The moral layout of the Gaza conflict

Excellent response.

"The Israelis practice selective terrorism; the Palestinians practice random terrorism."

I'm guessing the first "terrorism" is a typographical error. If not, I'd take issue with that.

Also, Hamas has so aggressively blurred the distinctions between civilian and militant that it's hard to imagine Israel fighting them *without* sometimes targeting people who might be called civilians.

If Palestinians want to discuss legitimate--or even illegitimate--territorial claims, they have a sympathetic ear at the U.N. They could do that peaceably, were they really interested in peace. But Gaza is now a proxy state serving the interests of people (Iran) with no territorial claim, who simply want to carry out a genocidal, anti-semitic program.

The contrast between the behavior of Hamas and Israel is clear and stark, and those who choose not to see that lack moral discernment.

Great post.

No, they want to be martyrs for *ll*h.

Even if the Israelis intended to terrorize Gaza with sonic jet booms when they could use gun ships and drones instead it would be terrorizing civilians not Hamas.

But is that the intention of the Israelis, to terrorize Palestinian kids with sonic booms?

I have heard of sonic booms by Israel for pure psychological effect.

Is that terrorizing civilians.

Did it happen yes or no?

The Greenwald article discusses an incident in which, "Israel, a couple of days ago, dropped a 2,000-pound bomb on a Gazan home which killed a top Hamas leader . . . in addition to 18 others, including his four wives and nine of his children."

In the context of the correspondence, the term "terrorism" was used to describe this incident. I worked with it in order to avoid discussion of terminology and focus directly on discussion of actual killings.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Chad,

Don't know where you stand on this, but here's my take.

Sonic booms vs. real rockets with real warheads? I just don't see how using the same label for both is appropriate. Maybe we could call the Israeli practice "scaring," instead of "terrorizing?" Just a thought.

We're talking about thousands of rockets fired--admittedly with mercifully poor aiming systems and few deaths. (Don't know about the injuries, and the terror value.) How many sonic booms have the Israelis inflicted?

Also, I'm not sure that "pure psychological effect" in time of war necessarily constitutes terrorism. Nor, in my opinion, does the collateral killing of civilians who are near legitimate military targets, if no other practical way exists to eliminate the target and it's of significant military value.

So I'd say no, Israel does not use terrorism. They appear to be conscientiously following the rules of war.

Hank

Glen Greenwald will be on Hugh Hewitt today. You can hear it online at http://www.krla870.com. It'll be available late tonight/early tomorrow as a podcast at http://www.hughhewitt.com.

Greenwald makes two kinds of arguments in his article. One is pragmatic--that Israel can't win by waging war with Hamas, because it will create more martyrs than it discourages. (He asserts this repeatedly on the Hewitt program.) This is a point about which reasonable people can differ.

[As an aside, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a Irishman last year in Dusseldorf, Germany. He was objecting to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and said "You lot have to learn that you can't bomb people into submission." I thought it was an ironic point to make to an American standing in Dusseldorf.]

The other thing Greenwald does is employ a shifting moral equivalence. On the one hand, he acknowledges that Hamas are terrorists but ascribes the same to the Israeli's by virtue of their use of force. But then he turns around and excuses Hamas for its use of terror on the grounds that they're a downtrodden people. (Interestingly, he never mentions Israel's existential battle, which began the day it was founded, and the impact that must have on Israeli psyches.)

Finally, he ends on an almost amusingly MSN-ish note. He complains that Israel won't let journalists into Gaza, asserting that this must be because they don't want us to see that the Palestinians are real people. But then, as an example of the terrible images we might see were journalists allowed in, he uses a discredited story of an "Israeli attack" in a Gaza marketplace that turns out really to be (by his own admission) the results of the accidental self-detonation of a Hamas rocket transport.

Does he not understand that such images carry real geopolitical significance, and that the Palestinians and their media enablers have a long history of the use of fraudulent imagery to generate sympathy? Might that be part of why Israel is reluctant to allow "journalists" into Gaza?

Read these post I wrote regarding Islam and the Palestinians. You will see that the true agressors are the Palestinians and Muslims.
The MSM will not cast blame on Hamas, they are in bed with these terrorist,

http://workingclassview.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/04/what_is _a_disproportionate_use_of_force.thtml

http://workingclassview.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/06/they_ar e_all_cowards.thtml

http://workingclassview.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/07/civil_r ights_for_muslims_is_a_farce.thtml

http://workingclassview.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/08/islam,_ the_religion_of_thiefs_and_liars.thtml

http://workingclassview.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/09/joe_the _plumber_now_joe_the_reporter_and_other_commentary.thtml