"Similarly, it's surely occurred to most Israelis that one way they could "solve" the Palestinian problem would be to deport or kill the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank. Israel doesn't do this, however, because that would be unambiguously wrong."

Well, it could be argued that Israel doesn't do this not because it would be unambiguously wrong. On the contrary there is a lot of support in public opinion and Israeli political parties for just such an option. Israel doesn't do just fully ethnically cleanse the Palestinians on the West Bank because the EU, on whose economy Israel is entirely dependent, would cut off all trade etc in the case of open mass ethnic cleansing.

(I dont think that the US political system would prevent Israel from doing this or punish Israel afterwards, by the way).

I've always found Dershowitz very disappointing when he chimes in on politics. I expect to disagree with him, but his arguments are always so increadibly flimsy - for such a noted lawyer to be so full of holes is interesting. In his book on Terrorism he winds up both opposing and advocating violence against civilians as alternately the scourge of and sollution to terrorism.

I generally wind up wondering if he sees how ridiculous his arguments are, and is advancing them for lack of anything better, or if he is really that confused.

Yeah, Dershowitz rationalizes terrorism against civilians with exactly the same argument as Bin Laden.

I doubt Dershowitz is proposing an imperative along the lines of, "You may kill anybody in a given area, so long as you gave some some advance notice to leave."

Of course not. He would phrase it as follows:

"You may kill anybody [living near opponents of Israel] in a given area, so long as you gave some some advance notice to leave."

Perfectly universalizable.

There was going to be a war eventually. Hezbollah wouldn't stand for extended peace. Their philosophy is the destruction of a nearby nation. Their military ability is used in furtherance of their goals. Hezbollah commited numerous acts of war without a self-defense argument. The Lebanese government could not or would not stand up to Hezbollah and Syria. Israel wasn't going to let Hezbollah commit acts of violence forever. We all knew this war was likely. We just didn't know exactly when.

If you've got a missile in your living room you're a combatant. If it is because Hezbollah forcibly won't let you leave then you're a victim of Hezbollah. There is no "Rule of war" that allows Hezbollah to use it's "Own people" as human shields.

I completely disagree with Dershowitz, but I think there is an obvious difference between Israel and a mugger, Israel and the Sudanese Government, and Israel and Hezbollah. Mainly the question of self-defense.

You can argue that Israel's actions are not proportionate, you can argue that they are not effective and are quite possibly self-destructive, and you can argue that Israel's actions are horrible and perhaps even a war crime, but it is a bizarre analysis to argue that Israel is a mugger, or a government cleansing its own people as is happening in Sudan.

If you examine the crimesofwar website, it is clearly the case that what is happening in Southern Lebanon is a displacement, and possibly illegal, but it seems to fail the test for ethnic cleansing. Ask yourself, does Israel want this area in Lebanon ethnically pure for Jews? Does it want it ethnically pure of Shiites so that Sunnis may live there? Does it want it ethnically devoid of Muslims so that Christians could live there? Or does it want it vacant only while it tries to destroy Hezbollah?

The Crimes of War website is actually pretty interesting.

Civilians, Illegal Targeting of, Joel Greenberg

Internal Displacement, Maud S. Beelman

Ethnic Cleansing, Roger Cohen

I think you can make the argument that Israel's actions are war crimes, but in doing so, I think you are wrong to make the analogy that Israel is taking the part of the mugger, or even guilty of ethnic cleansing.

Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings spammer.

if one argues that, unlike a mugger, one's killed a civilian in self-defense, than by definition that person wasn't a civilian.

Ignoring the reports, just for this one argument alone, of the sheer numbers of civilians killed I think your argument fails to understand the errorful nature of war.

A mugger stands in front of you. He takes a willful action to stab or shoot you.

In war, it is just not that simple. There can be mistakes made (order comes too late or an order is misinterpreted or a target is mistakenly identified). There can be technical errors (we have dropped precision guided missiles with dead batteries, missiles go off target). There can be legitimate legal self-defense that entails the deaths of innocents (a 2000lb non-precision bomb is dropped onto a missile on a launch pad with a 40-70 mile range, the size of the bomb hurts innocents in the neighborhood.)

None of this makes or requires Dershowitz's argument that some civilians aren't civilians. All of this understands that war is really fucked. (Apologies for using a naughty word, I understand that upsets some people to the point of moderating posts.)

To make the argument that Israel is acting as a mugger will require judgments of hindsight and evidence of testimony, rules of engagement, understanding of the communications lines, orders, stuff like that.

My understanding, poor that it is, is that innocent civilians may be legally killed during an act of war or self-defense under various circumstances that may apply here. You may not like that. I do not like that.

Sadly for us all, deciding that something is self-defense or not, or a war crime or not, is not black and white, and is a question that is answered in a court of law.

Since the BBC and the Washington Post both report that this war started on July 12th when Hezbollah launch Katyusha rockets across the border with Israel, targeting the town of Shlomi (and here), and since firing rockets on civilians when there is no war makes for a far easier war crime to prove than making the case that Israel is the mugger, I wonder why so many bloggers and commenters are not calling for the immediate arrest and trial of the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

Isn't he the mugger you are seeking?

Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings spammer.

The bomb may have been made in the USA, but it was signed by Israeli children (see this remarkable photo from The Guardian).

The only question in my mind: where on the Dersh's "continuum of civilianality" do we find Marty Peretz's "cheerleaders and camp followers?"

Warren, for the moment we'll put aside everything else you wrote (although i must say, the argument that war is hell thereby justifies eveerything is quite disgusting) and simply cut to the chase: is israel better off now than it was one minute after the hezbollah attack on the tank?

and if it isn't, which i sincerely believe, then what exactly are you defeding? israel being worse off?

The Janjaweed are traditionally nomadic Baqqara Arabs, while the non-Arab but Muslim Fur are pastoralists. I'm afraid the janjaweed wouldn't want land. At best, they don't want farms and fences interfering with their customs. An intermediate position is they want subsidies from Arabicists.

At the worst, they are simply looking for loot and slaves. Supporting that position is that Baqqaras, in the mid to late nineties, also carried out ethnic cleansing of the Nuer and Dinka peoples in south-central Iraq. That is the prime oil-producing area, centered around Bentiu.

Nuer and Dinka, who were traditional enemies, signed a very effective Reconciliation Agreement in 1999, and rather dramatically began supporting one another.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*