I'm not sure I agree with Dan that Israeli bombing later in this campaign will be worse than the bombing earlier. Targets hit in the first few days of the campaign still seem to be to have been selected pursuant to an Israeli theory that holding Lebanon accountable for the actions of its nationals operating from its territory was the quickest way to get the Lebanese government and all the Lebanese that are not Hezbollah followers to disarm Hezbollah.

The tactics founded on that theory can be changed, and I think it likely they will be as it becomes obvious even to Israeli naval and air force commanders that the theory is wrong. It is a matter of practicality, not morality; indeed, the Israeli's mistaken idea about inducing Lebanon to live up to its responsibilities represents the same kind of academic reasoning-from-what-should-be as Bainbridge's anguishing about how just war theory applies to the Israeli air campaign.

"It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but they won't die." -- Dov Weisglass, an adviser to the Israeli prime minister.

Israel is targeting civilian infrastructure ranging from power plants to food terminals. There is utterly no way this kind of behavior, and more to the point, the despicable motives behind it as exemplified by Weisglass, can be considered a component of a just war.

War is hell but Israel has been harming its own strategic advantages as it has been dropping flyers warning civilians to leave the area, thus giving Hizbollah warning of imminannt attacks. Israel is in so-called civilian areas for the sole reason that Hizbollah, a militant terrorist organization that target civilians, hides in these civilian areas. The airport was not a solely civilian target as it serves as a supply point for Hizbollah where they receive arms from Syria and, especially, Iran. Even the Human Rights Watch organization has noted that Hizbollah is intentionally targeting civilians which is a violation of international law. Hizbollah shot rockets into civilian areas in Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers, which is caussus belli. Israel is showing a tremendous amount of restaint in a war that it did not start. Remember, Israel withdrew to the internationally recognized border (certified by the UN) and Hizbollah has been in violation of legally binding UN resolutions. Yet, as soon as Israel came in, Hizbollah moved into southern Lebanon and the Israeli border. I remember standing in northern Israel and WITHOUT BINOCULORS could see Hizbollah flags on Lebanese apartment buildings. Hizbollah is a member of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese government has not brought their military force into Southern Lebanon to replace Hizbollah.

War is hell but Israel has been harming its own strategic advantages as it has been dropping flyers warning civilians to leave the area, thus giving Hizbollah warning of imminannt attacks. Israel is in so-called civilian areas for the sole reason that Hizbollah, a militant terrorist organization that target civilians, hides in these civilian areas. The airport was not a solely civilian target as it serves as a supply point for Hizbollah where they receive arms from Syria and, especially, Iran. Even the Human Rights Watch organization (http://hrw.org/) has noted that Hizbollah is intentionally targeting civilians which is a violation of international law. Hizbollah shot rockets into civilian areas in Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers, which is caussus belli. Israel is showing a tremendous amount of restaint in a war that it did not start. Remember, Israel withdrew to the internationally recognized border (certified by the UN) and Hizbollah has been in violation of legally binding UN resolutions. Yet, as soon as Israel came in, Hizbollah moved into southern Lebanon and the Israeli border. I remember standing in northern Israel and WITHOUT BINOCULORS could see Hizbollah flags on Lebanese apartment buildings. Hizbollah is a member of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese government has not brought their military force into Southern Lebanon to replace Hizbollah.

Dan,

Your characterization of my post isn't accurate. First, I should say that the bulk of the post is a report of a paper by David Rodin, which addresses the general question of asymmetric warfare (rather than the current situation). Second, Rodin's position is emphatically NOT that the jus in bello constraints be relaxed to permit groups like Hezbollah to act as they do. Rather, he proposes that the asymmetry between their position as irregulars and conventional armies be addressed by holding conventional armies to stricter constraints (higher standards of care concerning possible civilian casualities).

Nowhere in the post do I argue that Hezbollah and Hamas tactic are consistent with jus in bello, and I don't see how you could have read the post as saying that.

It is just stupid to discuss the idea of "just war". Leaving out my views on Israel specifically, "just war" theory itself is a joke. This stupid theory is just a way for dominent powers to rationalize their attacking poor and weak countries. They need to moralize their madness so they call it "just war". But no war is just and anyone who argues otherwise is justifying murder. Bin Laden is as just as Bush. They are both fighting their own phantoms and killing thousands (in Bush's case, hundreds of thousands) in the process. I don't care what theory they use to rationalization and try justify their barbaric behavior, it doesn't matter, it is insane.

But no war is just and anyone who argues otherwise is justifying murder.

But some war is just, and not all killing is murder. Speaking abstractly for the moment and not referring to any side in the Middle East, self-defense is justified. Killing your attacker in self-defense is justified if there's no other way to defend yourself. Fighting a war in self-defense is just.

----

Rather, he proposes that the asymmetry between their position as irregulars and conventional armies be addressed by holding conventional armies to stricter constraints (higher standards of care concerning possible civilian casualities).

I've only read Chris's summary of Rodin's piece on CT -- not Rodin's piece itself -- but on the face of it, that doesn't make any sense. Jus in bello doctrine holds both sides to the same standard. The fact that some "irregulars" fail to live up to that standard surely can't be a reason to hold the conventional army fighting them to an even higher standard.

I'm not sure I agree with Dan that Israeli bombing later in this campaign will be worse than the bombing earlier. Targets hit in the first few days of the campaign still seem to be to have been selected pursuant to an Israeli theory that holding Lebanon accountable for the actions of its nationals operating from its territory was the quickest way to get the Lebanese government and all the Lebanese that are not Hezbollah followers to disarm Hezbollah.

I seriously doubt that was the idea.

The Israelis have to be aware of the relative strengths of Hizbullah and the Lebanese military- the lebanese aren't going to disarm Hizbullah by force because they can't. If they tried, Hizbullah would win the fight and Lebanon would be back in a civil war. The Israelis have to be aware of this- they fought Hizbullah for years without winning, and the Lebanese military isn't anywhere near the Israeli military's level.

Now, destroying certain kinds of infrastructure that Hizbullah can use makes sense, and IMO is justifiable, even if parties other than Hizbullah make use of it. It's dual-use infrastructure, if you'll excuse the term- useful to both civilians and combatants- and Israel's need to cut Hizbullah off from resupply and reinforcement is legitimate.

Hezbollah's kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers is definitely not a war crime. Its indiscriminate use of rockets that attack civilian areas probably is a war crime.

On the other hand, Israel has much better targeting ability than Hezbollah and I agree that they're skating pretty close to the war crime area in some of their targets. The airport attack justification is clearly totally bogus. FOr one, most reports suggest that weapons come in via land from Syria. For another, Israel can most definitely implement an air blockade if that is the concern.

Heres some irony for you. Turkey lost 15 policemen and soldiers in an attack by Kurdish guerillas. They want to attack North Iraq Kurdish bases and the US is asking them to stop. Where are all the commentators saying that Turkey has the full right to attack North iraq ? Or even bomb Baghdad airport ?

but on the face of it, that doesn't make any sense.

You might not agree with it, but it surely makes _sense_ . Rodin is proposing a revision of jus in bello, so it can't be an objection to his view _merely to state_ that jus in bello as it currently stands places symmetrical requirements on "sides". He addresses the thought that requirement must be reciprocal, and rejects it.

Wow, if anyone ever sees joe m. about to get murdered, I guess you better not intervene, since it isn't justifiable...

Anyway, I get the feeling that most people won't ever feel Israel has the right to do anything at all. Perhaps after one of the countries in the region drops a nuke on Israel, maybe then they would be "just" in dropping a few bombs themselves. As long as they don't kill any civilians, of course.

There's nothing new here. Israel is consistently held to a higher standard. For disinterested parties to think that they have the right to dictate to Israel how it is permitted to defend itself is ridiculous arrogance.

I don't have a dog in this fight. But it is beyond my understanding how any fair minded person can fail to see who is the aggressor here. What's unusual is that the weaker side is the aggressor.

Israel's very existence is contingent on Arab ineptitude. If they had the power to destroy Israel they would do so. And there wouldn't be any discussion, nor any recriminations about it.

I'm so tired of people's hollow moralism when they act as if war can be avoided. As if Israel and the United States are so barbaric and their reasons for going to war is always invented. This post-modern kind of thinking: (wars must always be just, never hit civilians (instead of "aim at civilians), don't ever hurt a country's infrastructure, do pin-prick strikes and go to the bargaining table, depend on the UN, and "treat assymetrical terrorists and the states that harbor them as you would have them treat you" is absurd.

As an African (Congolese) who has seen evil close up and who understands that there are people who want to destroy civilization just out of racist, prejudice, delusional ideas-- I cannot believe how many geo-political problems in the West are created by this "kindler, gentler warfare" that you try to practice.

In the end, it actually makes things far worse. It allows, for instance, China and Russia (and much of Western Europe) to never take responsibility and to actually profit from the chaos-makers while back-stabbing (and being utterly dependent) on the United States. All countries (other than the USA and Israel) are allowed to operate with this hollow moralism.

But of course Israel and the USA, which are the only countries well-equipped to deal with the Islamic Fascist threat, are held to incredibly high standards.

I think that Bush has erred by trying to make the Iraq invasion (kindler and gentler) promising to rebuild the country and ushering in Democracy. All these things that further put the burden on the THREATENED country and not on the people where the threat originated.

It seems "civil" the way that these Western countries view war, but in the end, you are just ensuring that this war against assymetrical terrorists, failed states that harbor terrorists, and the spread of islamic fascism will continue for a long time.

The gloves never really come off and the day of reckoning never arrives for many of these failed-states. The West will pay the price for this, and ultimately the people in those failed-states will as well.

Sorry, explaining myself in English is not so easy, but I hope it can be seen that I admire the West but think its naivete about human nature makes its international relations problems much bigger in the end.

The USA especially, is deeply unappreciated for all that it does for so much of the world. And the world is currently taking advantage of this in a big way.

There is no way that the Isreali response to a kidnapping of two of its soldiers relates in any way to Cathoic doctrine on what constitutes a just war. There's no getting past the problem of proportionate response.

But reading this (pardon the source -- I'm in a hurry) may help put this all in perspective. Contra Joe M., Catholic doctrine has rarely been supportive of any of the US wars (including, remember, Iraq, WWI, the Civil War). If one wants to debate the justice of a specific war, and one regards waging unilateral War as being legitimate, don't bother with the Catholics. They will not be supporting you.

Isn't Walzer pretty much always ambiguous? Great buildups, no payoff.

Thank you, Obimpe. That someone besides me sees and understands what is going on is cause for hope.

Obimpe, well said.

Thanks for the post.

diminishing marginal returns.

Dont always apply. If youre building a railroad from new york to Chicago, the last mile doesnt have a lower return than the first mile, it has a far HIGHER incremental return.

Alternatively, pulling off a bandage is best done all at once, as fast as possible.

The paucity of good targets at the end of the campaign will have to be balanced against the major loss in benefits from allowing Hezbollah the critical mass with which to recover.

How many civilian deaths out weigh the kidnapping of two soldiers...we are at 600 and counting? How about 6000 or 60,000? How will the outcomes of this endeavor be better than they were in 1982?

I think you are confusing the questions of whether the war is just and whether Israel is fighting it justly. The quote you have from Prof. Bainbridge does not, contrary to your headline, say that the war is unjust; it only questions Israel's methods.

What preposterous nonsense. The notion of proportionality does NOT refer to applying equal means to equal means, but rather to matching ends. Clearly the ends sought by Israel ARE proportional. The stated goal of Hezbollah is the total destruction of Israel, this is an unlimited political aim. The stated goal of the Israeli assault is to degrade Hezbollah’s capability to conduct military operations against Israel, a limited goal. By just war standards, it is Hezbollah that is acting disproportionately.

We can’t just invent facts. If infrastructure is used by the enemy, it is a legitimate object of war. That’s codified in the Geneva Conventions and the long-standing rules and customs of war back to even ancient times. Dan, you are simply making up standards as you go along. If Lebanon wants to protect infrastructure, the Geneva Conventions provide a way: declare open cities. But to know about open cities, you’d probably have to actually READ the conventions, something liberals and leftists seem to strenuously avoid.

Obimpe is entirely correct about double standards. Guerilla warfare was called ‘protracted warfare’ by Mao. This method of war always seeks to extend a conflict so as to produce the highest expenditure of resources and lives. Hezbollah are the world’s greatest experts in protracted war. They know that by extending a conflict and producing the highest numbers of civilian casualties, they can usually attain their political goals. Why? Because the surrender-monkeys of the West will blame all the bloodshed on the Western power, and tacitly excuse the perfidious guerilla. Balderdash.

Most Hezbollah fighters operate out of uniform; they hide amongst civilian populations; they impersonate civilians, UN personnel, and medical personnel; they do not follow the rules and customs of war; they intentionally target civilians; they intentionally target medical personnel; they routinely execute POWs. Damage to infrastructure and the unintentional death of civilians are the result of Hezbollah perfidy; hence, the blame and responsibility ought to lie with them as well.

Ooops, I erred in my post above. Where I wrote 'Dan,' I should have written 'Stephen.' My criticisms were of Bainbridge's article.

Apologies.

Well put, Jeff.

how about, rather then talk about whether the fighting qualifies as some abstract notion like a "just war", why don't you discuss whether it qualifies as concrete ones like "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity". It seems, the UN's top human rights official thinks it is a war crime.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour :
"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable. International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities. This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. International law demands accountability. The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control."

"Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."

In which case not only are Bush and Blair war criminals, but so are all the heads of state who supported the war in afghanistan, the first (UN approved) war in Iraq, the Kosovo war, and most certainly all the allied heads of state from World war 2. Including the men and women who wrote the UN charter.

Her assertion is an absurdity on its face.

In Just and Unjust Wars, discussing guerrilla wars (as the Vietnam War was fresh in memory), Walzer comes pretty near to arguing something like this.
A. Guerrillas are fish that swim in a civilian sea, and depend upon political support from the people. (Leaving aside the extent to which guerrillas extract support by coercive means.)
B. You can't separate guerrilla soldiers from or tell them apart from civilians, who are presumptively immune from attack.
C. Therefore outside powers mustn't attempt to suppress guerrillas (at least in situations like Vietnam, where they've pretty much irreversibly won an essentially political struggle). If they do, they will likely fail (military force can't win political struggles) and they unavoidably kill many innocent civilians--massisvely violate the central tenet of jus in bello.

I should think that a similar argument would apply in southern Lebanon, where Hezabollah has embedded itself as very much a movement of the people.

Yet it's of course also true that that no state can be expected to sustain rockets hitting its people and do nothing in response.

Yet again, why should any people aspiring to independence suffer the frustration of their hopes and the heaping upon them of one injustice and indignity after another that Israel has visited upon the Palestinians?

Yet again....

I should have noted also that it's a central theme of Just and Unjust Wars that the right of the innocent emanates, so to speak, from them, not any external source. Hence it and its correlative duties apply with equal stringency to both sides in a conflict--regardless of the justice of their cause, perhaps also regardless of whether they happen to have an alternative (to taking innocent life) available to them.

It may be worth reading Michael Oren's piece in the New Republic from a few days ago -- http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060717&s=oren071706

To bad Arabs ain't embryos.

Israeli aggression on Lebanon

Gruesome pictures, not work friendly.

I can't help thinking of Tom Schelling. One of his thought experiments has to do with two negotiators. The first goes in, "I'm a reasonable guy. I really want to come to a mutually beneficial agreement, yada, yada, yada." This may make for a quick, successful session if the other guy decides to act the same way.

But he may not. He may think, "This guy really wants an agreement. He will be willing to give up an awful lot. Besides, being a reasonable person, he knows that he stands to gain something even from a very one-sided agreement and he will be willing to take it." That gives negotiator 2 a lot of power.

Negotiator number 1 is screwed. Unless... The next negotiating session, he says, "I thought we made progress last time but when I took our discussions back to my boss, he went ballistic. He is such an unreasonable asshole. He said he wants this; he said he wants that. He said no deal is better than a bad deal and what I came back with was terrible. I'm sorry, my hands are tied." Suddenly, negotiator 1 has a lot more power.

I wonder if Israel's "disproportionate" reaction here is a way of saying, "We're not reasonable people looking for an agreement anymore. We're assholes. Deal with it."

Joe M., for forty years, Palestinian and Lebanese guerilla forces have
intentionally target civilians, mostly "soft targets" like schoolchildren
and the elderly. NOT ONCE has the UN called for war crimes prosecution. Not
once!

Moreover, in the laws of war, there is NO SUCH THING as "civilian
infrastructure." Liberals and leftist, following their usual strategy, just
made this term up, and then claimed it has legal status. The press
lets it pass unchallenged.

The Geneva Conventions actually specify "civilian objects" which have a
negative definition. Here it is from Protocol I Additional of the Geneva Conventions:
[quote]
Art. 52. General Protection of civilian objects
1.Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
[end quote]

Hezbollah uses the electric infrastructure to power their missile systems,
communicate, and provide life support functions in deep underground bunkers.
Hezbollah, by impersonating civilian vehicles, uses the road transportation
system to establish lines of communication. Hezbollah, uses port and airport
facilities to resupply. Therefore, these are all military objectives, and
have no standing as civilian objects.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour errs when she makes claims about Israeli war crimes. Her error is twofold. First, Ms. Arbor misunderstands the law. Read the GC for yourself.

[quote]
Art. 51. - Protection of the civilian population
[snip]
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
[end quote]

Second, Ms. Arbor errs by not applying the law equally. The UN has never, ever called for war crimes prosecution of Hezbollah or the ruling powers of the Palestinians for INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians for forty years! This clearly shows the anti-Israel bias in the UN and the “humanitarian community” in general.

The Left doesn’t recognize the great risk in their selective outrage. If humanitarian law only serves to disadvantage Western powers, you can be sure that humanitarian law will not long survive in the West. If the Geneva Conventions constrain Western powers only, they will not long survive in the West. The Left is playing a dangerous game that will have undesirable, long-term consequences.

Neither humanitarian law nor the laws of land warfare make perfidious, guerilla fighters invulnerable to attack by conventional forces. Ms. Arbor is indulging in pure nonsense, a habit of senior UN personnel.

Here is a well-written piece on the application of just war doctrine by a Catholic priest posted approvingly at a Protestant minister's website:

http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2006/07/20/fighting-the-wolves-at-the-gate/

The more this War on Terror/War on Islamic Fundamentalism/Whatever you want to call it goes on, the more clear it becomes that the Left is utterly immoral and insane.

Debating Israel's Right to bomb an airport, or weapons that a terrorist organization chooses to hide in civilian areas, or whether Western, rich militaries should be held to a higher standard (why? to make the fight more fair? To introduce a handicap, like a horserace? Because a society led my Hizbollah is better than one led by a Western democracy?), to point out Israels mistaken killing of 100 (100! One bomb in Iraq kills more than 100 people) civilians while ignoring terrorist intentional (intentional! Not accidental, or unfortunate, but INTENTIIONAL) targetting of civilians with rockets, is not hurting Israel, its not hurting the West, its not hurting the US. Its hurting the Left. The Left has devolved to the muttering lunatic in the corner-be polite, but slowly back away, try not to say anything to set him off, and get real work done elsewhere.

All my life, I haven't understood how Hitler could have happened. Now I do.

Steve

"I still don't think the argument is persuasive, however, since it basically rewards a group like Hezbollah for pursuing an asymmetric strategy."

Whereas the status quo rewards Israel for being richer and better-armed so that they are able to be more specific in their targeting.

Realistically, if Israel's technology was knocked back by 50 years, their targeting wouldn't be any better than Hezbollah. Would they then have the same moral standing?

Eek! Eek! The Left! The Left!

Who exactly is The Left in this context? To what extent is it American as opposed to European? With respect to the Middle East, does it bear any relation to the former protracted sponsorship of the Palestinian cause (though not of Hezbollah) by the Soviet Union? Does it include prominent commentators long skeptical of American support of Israel, like Robert Novak and Patrick Buchanan (I have to say this seems unlikely to me)? What relation does it bear to the historic self-identification of most of Israel's strongest American supporters as liberal Democrats? Is membership in The Left automatic for anyone who has a low opinion of George Bush? Of Ehud Ohlmert? Why?

I have no objection to using The Left as a descriptive phrase, but we ought to have some idea what it means. I would hate to think that people are only using it as a means of negative self-identification, a shorthand phrase for the kind of people they are not like.

Steve -- I have two words for you. Neville Chamberlain. And too more. Lord Halifax. The most right wing British PM of the 20th century, and his loyal Foreign Secretary.

The British fight against Hitler came from moderate Tories and Labour members chucking out Chamberlain and his retinue of defeatists and Nazi sympathizers and working to get the job done under Churchill. Churchill needed Labour votes to get to Number 10 -- or else we might have been stuck with Halifax.

If many conservatives share your idea that the left gave us Hitler, we really are doomed to repeat the exercise.

Besides, do you really think Israel's manic lashing out is going to achieve its desired effect? The Israeli attack is completely indiscriminate. They've even bombed Jounieh -- i.e. their own Phalange Maronite allies.

As of last week, ex-allies.

No -- Israel tried this in 1968, and 1978, and 1982, and throughout the 1990s, and all it has done is breed round after round of ever crazier fundamentalist Islamists. Each step of the way Israel loses allies in Lebanon, and now they've just bombed out their last batch of allies. Given all the history of conflict between Islam and the Catholic church going back to the Moors, Israel has done the unthinkable -- drive a conservative Catholic religious party into vowing not to take up arms against the Islamists.

how about, rather then talk about whether the fighting qualifies as some abstract notion like a "just war", why don't you discuss whether it qualifies as concrete ones like "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity". It seems, the UN's top human rights official thinks it is a war crime.

Well, then, the UN's top human rights official clearly hasn't read the Geneva Conventions.

Fourth Convention, Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

First Protocol, Art. 51, P 7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

First Protocol, Art. 51, P 5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

I've added some emphasis above. In other words, attacks that cause incidental loss of civilian life (or property) are NOT a violation of anything, unless their harm is disproportionate to their military benefit.

I don't think Louise Arbor is especially qualified to assess the military benefit of these tactics, do you?

I agree that Israel's war is most certainly just. But the most important to consider in prolonging it is the diminishing chance of a lasting peace. Why, knowing full well what the consequences would be, did Hezbollah kidnap two soldiers, starting a war they know they cannot win? It is because peace (toward which progress was tentatively being made) robs them of their power, influence and very reason for being. The same goes for Hamas, with the added benefit for them being that intensifying conflict allows them to cover up what a shoddy government they are. With great conflict these groups can feed on the fears and prejudices in the hearts of both the peoples of Lebanon and Palestine as well as the Israelis. It makes them strong. The longer the war goes on, the more people die, the stronger they become.
For more please visit http://ericstake.com and look for the Olmert article.

I agree that even debating the legitimacy of Israel's tactics is grotesque in this situation. We are told over and over again that the population of S. Lebanon just loves Hezbollah and wants to destroy Israel. The attacks only strengthen their resolve, etc. They allow Hezbollah to hide amongst them, to put its missiles in their basements, not because they are being terrorized by the Party of God but because they are sympathetic or are being paid.

So why in the world do we accept that any of these people and their houses aren't legitimate military targets? Of the "civilian" casualties reported, how many are not Hezbollah members? How would you tell, since the enemy does not wear uniforms?

The funny thing is that the Israelis are bending so far over backward in their targeting policy (compared to even the US) that it must be hindering their military effecitveness. They leaflet areas in advance, giving the enemy all the warning it needs. When they hit the power plants, they hit the fuel tanks but not the generators. When they hit the airport, they leave the control towers and terminals and radars intact. The total casualties reported by the enemy are tiny given the intensity of the Israeli effort. Of course, the Israeli restraint is for domestic and international political purposes, but it is undeniable. For outside observers to say that Israel should tie both hands behind its back instead of only one is moral perversion.

Zathras, the word 'Left' has a long-used, well-accepted and very specific meaning. I've noticed that lots of people, mostly American liberals, claim to be unaware of the extent of the definition of ‘left’ or ‘leftist.’ I can’t see how this is possible, but I try to take it seriously anyway.

The OED reports the first political use of ‘left’ in 1837 in Carlyle’s “French Revolution.” The term developed from the habits of continental democrats and liberals, who sat on the left side of the parliamentary house. In modern times, ‘left’ has come to denote the political affiliations of socialism, anarchism, communism, social democracy, neo-liberalism, and social liberalism. Wikipedia has an unusually good explanation of the term.

By American convention, we call socialists ‘progressive’ and social democrats ‘liberals.’ Hence, progressives and liberals are included in the extend of ‘left.’

The concept of just war is irrelevant and ridiculous in todays struggle against terrorism.Terrorists have no concern about human rights of any kind.How can we if we want to survive? The terrorism of recent decades has been a slow, painful education for the western world about this unpleasant reality.Concession A to bring peace leads to greater attack B which leads to carefully calibrated response C which brings another attack-and we're told it's all our fault because we didn't lick muhammeds's boots with enough fervor.Well,f*ck that.It's all leading to final act Z where the west-or maybe just the US-does what they want to do to us-total and complete warfare that will end this problem forever and all time.

Dan, you say: "This is simply the law of diminishing marginal returns. Over time, Israel will exhaust the set of "high-quality" targets for Hezbollah and start bombing more marginal targets. "

This may be true for an air campaign only, but could it be the case that the air campaign together with commando incursions, plus a possible ground force, might produce ongoing intelligence about further "high value" targets? After all, some of the highest value targets are the leadership bunkers buried underground.

On May 14, 1948, modern day Israel was born. Within days, its Arab neighbors attacked the Jewish state, and Israel has technically been at war ever since. There has been no peace for Israel or the Palestinian pawns that have languished for decades because Islam refused to accept that Israel has a right to exist.
The heads of several Arab countries have infuriated Islamic leaders by recognizing Israel as a legal state. These leaders saw the futility of the constant fighting and killing that often spilled over into their own countries. But even political leaders fear the Islamic powers within their own borders and have not stopped the massive transfer of weapons, money, and even men to the Palestinian leaders to carry on the fight.
King Abdullah of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt have been condemned by Islamic leaders across the Arab world for accepting Israel. Islamic leaders in both Jordan and Egypt have declared that Israel must be destroyed. America and England must also be destroyed for supporting the Jewish state. Hamas followers often take to the streets chanting, “Death to America.”
This is not a fight between Arab and Jew. The free world must understand this is a war between Islam and Judaism and Islam and Western culture. Some people may find this to be a fine distinction, but it is an important one.
FOX News reported that Palestinian refugees blew a hole in the wall erected by Israel to stop the transfer of weapons into Israel from Egypt. Palestinian refugees, some eager to join in the fight, continue to pour through that opening and Egyptian border guards are making no attempt to stop them. Mubarak dares not stop them. If he does, the wrath of the Islamic leaders will be unleashed upon him and he wants no part of that.
But this war is different from others that Israel has been involved in. Previously, Israel has been attacked by one Arab neighbor or another or several at one time. In each case, the Israeli military was up to the challenge. When fighting a conventional war, there is no Arab or Persian military that could beat Israel.
Hamas and Hezbollah use the tactics of cowards. Their fighters surround themselves with children and women. They hide in people’s homes, putting civilians between Israeli soldiers and bombs and themselves. Then, when those innocent civilians are killed, Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic spokesmen wail and cry over their bodies declaring that Israel must be stopped. It is all a well planned and often repeated sham. Yet, the West seems to fall for this sham every time, ignoring the death rained down on a daily basis by the enemies of Israel.
One year ago, the world watched as Israeli soldiers dragged Israeli citizens out of their homes in the Gaza strip. The Gaza Strip was the second “occupied territory” being returned to the Palestinians. Southern Lebanon was the first. Later this year Israel had planned to return 90% of the West Bank. It is unlikely now that this will occur.
The reason Israel had occupied southern Lebanon was because Hezbollah used that area constantly to attack the citizens of Israel. A United Nations resolution stated that in return for Israel leaving Lebanon, Hezbollah would be disarmed. Israel kept its part of the agreement in May of 2000. Hezbollah never disarmed. The fragile government of Lebanon seems helpless to stop the rampage of the Islamic terrorist organization. This should have surprised no one. In war, Muslims do not keep agreements and consider anyone that does, a fool.
We now hear the hue and cry from the world at large, and from those who are the cause of this war, Hamas and Hezbollah, that the Israeli response is “disproportionate.” Did the Islamics not know when they crossed onto Israeli land to kidnap their soldiers that Israel was better armed and could, in effect, blast their enemy back to the stone-age if they desired to do so? Did Hezbollah not think that Israel would respond to the kidnapping of their soldiers from Israeli land?
When a war is engaged, is the goal not to win that war? Why should the Israelis have their hands tied behind their backs because a foolish group that is out-gunned on every front decided to pick a fight with them?
Did Japan or Germany keep their superior fighter planes and tanks in reserve until the United States caught up so the fight would not be “disproportionate?”
The Muslim spokespeople are out in force, talking of how the “innocent” civilians are being massacred by the overwhelming forces of the Jewish state. They say nothing of the daily bombings, the suicide bombers, the use of the Gaza strip to launch rockets onto Israeli citizens, or the rockets and missiles being launched from Lebanon deep into Israel. Amazingly, these spokesmen continue to babble on about the return of the “occupied Muslim land.”
Also ignored is the fact that these attacks have gone on for several years. Now, Palestinians go on television and wail about how the soldiers were taken only because the evil Israelis were bombing the Gaza Strip. One must ask why Israel was bombing the Gaza Strip. In the last 11 months, since the return of the Gaza Strip, over 700 rockets have been launched into Israel. That averages two rockets a day. What other country would live under such conditions?
The world was told that if Israel just gave back the “occupied lands” peace would come to the Middle East. That, too, was a lie. Both returned occupied territories were instantly turned into areas to attack Israel with rockets and bombs.
A few words on those “innocent” civilians needs to be said. First, children on both sides are always innocent. But the adults must be responsible for their decisions. The Palestinians, finally free from the tyrannical Arafat, elected yet another terrorist group, Hamas, to lead them. They are now paying for that decision. It is difficult to have great pity for a people who continually make bad choices. Even now, as they lay in the dark, many in shacks, with little food and even less hope, they go to the streets to cheer on the very group that has lead them to such misery. The Palestinians cheer Hezbollah even as their Lebanese brothers and sisters pay the price.
There is only way to end this endless fighting. Hezbollah and Hamas must be destroyed. Both groups must be disarmed and defanged. The leaders must be arrested, imprisoned, or killed. Israel has the means to carry this out. The world must step back and allow Israel to break the backs of its enemy. It must be done. In the long run, more people will die if Israel is stopped, once again, from obliterating those that have sworn to drive every Jew into the sea. It may sound cruel and heartless, but neither Hamas nor Hezbollah nor Islam has any heart. Let the Israelis drive a stake in the heart of the devil that has vowed to destroy them and perhaps then, there will peace at last
This guy knows the right;http://tiredofitall-israelsright.blogspot.com/

how about, rather then talk about whether the fighting qualifies as some abstract notion like a "just war", why don't you discuss whether it qualifies as concrete ones like "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity". It seems, the UN's top human rights official thinks it is a war crime.

Because the modern concept of a "war crime" is deeply flawed.

It takes no account of the future. If it is possible to end a war now by killing 10,000 people, or to continue it at the expense of 10 million people over the next twenty years, clearly we would choose to kill 10,000 people now. And yet, that might be a war crime where killing 10 million later ould not be.

The Arabs know how to win a war. You kill the enemy, or at least kill enough of them that the survivors become docile.

Imagine, just for a moment, a disarmed Israel. What would happen? Massive killing. Massive. Maybe 3/4 of the Jews in Israel would die. Until, at sometime, the Jewish survivors said "ok, you win". And they would mean it, whatever the cost. And the war would be over, really over.

That's how you end a war.