Mr. Spencer is right. The article is reprehensible. When is an attacked country entitled to bomb back until the attacked country obtains the unconditional surrender of its neighbor?

By any law of morality, Israel should just put the inhabitants on notice that if they do not cease attacking Israel the population will be forcibly removed. Send the murdering Palestinians to their spiritual homeland Saudi Arabia. Make them leave if they refuse to make peace.

Make them move, why not? Who would tolerate a government next door that allows your country to be incessantly attacked without consequences. There is a point at which the attacked country must hold the neighboring people responsible. The attacked country has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens and has a fundamental duty to preserve the fundamental right of its own people to live and be free from an arbitrary murder by the neighbor.

Traditionally one can hold the neighboring people responsible for the acts of their government. Palestinians should be warned to stop firing at Israel or the Gaza area will be dismantled, and Palestinians will be forced to make a permanent Hajj to elsewhere on the Arabian peninsula. We would expect that Israel's retaliation against hamas marauding moslems will by criticized by the moslem unconditionally without regard to right or wrong, but under normative international law, or under the laws that should govern this planet, Israel's exile of Palestinians or their bombing into surrender would be a "just" or moral war particularly given the Palestinian provocation.

Paleo moslems, you have no inherent right to Israel because your prophet dreamed he was in Jerusalem! Also, you should make reparations to the Jews of Israel for murdering the Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayaza and the Banu Qaynuqa.

Posted by: David England at March 2, 2008 8:01 AM

how upset are we supposed to get when the said civilians get caught in the cross-fire that is provoked by the savages they elected?

Palestinians made the bed, now they have to sleep on it.

Posted by: Crusader at March 2, 2008 9:00 AM

Send them packing.. This is not a nation state. It is barbarian rule.

Posted by: lonewolf at March 2, 2008 10:26 AM

Barak checking to see if Israel can hit civlian populations with counter strikes

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204214001556&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Shows how brilliant that Gaza withdrawl was by Sharon.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 2, 2008 10:49 AM

Look, if we worried this much about civillians in World War II, we wouldn't have won that war. It seems that the Israelis have gotten much more adept at killing the rocket crews than they were in Lebanon (although this could also result from a less advantageous terrain for Hamas). A large number of Hamas men are being killed.

Posted by: DavidE at March 2, 2008 10:50 AM

Many experts consider the Allied "strategic bombing" campaign in WW2 to have been a mistake. Certainly, morally speaking, it was. But also militarily: it was a mis-allocation of scarce resources, and of questionable value. German war production increased steadily during the war and peaked at the very end of 1944, despite years of mass-bombing. One better use for the high-altitude, long-range heavy bombers would have been for anti-submarine patrols in the Atlantic. The Admiralty pleaded, in vain, for years, with the RAF to devote some of its bombers to this mission. The RAF adamantly refused, preferring to bomb German apartment buildings located a mile or more from the intended target of an aluminium smelter or shipyard. Only late in the war were some bombers released for anti-sub patrols, and this had an immediate impact on the U-boats. The best use of air-power was in the ground-attack role (using for example the Hurricane or Thunderbolt) in co-ordination with armor, artillery, and infantry. The Germans showed this in their blitzkrieg attacks, and the Allies did likewise in the advance across France.
On the plus side, I suppose the bombing campaign was something of a morale-booster, showing that we were punishing the enemy, even when we were not yet in a position to commit ground forces.
And perhaps it mollified Uncle Joe, showing him that we were committing substantial resources in men and material to the fight.

Posted by: ebonystone at March 2, 2008 12:53 PM

In this case, the Israelis are much more sinned-against than sinning. The Palestinians are firing rockets indiscriminately at Israeli towns, not caring what they hit, like the Germans firing V-1's and V-2's at London. The Israelis are at least trying to hit military targets, which they are much better able to do with modern precision-guided bombs that we were able to do with the "iron bombs" of WW2. Of course, when the target is a rocket-launcher located in some civilian's back yard, collateral damage is unavoidable. That's tough, but it's the fault of the Palestinians more than the Israelis.

Posted by: ebonystone at March 2, 2008 1:07 PM

DavidE said

Look, if we worried this much about civillians in World War II, we wouldn't have won that war.

I had the misfortune to hear the BBC's coverage of this Gaza "clash". Can you imagine if the BBC's coverage of the Battle of the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) had gone on about how many civilians had been killed in the crossfire, never said anything about the Allied soldiers who were fighting and dying to protect us, and had neglected to mention that the Germans had started the war? It's shocking how completely we've lost our moral compass in just a few generations.

Posted by: special_guest at March 2, 2008 2:06 PM

When the enemy tells you that "civilians" were killed, why believe them?

It is only done to undermine the will of the world media's weak-kneed audience.

And, when the "civilians" are allowing rocket launchers and mortars in their gardens, what do they expect in response- bouquets?

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 2, 2008 2:23 PM

What always astounds me is the very poor PR response from Israel, whenever Israel is forced to respond to the 'Philistines' provocations, when Israel is forced to take some form of military action to protect its citizens from these Gaza rockets.

But, look at all the media exposure the Hamas militants continually get, *declaring*, that they and their children's fondest wish, is to die as martyrs.

The repeated attacks....
Hamas fire the rockets into Israel.

Israel responds with punitive actions.

The palestinians then cry, "Look the Israelis!!! They are killing us!!!!"

The Israel media response is usually, "We are are very sorry for any civilian casualties. We always try to target militants."

The proper Israeli PR response should be [something like],
"If you *remember* Hamas, are always telling the world they wish to die as martyrs for Allah.
WHAT ARE THEY NOW COMPLAINING ABOUT?
If they try to kill our citizens, and we kill their martyrs in return, what are the palestinians weeping about????
They declare to the whole world that they WANT TO DIE as martyrs.
And if they persist in their efforts to kill Israeli citizens, well, we can help them.
If Hamas and their supporters in Gaza, do not wish to die as martyrs after all, SIMPLE, stop attacking Israel, and her citizens."

Google
palestinians seek martyrdom
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=palestinians+seek+martyrdom&btnG=Search&meta=

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 2, 2008 2:59 PM

Ah, the ethics of crowds.

Always a puzzler.

What to do when you are confronting a crowd of people,
* most of whom hate you,
* some of whom are trying to kill you,
* some of whom don't give a damn, and
* some of whom might even sympathize with you.

Here's a clue.

Your first moral responsibility is to defend yourself !

===========

I'll add a small twist, in none of these mohammedan border conflicts is there ever a significant contingent of people protesting against their own side, or trying to defend the other guys.

So doesn't that make them all collaborators in the violence?

===========

So who or where are these innocents we keep hearing about supposed to be?

Some guy off in the crowd who's privately thinking "hmmm, this is probably a lousy idea", while waving his arms in the air shouting "Death to the infidel!"

Or maybe the three guys who stayed home from the riot to play cards?

I'm not buying it.

===========

At least the Lebanese, Turks and Persians put up a little bit of a fuss from time to time.

Although I'm pretty skeptical about most of them too.

Posted by: joeblough at March 2, 2008 3:13 PM

"Palestinians made the bed, now they have to sleep on it."

Posted by: Crusader

Could this be something of an over-simplification?
By that logic, Americans would have to content themselves (ourselves) with Bush's crimes, because he got elected to the Presidency. We didn't all vote for him. Many of those of us who did, felt he was the lesser evil.

Please don't get me wrong--I'm decidedly pro-Israel.

I doubt we saw much more than what was on the surface, regarding the Palestinian elections. They didn't seem to have good choices either, and who knows what kind of skulduggery went on, behind the scenes?

Just a thought.

Posted by: Abscedere at March 2, 2008 4:13 PM

Usually when arab agitprops start pulling the strings of their puppets it means that what is being done is affecting them adversely so they switch to their media weapon to get the pressure off of them.

Keep it up Israel, until they cease their murderous ways and say Uncle, and decide to live in peace.

Posted by: stickman at March 2, 2008 4:30 PM

Let's see -

1. You elect Hamas.
2. Hamas peppers Israeli towns with rockets.
3. Israeli defends itself.
4. You're a victim and Israel is the "aggressor".

Do I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you!

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 2, 2008 8:13 PM