The New York Review dated June 11 continues a debate about Israel and the Rules of War between  on one side Avishai Margalit and Michael Walzer and on the other  Asa Kasher an Israeli  Philosophy professor and General Amos Yadlin .

The gist of the debate is this : Kasher and Yadlin argue that the IDF  behaves justly because he does not intend to harm civilians; Margalit and Walzer argue that's not enough,  it should intend not to harm them. 

Is this a worthwhile discussion? Of course. They should care, It's good that the Chief of the IDF's Intelligence feels deeply about getting this right. But useless.

Wars to reprise a saying of the 60s are "unsafe for human beings and all other forms of life" Whatever the justice of the cause (as if we aren't capable of convincing ourselves that what we want to do , we should do) and whatever the committment to fighting  Just War, all wars end with Abu Ghraibs and Andersonvilles , with  missiles fired aimlessly at Siderots and a television commentator trying to direct his country's forces to save the life of a young woman whose father regularly saves lives in the attacker's hospital.

What do I recommend instead? Don't ask? There's no way of making it better. But lose the condemnation of the warriors. On all sides. They're doing what they always do sooner or later once a War begins..