians will reek of anti-semetism everytime Isreal acts militarily

That Rothbardians will become cheerleaders to the non-Western non-democracy non-republic in any conflict

Remember kiddies - a military action which targets enemy soldiers (wearing uniforms or not) is the exact same as flying rockets (with warheads packed into ballbearings) into neighborhoods, schools and shopping centers.

Perhaps it is naive to think so, but we must operate under the assumption that small children and babies have yet to engage in any political activity, and might well disappoint their terrorist parents when they grow up.

In any event, this is a silly debate -- Israel does not target children.

The moral responsibility for the death of children killed by Israeli military action rests squarely with the terrorist adults who use them as human shields or at least adults who carelessly render themselves legitimate targets for Israeli military action without due regard for the safety of nearby children.

It is unavoidable that children die in war. All the more reason why those who start unjust wars (Lebanon/Party of God) are to be condemned, and stopped.

I am largely in favor of the Israeli actions, at least those I'm familiar with.

Since Hezbollah and Hamas both stand for the extermination of Jews in the Middle East (or their enslavement under Sharia), there's no possible common ground for negotiations. Both have obtained political power, and both had the option of retracting their calls for annihilation of the Jews. Instead, Hamas and Hezbollah started this war, and I can't see how it can be anything other than a war of extermination.

It's also pretty clear that that Iran is the real instigator of this war, and President Ahmadinejad has publicly called for the destruction of Israel and appears to be hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
given this, what better options do the Israelis have besides crushing their enemies with overwhelming force? If Hezbollah gets off the hook, say because of an internationally imposed cease fire, then the Iran-Hezbollah strategy was successful, and subsequent events will make this mess seem mild.

The war is awful and heartbreaking; but the longer the militant Islamists are permitted to get away with anything, the worse off we all are.

Thank you for the interesting comments. I've been busy all day with meetings and writing sessions with young writers, so I've not had a chance to read these carefully and think about them. I will print them out and ponder them on the exercise bike at the gym. If I have anything intelligent to say in response, I'll try to do so after that.

Very, very hard issue.

I agree mostly with Jason Kuznicki, although it should be added that one of the core conditions for a just war is proportionality.

Without detailed knowledge of the context on the ground it's hard to make that judgement and yet it is an essential one to make in order to morally evaluate Israel's actions.

The Future of Middleast?
http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/2006/07/the_future_of_m.html

I disagree with the argument that Israel's actions are disproportionate. First, the arguments "one of ours is more valuable that any number of the enemy" makes complete sense.

But more importantly here, what's a "proportional" response? Hamas and Hezbollah kill around eight or nine Israeli soldiers, and kidnap three more -- so Israel makes some small response inflicting a dozen casualties, and they're even... and H&H are left with their hostages, whom them torture, parade around on internet videos, maybe eventually decapitate. And whenever they feel like it H&H repeats this indefinitely since they are hardly hurt by the proportionate response. Let the outnumbered Israelis bleed. And meanwhile H&H's Iranian masters keep working on developing nukes for the Islamists' final solution.

This is the fundamental point -- these attacks on Israel seem clearly part of a program of the extermination of Jews in the Middle East. Therefore I think the Israeli response has to be overwhelming. Prior to this, Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial and talk of eliminating Israel could be chalked up to the hyperbole that seems common to the region. But no longer -- it is clear that Iran authorized these attacks, and any Iranian assertion that their nuclear programs aren't military seems utterly hollow at this point. If Iran was really interested in protecting a peaceful but controversial nuclear energy program, they'd be trying to reign in Hezbollah. And they aren't.

Hezbollah must never get hold of an Iranian ballistic missile with an Iranian nuclear warhead. The current violence is horrible, but far worse things are imaginable, and will likely occur if the Islamists are allowed to get out of this.

Many good points above. In response to Gil, I did not mean to imply that Israel is engaging in genocide or anything even remotely similar to that. My example was an implication of the "nation vs. nation" approach, in which it is appropriate to target civilians and civilian infrastructure. That model is inherently illiberal.

In fact, Israeli forces do generally go out of their way to avoid collateral damage to civilians and that should be acknowledged. The same certainly cannot be said of Hezbollah; the apology just offered by the leader of Hezbollah for the killing by missile of two Israeli Arab boys made it clear that he was not apologizing for the killings of any Jewish children. The point was quite clear; targeting Jewish children is part of his strategy.

With that all said, I cannot see the justification for the deliberate destruction of a milk bottling plant in the Bekaa Valley, or of the airport in Beirut, through which missiles were not coming.

I fear that the Israelis have stepped right into a trap set by President Ahmadinejad. The rulers of Iran are getting just what they wanted. That cannot be good for the Israelis, nor is it good for anyone else in the region (including the bulk of the people of Iran).

I believe this picture sums up the whole situation:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/jonjayray/babyatt.gif

"I fear that the Israelis have stepped right into a trap set by President Ahmadinejad. The rulers of Iran are getting just what they wanted"

I do not think that the Israelis have stepped in any trap. They certainly know what the agenda is here. And if someone has no clue about world politics and does not know what he is saying to whom whith which consequences, it is certainly Ahmadinejad. How can one misjudge the Chancelor of the Republic of Germany to this point and think the Germany of 2006 and the Third Reich are the same thing? What better proof do you want about the Iranian closed system and their lack of insight into world politics?

http://portale.web.de/Schlagzeilen/Iran/

But perhaps the following is a kind of wake up call for the Europeans...

Quote: Das Schreiben enthalte dagegen "viele Aussagen, die f�¼r uns nicht akzeptabel sind, insbesondere zu Israel, dem Existenzrecht des Staates Israel und zum Holocaust."

Das Schreiben enthalte dagegen "viele Aussagen, die f�¼r uns nicht akzeptabel sind, insbesondere zu Israel, dem Existenzrecht des Staates Israel und zum Holocaust."

Auf Englisch, bitte?

Sorry, it is so normal to communicate in several languages with TGP, I did not even notice.
It means: �This piece however contains several statements, which are unacceptable for us, especially regarding Israel, the right to existence of the State of Israel and regarding the holocaust".NV

According to government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm, speaking in Berlin,

The writing (in the letter from Ahmadinedschad to German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel) contains, in contrast to any mention of the conflict over atomic issues with his country, "many remarks that are not acceptable to us, in particular (especially) regarding Israel, the right of existence of the state of Israel, and the Holocaust."

Oops. It looks like we were writing at the same time!

As I understand, the principle of proportionality in just war theory does not demand that you may take a life for a life, a building for a building. Instead, it dictates that states may use only the amount of force required to end the aggression that was initiated against them -- but no more than this.

It still sets up a difficult question, of course, and we are brought rapidly into areas (like military intelligence) that I can't speak to at all. But philosophically, I think it is a sound principle.

Point taken, Jason. In addition to this: there is no such thing as proportionality in the use of military intelligence. It is rather a "the-more-the-better" axiom. Military intelligence is also a strategic tool that is mostly of preemptive use. NV

Tom,

I don't know the specifics of the milk bottling plant bombing.

But, given what I do know, I think that the theory that the IDF attacked it to prevent the delivery of milk to children, rather than carefully pursuing a legitimate military objective, is not a reasonable one.

I could be wrong. But, without a credible witness to Israeli leaders conspiring to hurt Lebanese civilians I think I'll continue to assume that either there was an accident or that they had relevant information that's unavailable to us.

Of course I don't know all the details. And yes, I do see the threat posed by Hezbollah to innocent people in Israel. But the attacks on army barracks were pretty dumb (and if they were mistakes, one might expect an explanation) and the attack on the airport is disturbing. One could declare that no plane would be allowed to land (and what commercial planes would land under such circumstances) without actually destroying the airport facilities in Beirut. What was gained by destroying so much infrastructure? The Lebanese were starting to get on the right track, after ejecting the Syrians and establishing at least a contested political scene. The economy was reviving in a major way. These attacks are making plenty of enemies for Israel in Lebanon, where before plenty of people were quite willing to live in peace alongside the Israelis.

The Iranian radicals have been pouring money into Lebanon for years. They are certainly up to no good. And they are rather good chess players. I think that the Israelis have been outmaneuvered and that they, the Lebanese, and many others in the Middle East will pay a high price for what is going on right now.

But back to the proportionality of the response: I do not see good reasons for destroying the infrastructure of a whole country, and with it the lives of hundreds of innocents. And I don't think it plausible that all such acts can be justified on the grounds that the Israeli commanders know something we don't. I fear that the political authorities in Israel have made a terrible blunder. It's happened before.

Tom,

It's easy to say that there are problems with the Israeli response because there have been tragic effects. But, it's not a real argument until you propose a better response.

What would a better Israeli response look like?

Would they permanently hover over, rather than bomb, every access point for supplies?

Would there be no innocents killed?

Would there be no buildings bombed that have civilian uses?

I'm not saying that the Israeli response is perfect. But, I'm not seeing you describe what a better response would look like.

You might want to read this comment: http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com/node/527#comment-4184

The situation is indeed very sad, but it's important to remember who is trying to maximize the sadness, and who is trying to minimize it.

There is no victimless option that I can see.

It may be true that the Israeli response appears to be what Hezbollah and its benefactors wanted. But, that doesn't mean they had a better alternative.

Tom,

Robert Fisk of the Independent is hardly a neutral source. That this "baby milk" story hasn't been picked up elsewhere is not necessarily an indicia or reliability but it is suggestive.

Do you recall the fake Peter Arnett "Iraqi baby milk factory" story from the first Gulf War?

How about the equally fake "Iraqi soldiers ripping Kuwaiti babies from incubators" story?

It isn't logical to point to one such allegation, in the midst of a war, and conclude that the side who delivered the bomb is engaging in a war on civilians. Especially when Israel is, apparently, airlifting some injured Lebanese civilians to Haifa for medical treatment.

The British press, like the rest of the European press, is laughable in its anti-Israel bias. A small sampling from the BBC World Service this weekend had them interview, not as a parody, a professor from Tehran University to explain that the Iranian government has nothing to do with Hezbollah and did not want the war, as well as various Arab experts who claimed, with a straight face, that Hezbollah is "key to the balance of power" in the region, checking Israel against its designs on Syria and Iran. What nonsense. As though Hezbollah is not a genocidal terrorist group whose purpose is to eradicate Israel and replace its population with one that lives under Iranian-style Islamic theocracy, but rather some sort of legitimate defensive entity for Israel's threatened neighbors.

As for the airport, I'm sorry we have to disagree on this, but an airport capable of handling heavy jet traffic is definitely a possible, if not probable, conduit for arms. Arms are shipped by air all the time.

Moreover Israel, at least initially, only knocked out the fuel depots and the runways, not the terminal building itself. Runways can be repaired in a matter of hours and, in fact, the Israelis allowed Lebanon to repair the runways temporarily for the purpose of evacuating a few foreign VIPs and the remaining five jetliners of Middle East Airlines, Lebanon's national flag carrier. Once those were gone, the runways were again taken out.

If Israel has gone back for the terminal building, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt they had a damn good reason to do so.

John Bolton perhaps said it best today. Proportionality in this case would not be allowing Israel to kidnap two Hezbollah people and fire a bunch of rockets indiscriminantely into Lebanon. Proportionality is doing what it takes to eliminate the threat. Hezbollah is a very sticky creature. It's a shame the Lebanese allowed themselves to get wrapped up with this group, but it is ultimately their fault for doing so.

Again, maybe I'm naive, but I think this has a happy ending.
1. Israel destorys Hezbollah, or at least takes it down to the level where it is not a factor in Lebanese security arrangements;
2. Israel withdraws in favor of the Lebanese army asserting its sovereignty, or at least a NATO force (not UN); and
3. The rest of the world deals seriously with the Iranian nuclear issue.

A very quick note before I rush off. I did not cite Robert Fisk, but reports in the French and the Lebanese media that were not based on Fisk, who is, I agree, less than reliable. I'll read over and think about your other points.

I haven't forgotten Gil's challenge. It requires thought (and may be impossible to fulfill). More later.

Wars cannot be fought at all without harm to civilian populations. Governments and their militaries are do not exist in some separate dimension from civilians, such that they might be uniquely targeted by an invading force. Enemy governments are thoroughly integrated into the territory over which they rule, depending upon its wealth, hospitals, roads, factories, trains, farms, ports, industry, people, and more. That's why quickly and decisively eliminating the threat posed by an enemy nation cannot but require the bombing of so-called "civilian" targets.

Moreover, without active support and/or tacit submission from a majority of the civilian population, no government could maintain its grip on power. That's why the vast majority of the population of an aggressive enemy nation are not morally innocent bystanders. The sometimes-awful luck of genuine innocents in wartime, such as young children or active dissidents, is a terrible tragedy. However, the party responsible is not the nation defending itself but rather all those who made such a defense necessary, particularly the countrymen of the innocents complicit in or supportive of the aggression of their nation.

Of course, all the same considerations apply to terrorist organizations allowed to operate by a nominal government unable or unwilling to control them.

(From my latest NoodleFood post.)

"The medieval rule was that, in general, noncombatants were not the legitimate targets of violence."

You know what? I'd like to see an authoritative citation on that. That's because everything I've ever read about medieval history runs just about completely opposite. It is rife with savage ferocity against civilians: looting, raping, every sort of pillage and murder was as common as could be throughout centuries of warfare between kings and all sorts of petty "nobles". The only known authority for a famous remark was writing twenty years after its alleged utterance at the seige of Beziers (1204) by the papal legate Arnault Amaury, but even if he didn't actually say it (although twenty thousand of the citizens were murdered indiscriminately), it's a pretty good snapshot of the attitude of the age: "Kill them all. God will know his own."

It's amazing to me to see anyone asserting that medeival noncombatants were in any way exempt from violence. It verges on the ridiculous.

Will get back to some of the above. The note above requires immediate attention, though. I did not (and would not) claim that medieval warfare was without violence to civilians. That would be obviously false. It was the general rule of combat, i.e., a matter of the laws of war (and of just war theory generally) that they were not deliberately to be targeted. In contrast, modern nationalism explicitly sets nation against nation, which has led to a rule of warfare far more savage and destructive, with deliberate and well organized mass destruction of civilian populations. Think of the Vendee, the American civil war (Sherman's March to the Sea), World War I (gas warfare, open warfare against civilian shipping on the high seas, with ships set to the bottom without warning, rather than simply looted, as was the custom of earlier piracy), and, of course, the Holocaust and World War II.

The counterexample cited by Mr. Beck was from the Albigensian Crusade, which, in its savage religious fanaticism, more generally approximated modern nationalism. Dynastic or territorial conflicts tended to display less of such viciousness, until, that is, modern nationalism arrived on the scene, when it was not a matter of exchanging one crowned ruler for another, but of the survival of the "Grande Nation," which called out a kind of savage ferocity similar to (or worse than) that witnessed during the Crusades. (Notably, that particular horror was the cause of the murder of some 20,000 people, relatively small change by the standards of twentieth century carpet bombing and genocide and notable for being an exception, rather than the general practice.)

Mr. Beck has twisted my statement into the absurd claim that "medeival noncombatants were in any way exempt from violence." No reasonable person would claim that. Nor would any reasonable person claim that the bulk of the warfare of the past two hundred + years has been any more civilized.

What you're calling my "twist" is actually my own counter-claim, which is, in fact, validated with resort to history. You can attempt to stand on a "rule...in general", but a "rule" that just about nobody followed in medieval times is not a "rule". It's a fantasy.

Rubbish.

"As I understand, the principle of proportionality in just war theory does not demand that you may take a life for a life, a building for a building. Instead, it dictates that states may use only the amount of force required to end the aggression that was initiated against them -- but no more than this."

I certainly agree that the counting of deaths is in no way indicative of proportionality (it is at most an indicator that Israel is better equiped and trained and tends to value human life more than its opponents).

Perhaps a better understanding of the principle of proportionality would be that of using the amount of force necessary to fully protect the rights that are under threat. That includes both ending an aggression and taking reasonable measures to prevent future ones.

I totally agree with Tom's comments. I have to say that being outside of the U.S. helps to understand the magnitude of the tragedy far better. Here in Costa Rica we are exposed to European media like BBC, Deutsche Welle and Televisi�³n Espa�±ola, which presents a different angle of the conflict than say, Fox News.

I know that criticizing the actions of the government of Israel is not an easy thing to do in the U.S. But, acknowledging that Hezbollah is the real enemy here that must be destroyed, I find shocking that so many people in the U.S. don't see anything wrong with the disproportionate use of force of Israel against civilian targets, like the bombing of a bus full of children one week ago.

A U.S. friend of mine once told me "Since when a tiny, socialist country in the Middle East became an article of faith for the Right?" I certainly wonder the same thing.

I'm uncomfortable about all of this, because Israel was attacked by Hezbollah, but I don't think that punishing Lebanon as a whole is right. I'm usually pretty favorable to Israel, but this seems to go too far. After the dust settles, we'll all get to discuss what was the best path.

I'm also rather pleasantly surprised at the civil tone of the discussion--here, at least. (I don't extend that to Billy Beck, who thinks he can find an exception over hundreds of years to a "general rule" and that disqualifies the observation entirely. Rubbish, indeed. The savagery of 20th century warfare based on collectivist ideologies is obvious to anyone who will consult the statistics.)

"STP" -- did you read the words "the attitude of the age"?

A couple of times today already, I have thought about the very approach that you've taken here: mistaking that single concrete reference as disposable because it's a single concrete. It also occurred to me that I could pore over all the history on my shelves and start listing every single instance demonstrating the exact opposite of Palmer's implicit assertion available since (to pick an arbitrary point) the fall of Rome. I concluded that it would be a fool's errand, bound for the "pearls before swine" pile. I very much doubt whether anyone apt to take Palmer's position seriously would be convinced.

But you could do your own homework and figure it out for yourself. The facts of history are plain, and it is absurd -- absurd, do understand? -- to even attempt to hold out a "general rule" against violence on civilians in medieval times. Medieval history is an endless train of warlords starving civilians in sieges and putting them to the sword, wholesale. Again: there is no "general rule" in this, except through fantasy. It's just nonsense.

"An exception"

That's really impressive. Really. You sure nailed Beck's shifty historical evasion right there. I mean, it's just so damned typical of Beck's warmongering dishonesty. He cites one atypical example of violence against civilians during the otherwise impeccable record medieval warfare - and he thinks that proves something. Dude, those kings and lords and knights were all about respecting civilians! Why, they'd take down those catapult things if there was any chance of hitting some wandering serf by mistake! And loot? Hostages? Rape? Pillage? Impossible! As is well known, all those things were invented by neocons.

While this doesn't strictly corroborate Palmer's point, it does lend it some credibility, and certainly seems to remove it from the land of "rubbish":

"Yet even in this most terrible realm of societal violence, rules of behavior developed. Among the very first was the differentiation between warriors and civilians. In even the most primitive societies, a distinction was made between those who chose to bear the risks involved in the profession of fighting and those who lay outside the field of battle. In a sense, a bargain was struck. Honor and power were accorded to the warriors. In exchange, civilians were granted a sort of guarantee of protection from their depredations. While it applied to all those who were unarmed, special immunity was usually given to certain groups: the old, the infirm, women, and, most particularly, children.

"While certainly not always complied with, this 'law of the innocents' had been one of the most enduring rules of war, arguably the most important of what legal theorists term jus in bello (laws in war). The deliberate targeting of civilians, in particular children, has been the single greatest taboo of all, extending from ancient Chinese philosophy and traditional African tribal societies to the state signatories of the modern-day Geneva Conventions."

Excerpt taken from P.W. Singer (Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution), "The New Faces of War," found online at: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:eSweHnxWJGIJ:www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/singer20051215.pdf+P.W.+Singer+%22New+faces+of+war%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Mr. Beck seems to have difficulty with comparisons. Warfare during the twentieth century, under the influence of various forms of nationalism and collectivism, saw horrifying mass murders that destroyed far more lives than under previous justifications for combat (simple grabs for territory, dynastic strugggles, etc.). Nationalism has been resorted to as a justification for the deliberate targeting of civilian populations; the historical record is quite clear on that score. To say that nationalism has had baleful consequences does not imply that no crimes were ever committed before the advent of nationalism. Crime is hardly unknown in human history; what I raised was whether nationalism made it worse and the evidence is that nationalism did make war more destructive of civilian lives. The twentieth century is littered with some of the most extreme examples of mass murder, including the Holocaust, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, the Rape of Nanking, and so on. (The example of the Albigensian Crusade is an example of precisely the kind of evil that pitted, not rulers against rulers, but entire masses of people against other masses. Such religious fanaticism is directly comparable to the nationalist madness of the twentieth century, a madness that was rhapsodized in Germany as the "Spirit of 1914.")

To regret the consequences of nationalism is not to celebrate all that preceded it. But there is little doubt that, in the area of warfare, at least, nationalism led to more terrible crimes than could be justified under most other justifications for warfare, which rarely provided any justification of the deliberate killing of civilians. (In all fairness, one could also argue that, within nations, nationalism supported a general trend away from hierarchical aristrocratic social orders, by making all members of the nation, rather than of separate estates, and thus promoted equality before the law. Still, such positive consequences would have to be set alongside the negative, such as the savagery of nationalist warfare and the rise of various forms of "totalitarian democracy," which identified the "general will" with the nation and raised it above all forms of inherited restraints on behavior.)

Now all of that takes us a bit far afield from the concerns I initially raised about what I see as Israel's going too far in the current war. So, to be clear about that, I don't believe that the Israeli military is deliberately targeting civilians for death (unlike Hezbollah, which clearly is), nor do I neglect the very real fears that Israelis have of Hezbollah and their Iranian paymasters, who are hopping from foot to foot with glee at what is happening in Lebanon. I do not believe that the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure (milk bottling plants, ports, bridges, etc.) is morally justified or even prudent. I do believe that the Israeli response is seriously harming an emerging civil society and that it most likely represents a step into a terrible trap set by the Iranian government, which profits from stirring up such problems.

Regarding Gil's reasonable challenge, I have to admit that I don't have an obviously better strategy; I have no military background and don't pretend to have one. I do believe that there are limits to what may be done, however, and that includes the following: the Israeli forces should have avoided attacking cars fleeing the fighting; they should not have taken out the bridges and other transportation infrastructure throughout the coutnry; assuming that they had decided to attack, they should have focused the attack only on Hezbollah's areas, and should not have attacked Lebanese army barracks or other regions of the country. That's not an answer to all the problems posed by Hezbollah's missiles, but it suggests that taking them out need not have caused so much harm to the rest of the Lebanese population. Finally, I do not know quite how one should respond to an enemy that has its army and military assets interspersed promiscuously among civilians. No doubt warning the civilians to leave, as the Israelis have done, is right and proper and, indeed, a sign of the morality that restrains Israeli political and military leaders in a way that it doesn't restrain Hassan Narallah.

All that having been said, I hope that this conflict ends soon and that the Lebanese are spared more death and destruction.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa makes similar points at the Independent Institute.

"Few things can be more legitimate than defending oneself against the attacks of an organization such as Hezbollah, whose cowardly rockets are aimed at terrorizing the whole of the Galilee hills area in Israel, whose allies�Iran and Syria�are two of the worst human-right offenders in the history of mankind, and whose ideology is simply barbaric. But Israel's response places collective guilt on an entire society for the atrocities of a minority of which that society is itself the victim."

Llosa's article can be found at: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1769

"But Israel's response places collective guilt on an entire society for the atrocities of a minority of which that society is itself the victim."

Remarkable. Llosa must be right. I hadn't noticed all those Hezbollah rockets slamming into downtown Beirut.

Can anybody edit that atrocious link in the anonymous post up there? It made this page about eighteen hundred pixels wide (at a guess) and it's extraordinarily tedious to read, now. Try this, instead --

http://tinyurl.com/lsr9x

(disturbing) quote: "I know that criticizing the actions of the government of Israel is not an easy thing to do in the U.S."

Now what does the author of that statement want to tell us, I wonder...
"not an easy thing to do"? Really? since when? do the US authorities send people to jail for criticizing the action of the govt of Israel nowadays? is there arbitrary, some kind of dark power behind the US administration? Hear hear...
that is news to me.
But for having heard that kind of talk before, your insinuation is certainly not new to me.
Anyway, generally speaking: if you want to hear real criticism of the actions of the government of Israel, why don't you follow the debates...in the Knesset and read...the free press in Israel...because there, believe me, there is real freedom of speech, unlike in, say, Iran.

Quote: "But, acknowledging that Hezbollah is the real enemy here that must be destroyed, I find shocking that so many people in the U.S. don't see anything wrong with the disproportionate use of force of Israel against civilian targets, like the bombing of a bus full of children one week ago."

- Apart from the fact that what you are saying does not quite reflect the truth, perhaps people in the US indeed disagree with you, Mr Hidalgo. It happens...in a democracy...NV

Ms. Vogel,

1.- It's not a secret that criticizing the actions of the government of Israel, which some people interpret as criticizing Israel per se, carries a lot of heat in the U.S. I know this first hand, since I've been call the A word just for doing this, even though I've cried seeing scenes of bombings in Tel-Aviv and I want Hezbollah destroy just as much as any reasonable person. Unfortunately, many people in the U.S. use the A word to bully people around into muting any criticism to Israel's actions against civil Palestinians and, in this case, civil Lebanese. I'm not talking about sending people to jail, so I thank you for not taking my words out of context.

2.- The fact that I find shocking certain attitudes, in this case the neglect of the disproportionate use of force of Israel against civilian targets by many U.S. citizens, doesn't mean at all that I want to ban their thoughts or that I don't believe in democracy. I find many things shocking, but that doesn't mean I want to ban them or send them to jail.

3.- This is the picture I was talking about of a bus carrying children that was bombed by the Israeli artillery. It doesn't look clear in the web site, but in the print edition you can clearly see some of burned corpses of the 15 children that died in that attack: http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2006/julio/16/mundo0.html

It's terrible that these children died.

But why do you suppose that Israel DELIBERATELY
targeted the children? Or that Israel isn't
exercising caution around civilians, given their
extraordinary efforts in this regard?

On the other hand, the children who died in
Israel WERE deliberately targeted by Hezbollah.

It is illogical and absurd to hold up a picture of
dead children, killed in war, and without any
additional context, conclude that the side that
delivered the bomb must be criminally responsible.
Accidents happen, and in this war, so do human
shields.

To the extent anyone bears responsibility
for these dead Lebanese children, it is
Hezbollah. You want to be upset with someone over
those kids? Go pick on the TERRORISTS who started
this war and who are deliberately using human shields.

As for the wailing of the European media...

The Europeans, with their large islamic/arab
populations and significant history of
anti-semitism, are the ones who generally approach
this conflict with an unhealthy bias. It's funny
how people claim Jews have all this power in the
U.S., being maybe 2-3% of the population, yet
somehow the domestic political pressure of
Europe's islamic population is never considered.

To hold up the European media as some sort of
neutral observers of this conflict is ridiculous.
There's an old internet joke that is somewhat
cliche but nevertheless reflects the truth:

A man in Paris saw a pit bull attacking a toddler.
He killed the pit bull and saved the child's life.
Reporters swarmed the fellow to cover the
story.... "Tell us! What's your name? All Paris
will love you! Tomorrow's headline will be: 'Paris
Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!'"

The guy says, "But I'm not from Paris." Reporters:
"That's OK. Then the whole of France will love you
and tomorrow's headline will read: 'French Hero
Saves Girl from Vicious Dog"!

The guy says, "I'm not from France, either."
Reporters: "That's OK also. All Europe will love
you. Tomorrow's headlines will shout: 'Europe's
Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!'"

The guy says, "I'm not from Europe, either."
Reporters: "So, where ARE you from?"
The guy says, "I'm from Israel." Reporters: "OK...
Then tomorrow's headlines will proclaim to the
world: "Jew Kills Girl's Dog"!

It is quite interesting (and distressing) to see how mind-sets still have not changed since 9/11, which mainly served for growing misperception about Islam and Muslim societies and of course some ongoing huge tensions.

I give full credit what Tom Palmer argues here. What indeed Israel achieved with its horrifying disproportinal response was only strengthening Hezbollah's supporters among Lebanese civilians. Even beyong Lebanese, nowadays it becomes common among Muslims to have growing sympathy for the cause of Hezbollah fighters' unfortunately. I understand that Israeli government did not have much choice in this regard, but the decision they took is clearly self-defeating as this will only cause more civilian bloodhshed in both sides caused by the mutual misperceptions.

As for comparison of modern warfare to medieval warfare, let me give you one example which supports Tom Palmer's arguments. According to UNICEF report, in the last 10 years only, 2 million children have died in the wars, 4-5 million children have been disabled or wounded,12 million made homeless and 1 million have been orphaned or separated from parents. And these statistics do not include war in Iraq, Afghanistan and many others in the last 8 years. I would doubt if so many children died in any decade of the medieval history. And certainly what Israeli government has done was to increase this number even more with its non-strategic, imprudent tactics over civilians.

Mr Hidalgo,
anyone advocating that criticizing the governement of Israel equates to questioning its right to existence, is an ignorant. In a similar way, anyone advocating that criticizing Israel�s policy is either dangerous or forbidden has an agenda of his own. No need for subtitles. Trust me, I live in Europe, we have centuries of experience in that respect and we have learned to decode. So, you may be a very reasonable person, Mr Hidalgo, but you are neither a victim of some dark forces nor a hero, fighting for freedom of expression.
My last point was misunderstood. I did not argue that no civilians got killed in these actions in Lebanon. I questioned your point re: public opinion in the US. There are debates going on in both US and Israeli public opinion. You just need to open the newspapers, there are pros and cons. I miss that in the Arab world, I must say.

My dear Tural, None of us has brought the �muslim" factor into the argumentation here. I think that we both agree on the fact that Muslim countries are the first victims of terrorism, aren�t they?
We were discussing terrorism, and the appropriate response to act of wars during an asymmetric conflict, taking the special kind of rural/urban warfare into consideration :in this case civilian population being exploited by the Hezbollah, the armed forces of Lebanon being unable to desarm the terrorists. Discussing proportionality is therefore, in my opinion, not the right way to address the issue. Neither can I quite get the point of people arguing, one should �spare Beirut" and hit �somewhere else"? Hezbollah is a force in power in Beirut.
You also seem to be mixing the causes and the consequences in your argument. Acts of wars have been committed over and over again against the state of Israel. It is not like the first Katusha hit Israel on July 20th for the first time. So, now Israel defends itself. In any casus belli, the decisive question is not the proportionality but a simple question: who started?
Your point (that these measures bring more support to Hezbollah in the Muslim world) is actually proving my point: in a society where free information is not available, people have no idea who started what when and where. If these societies were really free societies, they would be able to recognize Hezbollah for what it is : a genocidal terrorist organization.NV

"Since when a tiny, socialist country in the Middle East became an article of faith for the Right?"

You mean Iraq, Syria and the former Baathist Regime of Iraq, yes? All those regimes are socialist to the core. In that case, your friend is incorrect, as those regimes are the best buddies of US Leftists the Rothbardians.

(I suspect though you are preaching your brand of "anti-zionism." Amazingly enough I deal with several Isreali companies and their nation is relatively pro-capitalistic...but maybe Karl Rove is controlling my brain while you hold dearly to the "truth"? Maybe you try thinking for yourself?)

My closing comments:

1.- Yes, I think that the ones to blame here for the whole conflict are the terrorist. I thought I left that clear when I wrote "Hezbollah is the real enemy here that must be destroyed." I'm just arguing, as Mr. Palmer did, that Israel is disproportionatelly using its force against civilian targets. In the long run, as has been argued here, this strategy is self-defeating.

2.- I'm not pretending to be a hero or a victim here. I'm just saying that criticizing the actions of the government of Israel carries a lot of heat in the U.S.. Let's look at the most recent example: The president of Iraq criticizes the Israeli bombings in Lebanon and several members of Congress are demanding an apology or otherwise they will boycott his speech to Congress next week. Why this reaction?

"Why this reaction?"

Because Americans like Isrealies, just as we like Japanese and South Koreans. And we dislike Islamists and Baathists, just as we dislike North Koreans.

My dear Nathalie,

I did not claim you or someone else specifically brought up "Muslim" factor here. But arguing that Israel did the right thing by killing hundreds of innocent people (taking this as a granted requirement of casus belli), indeed you (&others who share your views) serve eventually to this common mutual misperception. Even in countries where the influence of religion is not an issue (take Azerbaijan for instance...you know very well how tolerant Azeri people are on religious plurality) it caused serious concern with harsh statements which may potentially lead to religious strife. It also causes more misunderstanding in the Western societies as well (where I would say, a serious illiteracy exists about this region and culture), seeing most of Muslims harbouring directly or indirctly Hezbollah's and other terrorists' cause; thinking why would Israel otherwise bomb the whole country.

Yes, Hezbollah is a terrorist group, proxy for Iran and Syria and a malicious, genocidal nasty organization accountable on the death of many innnocent people. However it would be too myopic to see things purely in context of retaliatory strikes with a simple argument 'who started first'. Most of Muslim countries live under unfree systems (to put it very mildly) with many ethnic, social, economic problems, it will be a good excuse for those in power to leverage their illegitimate strength channelling current dissent into huge anger against Israel, US and others.

Also, between Hizbollah and Syria there were some factions before (compelling Hezbollah to share its seats in parliament with another Shia rival,Amal), i guess, now Israel made these folks unite even further.

Seeing all these, it is nothing more than self-defeating strategy for Israeli government aggravating situation with increasing death toll of innocent civilians.

Finally, saying Israel will eventually bring freedom to Lebanon with its bombs, sounds like Bush bringing democracy to Iraq with his tanks and armies.

Tural,

Nobody is "arguing Israel did the right thing by
killing hundreds of civilians."

You are suggesting that Israel did this deliberately,
and that people are applaud such a decision.

It is more correct to say that Israel did the right thing
by defending its sovereignty and seeking to secure its borders,
and civilian deaths are an unavoidable consequence of that
decision.

-----
Here's an excellent point by point analysis of the
"fair and balanced" European media:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1153291996216&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Suppose a criminal walks into the bank and starts executing random people. The police (or perhaps just an armed citizen) takes a shot to try to stop the criminal from mass murder...and accidentally hits an innocent bystander.

What does the "libertarian" do? He accuses the rescuer of "murder" and ignores the crimes of the criminal. Sometimes the criminal is really a terrorist or tyranical dictator. Sometimes the rescuer is the military of a nation-state. But this is forgotten by "anti-statists" (and those who are speicifaclly anti-United States/Isreal).

That is why most "libertarianism" is a dead-end for moral living and logical thinking.

"Ex" misses the point entirely. The question is not whether people are sometimes killed as an unintended byproduct of acts of justified self defense, but whether the acts of self-defense have gone too far to be justified. (The doctrine usually invoked in such cases is the doctrine of the double effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_double_effect ).

The issue at hand could better be characterized as asking whether the police officer or the armed citizen is justified if he A) "takes a shot" in the hope of wounding or killing the shooter, or if B) he gets out an AK-47 and opens up on an entire crowd, in hope of wounding or killing the shooter. My claim is that the Israeli government has gone too far in attacking Lebanese who are not a party to the dispute.

"Ex" doesn't seem to admit that there are questions of degree involved. But that's the very issue at hand. I presume that "Ex" would not justify the Israeli government undertaking its present actions if there were only one sniper shooting over the border. If I am correct in that, then "Ex" has to shift his or her argument to a different level, not merely of abstractly formulated principle, but of the application of principle.

my closing comment is that I just simply disagree with my friends, but then again, it would not be the first time. I do not want to repeat myself, so:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000889.html

Mr. Palmer began by accusing the Israelis of "simply striking out in anger," suggesting that they didn't care about or even desired "collateral damage." Now, he seems to have retreated to complaining that the Israelis aren't careful enough or have made too many mistakes. It's hard to respond to a vague, Kerryesque claim that it ought to be done better.

But here's another data point regarding the intentions of the Israelis: Recently, the Israelis have attacked some houses in Gaza used as weapons caches. Prior to bombing the houses, the Israelis phoned the terrorists inside so that they and their families wouldn't be hurt.

See: http://rgcombs.blog-city.com/phoning_the_targets_to_warn_them.htm

I argue in the above post that such solicitude isn't necessarily a good thing. What if the warned terrorists move their rockets to a safe place, and a few hours later, they kill some Israeli teens in a pizza parlor?

There are no easy answers. But the future victims of the aggressors have some claim on your concern, too.

Um...I'll bite. What's wrong with saying "It ought to have been done better"? Maybe, it ought to have been better thought out? Or it ought to have been done without doing so much harm to innocent civilians? Those don't seem "Kerryesquye," like ââ?¬Å?I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.ââ?¬Â That's Kerryesque, and it seems a lot different than saying "the Israeli government has gone too far in attacking Lebanese who are not a party to the dispute".

All future victims have some claim on our concern, regardless of religion, nationality, etc. Israeli teenagers, Lebanese teenagers, even non-teenagers, deserve consideration and concern.

Antonio: Well, I think it's quite a retreat from suggesting the Israelis are callous murderers to complaining that their plans weren't perfect and the execution of them involved some errors.

I called it Kerryesque because it reminded me of the tiresome claims that, "If I were in charge, we'd do x better, y would be more successful, there'd be fewer mistakes."

As for your snarky closing, do you understand the idea of a concrete example, one that's a realistic and plausible consequence of the specific action being discussed (sparing Palestinian terrorists)?

Or does it just annoy you when someone points out that the inevitable consequence of letting Islamofascists live is more dead Jews?

Just a short clarification. The comment I made about "striking out in anger" was occasioned by the apparent lack of foresight behind the Israeli decision to attack, an evaluation to which I was led by the complaint of the Israeli prime minister that the capture of the Israeli soldiers was organized by the Iranian government in order to provoke an attack by Israel and take Iran's nuclear plans off the table at the G8 meeting -- a trap that would work only if the Israelis took the bait. Being outmaneuvered suggests a lack of thought about the strategic dimensions of the situation, which in turn suggested to me that striking out in anger motivated the Israeli response. I am not at all sympathetic to the idea that Israelis don't ever make mistakes. In this case, at least, I think that they have made a mistake.

Let me add another clarification.

Nowhere did I claim or in any way suggest that "the Israelis" are callous murderers. Mr. Combs should be more careful in reading into others thoughts that are not there. I would also suggest he might be more careful in his own writing, because some readers might infer from his remark above that he considers the hundreds of dead civilians in Lebanon to be "Islamofascists." I presume that he is a decent person and doesn't mean that.

What's snarky about my remark? I just stated that all innocent persons (Israeli, Lebanese, teenager, and nonteenager) deserve consideration and concern. I don't see anything snarky about that.

Something I do not understand about the "disproportionate force" charge...

In response to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and abandonment of settlements there, first Hamas and next Hezbollah rewarded the Israelis by attacking them and seizing hostages, and continuing their calls for the destruction of Israel and massacre of the Jews.

Hezbollah managed to arm itself with massive amounts of heavy (rocket) artillery, place this on Israel's border, and as a result of their targeting of civilians, one million Israelis are now living in bomb shelters, effectively shutting down the economy of northern Israel.

Hezbollah's primary patron, Iran, is trying to give Hezbollah even longer range weapons, so the rest of Israel can be targeted. Iran is also apparently dedicated to developing nuclear weapons, and has a president who has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Israelis.

In short, Israelis face an extremely serious genocidal threat from the Islamists. If they do not crush the Islamists, it's hard for me to see how Israel can remain viable...and how an Islamist "final solution" can be avoided.

Given this, I find myself wondering if the Israeli response is sufficiently strong.