The same way we justify our invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. They harbor our enemies. Therefore, they are the enemy.

That said, it seems silly to undermine the power of the Lebonese government – they will be even less likely to control Hizbollah now as they divert more of their resources to picking up the mess in their country.

On such perennials, we sometimes play a game after dinner where you had to sound knowledgeable out the history of a given year, talk at length about it, but actually say nothing substantive. A favourite ploy was to start “there was trouble in Ireland that year…”

I don’t think that’s true, Tim, and I certainly hope it isn’t — because when you are talking about a terrorist organization there simply isn’t a “strong distinction between civilian and soldier.” That distinction is a product of the existence of a state which has an army. If there is no state and no army, but only a heterogenous group of people with varying levels of commitment to violent resistance — and when the people with the deepest commitment to violence make a core strategy of hiding in the midst of the others — a “strong distinction between civilian and soldier” can only be a fiction.

Please understand, I say this not to defend any Israeli actions but only to point out the facts on the ground that must be dealt with. That the civilian/soldier distinction is obliterated among the Palestinians creates a horrific situation that I don’t see a way to deal with; but I am sure that it can’t be dealt with by taking refuge in categories that console but do not describe. Dershowitz’s continuum is a much more accurate descriptive tool; but of course one can accept that tool without drawing the conclusions that Dershowitz draws about its implications for Israeli response.

Jonathan, yeah, I’m picking up some of the same news now myself, reading deeply about it all. But even given that Hizbollah is essentially using Lebanon as a giant human shield, and that this action is deeply premeditated, there’s still a pragmatic reason for Israel to think twice about this. In South Africa, there were scenes of South African nationals arriving home in tears from Lebanon; I’m sure that’s been true all over the world. Beirut had just rebuilt itself: destroying it again is not mere “collateral damage”. Arguably what Israel most needs is a strong Lebanon, able to command its own territory on behalf of its own citizens: does this help accomplish that?

Derhsowitz makes several distinctions in his piece:

(a) “There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between [1] a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and [2] a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets.”

(b) “There is also a difference between [1] a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and [2] one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.”

(c) “Finally, there is a difference between [1] civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and [2] civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm’s way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.”

Dershowitz clearly thinks that Israel is justified in making war on Hezbollah, even if some innocent people are killed — about which he may be right or may be wrong. He also, equally clearly, says that “Every civilian death is a tragedy,” but obviously thinks that a1 and c1 above are a hell of a lot more tragic than a2, b2, and c2, with b1 being in an unclear position.

I have some problems with Dershowitz’s distinctions. For instance, I’m sure at least some people who “allow” their houses to be used to store rockets don’t believe that they have a choice, and indeed probably don’t (they are virtually, if not in the most literal sense, kidnap victims). And second, if — and this is Dershowitz’s main argument — the media have some responsibility to distinguish among these various kinds of civilians, what obligation do the Israeli armed forces have? Can they do a better job of making the distinctions than they have so far? I suspect so. But let’s confront the argument that Dershowitz is actually making, rather than turning him into a straw man just because straw men are easier to burn.

Actually, reading that article I wondered if what we need is a new Truman Doctrine: a pledge to aid, with blood and treasure, democracies threatened by totalitarian theocratic subversion. It would make more sense than “war on terror” and probably get closer to the roots of the problem. Though this time I think we should try to be a bit more pro-democratic rather than simply anti-communist….

I’m not claiming to have a good answer to terrorism. I have some questions.