The aim of the IDF ethics code is to strike a coherent and morally plausible position that provides Israel with the effective tools to protect its citizens and win the war while also setting the proper moral limits that have to be met while legitimately securing its citizens. In debating the code, I heard many times that it imposes constraints upon Israeli action that would limit the capacity of the army to win the battle and to provide security. In fact, the moral constraints and the strategic goals are mutually reinforcing. Radical groups such as Hamas start their struggle with little support from their population, which tends to be more moderate. They increase their base of support cynically, by murdering Israeli civilians and thereby goading Israel into an overreaction (this is not to deny, of course, that Israel can choose not to overreact) in a way that ends up causing suffering to the Palestinian civilians among whom the militants take shelter. The death and the suffering of the civilian Palestinian population, in the short run, is a part of the Hamas strategy, since it increases the sympathy of the population with the movement’s aims. An Israeli overreaction also leads to the shattering of Israel’s moral legitimacy in its own struggle. In a democratic society with a citizen’s army, any erosion of the ethical foundation of its soldiers and its citizens is of immense political and strategic consequence.
And so, Israel’s goal in its struggle with Hamas and Hezbollah is to reverse their attempt to strengthen themselves politically by means of their morally bankrupt strategy. Rather than being drawn into a war of all against all and everywhere, Israel has sought to isolate the militants from their environment: to mark them and “clothe” them with a uniform, and to force them to a definite front. The moral restraints in this case are of great strategic value. I am convinced, for this reason, that targeted killing, especially of the militants’ leadership, is an effective and legitimate endeavor. It is for this same reason that I believe that Israel’s siege of Gaza, and its harsh effect upon general civilian life, is morally problematic and strategically counterproductive.
II.
In accordance with the just war tradition in Western history and philosophy, three principles are articulated in the IDF code concerning moral behavior in war. The first is the principle of necessity. It requires that force be used solely for the purposes of accomplishing the mission. If, for example, a soldier has to break down the door of a home in order to search for a suspected terrorist, he has no right to smash the TV set on his way in: Such gratuitous use of force has no relation to the mission. This is a straightforward principle, professionally and morally, though its implementation might be complicated if the mission is not well-articulated or if there are serious arguments about what kind of force is necessary to accomplish a given mission. In ordinary war, the collapse of the enemy’s army is a more or less clear event; but in an asymmetrical war, victory is never final--the mission seems not so much to end as to shift; and so it may be difficult to apply the necessity principle.
The second principle articulated in the code is the principle of distinction. It is an absolute prohibition on the intentional targeting of noncombatants. The intentional killing of innocent civilians is prohibited even in cases where such a policy might be effective in stopping terrorism. At the height of the violence in 2002, some suggested that the only deterrence against suicide bombers who wish to die anyway is the killing of their families. But such a policy is blatantly murderous, and it is prohibited. An Israeli soldier is prohibited from intentionally targeting noncombatants, and, in the event that he is given such an order, he must refuse it. He is obligated to engage in fighting only those who threaten his fellow soldiers and civilians.
The implementation of the principle of distinction is also very difficult in an asymmetrical war. Since the enemy does not appear in uniform and there is no specified zone that can be described as the battlefield, the question of who is a combatant becomes crucial. In the process of identifying combatants, a whole causal chain must be established and marked as a legitimate target. This “food chain” of terrorism is made up of people whose intentional actions, one after the other, will end up threatening Israeli civilians or soldiers. This chain includes the one who plans the attack, the one who recruits the bomber, the one who prepares the bomb, the driver of the car that transports the bomber to his or her target, and so on. It is clear that such an attempt gives rise to difficult cases, and even the most scrupulous effort will leave some room for doubt. What about the financer of the bombing, for example?
It is also clear that applying the international law of war to this new battlefield is fraught with problems. Consider a painful issue that comes up in the Goldstone Report--the matter of the Gaza police force. In the first minutes of the war, Israel targeted Hamas police, killing dozens. There is no question that, in an ordinary war, a police force that is dedicated to keeping the civilian peace is not a military target. The report therefore blames Israel for an intentional targeting of noncombatants. But such a charge is only valid concerning a war against a state with a clear and defined military institution, one that therefore practices a clear division of labor between the police and the army. What happens in semi-states that do not have an institutionalized army, whose armed forces are a militia loyal to the movement or party that seized power? In such situations, the police force might be just a way of putting combatants on the payroll of the state, while basically assigning them clear military roles. Israeli intelligence claims that it has clear proof that this was the case in Gaza. This is certainly something that Israel will have to clarify. But it is clear to me that Goldstone’s accusation that targeting of the police forces automatically constitutes an attack on noncombatants represents a gross misunderstanding of the nature of such a conflict.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (25)
From direct contacts, I am stating that many Palestinians - spread over Gaza, West Bank, USA, Germany - are very nice people.
The close influence of Israel was also a mostly positive factor in the development of the Palestinian society.
The religious and political leaders of Palestine have to gather honesty and start a constructive attitude without listening to the incitement of the foreign interventionists.
The Hamas leaders, Haniya and Meshal are enemies of progress.
Goldstone made a mistake. He had to expose the barbarism of Hamas leaders' policies. Running kindergardens, and clinics during the day, is nice, but digging tunnels for terror acts, or shooting missiles during the night, still m ... view full comment
From direct contacts, I am stating that many Palestinians - spread over Gaza, West Bank, USA, Germany - are very nice people.
The close influence of Israel was also a mostly positive factor in the development of the Palestinian society.
The religious and political leaders of Palestine have to gather honesty and start a constructive attitude without listening to the incitement of the foreign interventionists.
The Hamas leaders, Haniya and Meshal are enemies of progress.
Goldstone made a mistake. He had to expose the barbarism of Hamas leaders' policies. Running kindergardens, and clinics during the day, is nice, but digging tunnels for terror acts, or shooting missiles during the night, still makes them criminals.
Marty Peretz: I want to thank you for whatever role you played in having this essay published in TNR.
It's exemplary in its no nonsense, lucid and balanced reasoning.
What a pleasure it is to read! What a breath of fresh air it is!
I'll be interested to read comments people make and maybe get into some of that discussion.
Marty Peretz: I want to thank you for whatever role you played in having this essay published in TNR.
It's exemplary in its no nonsense, lucid and balanced reasoning.
What a pleasure it is to read! What a breath of fresh air it is!
I'll be interested to read comments people make and maybe get into some of that discussion.
Ditto basman. Nice work.
A couple of quibbles:
On the issue of Goldstone's lengthy focus on the "context of the history that led to the war", it was indeed done with remarkable shoddiness, but the basic necessity of providing an accurate and appropriate context seems to me unavoidable. Lack of recognition of basic historical reality has been one of the most significant factors in perpetuating this conflict. Encouraged by everyone from do-gooders like Goldstone to the Soviet KGB, the Pals have, as a function of their relatively recent invention as a discreet nation (as opposed to the traditional identification as more generally simply "Arabs"), come to except themselves from one of the more rob ... view full comment
Ditto basman. Nice work.
A couple of quibbles:
On the issue of Goldstone's lengthy focus on the "context of the history that led to the war", it was indeed done with remarkable shoddiness, but the basic necessity of providing an accurate and appropriate context seems to me unavoidable. Lack of recognition of basic historical reality has been one of the most significant factors in perpetuating this conflict. Encouraged by everyone from do-gooders like Goldstone to the Soviet KGB, the Pals have, as a function of their relatively recent invention as a discreet nation (as opposed to the traditional identification as more generally simply "Arabs"), come to except themselves from one of the more robust rules of history--if you launch an unprovoked war of aggression and lose, there are going to be negative consequences. The idea that the Arabs deserve some sort of special "justice" unavailable to, for example, the German former residents of Eastern Europe, is a hugely destructive absurdity.
Second, by any reasonable definition ALL the Pals are "civilians". Since they are not a real country, and have no formal armed forces, every gunman and bomb-maker that's killed is strictly speaking a civilian criminal. In this context, the Hamas "police" are about the most clearly identifiable combatants in Gaza.
No surprise to see yet another attack on the Goldstone report in TNR... but beyond the polutical manoeuvering here, Halbertal makes some specific claims that are pretty easy to dismiss:
(1) Moshe Yaalon may have claimed that the collateral deaths in the assassination of Salah Shehadeh were unforeseeable, but if so, he's lying. The IDF dumped a 2000-lb bomb on Shehadeh's house, in a densely-settled part of Gaza. The computed danger zones for a US Mk 84 2000-lb bomb extend out to just about 250 metres. There were obviously-occupied houses just metres from the bomb's impact point: see the photo at http://www.li ... view full comment
No surprise to see yet another attack on the Goldstone report in TNR... but beyond the polutical manoeuvering here, Halbertal makes some specific claims that are pretty easy to dismiss:
(1) Moshe Yaalon may have claimed that the collateral deaths in the assassination of Salah Shehadeh were unforeseeable, but if so, he's lying. The IDF dumped a 2000-lb bomb on Shehadeh's house, in a densely-settled part of Gaza. The computed danger zones for a US Mk 84 2000-lb bomb extend out to just about 250 metres. There were obviously-occupied houses just metres from the bomb's impact point: see the photo at http://www.life.com/image/1177666, for example. It was _entirely_ foreseeable that innocent people were going to be killed in that attack. Yaalon lied, and Halbertal is either ignorant of the case or lying as well.
(2) The claim that mortar crews can set up, fire and be gone so quickly that the only way to attack is with counterfire from other mortars is, quite frankly, bullshit. Setting up a mortar and aiming it to hit a specific point where Israeli units are operating would take at least as much time as to set up a Qassam. In both cases, and with utter air superiority, Israel invested a great deal of effort in monitoring movements on the ground and using both drones and helicopters in quick reaction attacks against Hamas militants: people in Gaza testified to the ubiquity of drone and manned aircraft over the city during the attacks. The actual reason that radar is used in counterfire against mortars is simply because mortar round are high-trajectory and relatively slow, and thus easy to spot. There's similarly no necessity to use 120mm mortars, with their larger blast radius, in such cases: it would be perfectly possible to use 81mm mortars instead, for example.
(3) 'Roof-knocking' hasn't involved a "...missile that hits the roof without causing any actual harm..." - such a concept is ludicrous, how would it work? 'Roof-knocking' has used the missiles that Israel uses in individual assassinations in public areas, probably a low-collateral-damage version of the Spike missile. Such a missile will do less damage than the 2000-lb bomb used in the Salah Shehadeh attack, but it's certainly not true that no damage will be caused.
Halbertal's paper includes what passes for 'balance' in TNR on this issue: yes, a few individual Israeli soldiers may have killed civilians wantonly, and that's just awful, isn't it? but investigation should proceed no further than that. Luckily, Judge Goldstone himself was more balanced.
With all due respect Mac, the Mk. 84 is a 500 not a 2000 pounder. And if I felt I had to order counterfire on a mortar position, I'd much rather have the option of the 120.
The Goldstone Report has enough obvious holes in it to make "attack" the wrong description of efforts to point some of them out. Goldstone is "balanced" in the same way the UN was in Bosnia, excellently described by Paddy Ashdown: "We had a clear case of good v. evil, and we tried to split the difference."
With all due respect Mac, the Mk. 84 is a 500 not a 2000 pounder. And if I felt I had to order counterfire on a mortar position, I'd much rather have the option of the 120.
The Goldstone Report has enough obvious holes in it to make "attack" the wrong description of efforts to point some of them out. Goldstone is "balanced" in the same way the UN was in Bosnia, excellently described by Paddy Ashdown: "We had a clear case of good v. evil, and we tried to split the difference."
Nope, sorry, a Mk. 84 is a 2000-lb bomb, it's the Mk. 82 which is a 500lb bomb, and it was the former that was dropped on Salah Shehadeh's house. And certainly, a 120mm mortar will make a bigger bang... which is the whole issue in a built-up area with a lot of civilians around. Bigger bang = more dead civilians, all other things being equal.
The great sin of the Goldstone Report was an attempt to be even-handed, to look at the conduct of war on both sides - and not to assume that the conduct of one side (or, as Halbertal claims, the conduct of Russia in Chechnya) excuses the conduct of the other. In a situation where the lives of Arabs are assumed to be worth less than those of Israelis, that ... view full comment
Nope, sorry, a Mk. 84 is a 2000-lb bomb, it's the Mk. 82 which is a 500lb bomb, and it was the former that was dropped on Salah Shehadeh's house. And certainly, a 120mm mortar will make a bigger bang... which is the whole issue in a built-up area with a lot of civilians around. Bigger bang = more dead civilians, all other things being equal.
The great sin of the Goldstone Report was an attempt to be even-handed, to look at the conduct of war on both sides - and not to assume that the conduct of one side (or, as Halbertal claims, the conduct of Russia in Chechnya) excuses the conduct of the other. In a situation where the lives of Arabs are assumed to be worth less than those of Israelis, that obviously can't be accepted.
SMacEachern2
“No surprise to see yet another attack on the Goldstone report in TNR... but beyond the polutical manoeuvering here,”
No surprise to see yet another attack on Israel by one of the the mac team (MacEachern2 and mackenzie) is no surprise. What is surprising is that maceachern2 bothers to subscribe to a magazine he hates. Is he is paid to do so?
Any way his “critique of the Halbertal is easy to dismiss:
“(1) Moshe Yaalon may have claimed that the collateral deaths in the assassination of Salah Shehadeh were unforeseeable, but if so, he's lying.”
And of course Mac is munitions expert and he knows that for sure that Yaalon was lying (rather than mistaken) when he said the ... view full comment
SMacEachern2
“No surprise to see yet another attack on the Goldstone report in TNR... but beyond the polutical manoeuvering here,”
No surprise to see yet another attack on Israel by one of the the mac team (MacEachern2 and mackenzie) is no surprise. What is surprising is that maceachern2 bothers to subscribe to a magazine he hates. Is he is paid to do so?
Any way his “critique of the Halbertal is easy to dismiss:
“(1) Moshe Yaalon may have claimed that the collateral deaths in the assassination of Salah Shehadeh were unforeseeable, but if so, he's lying.”
And of course Mac is munitions expert and he knows that for sure that Yaalon was lying (rather than mistaken) when he said the “deaths were unforeseen.”
No army person can tell for sure how a certain mission will turn out. If they could there would be no such thing as deaths from “friendly fire.”
“(2) The claim that mortar crews can set up, fire and be gone so quickly that the only way to attack is with counterfire from other mortars is, quite frankly, bullshit.”
Here again the same criticism holds. I would like to know how much war experience, our poster who claims to be an archeologist, has had?
Later on he Mac says:
“Halbertal's paper includes what passes for 'balance' in TNR on this issue: yes, a few individual Israeli soldiers may have killed civilians wantonly, and that's just awful, isn't it? but investigation should proceed no further than that. Luckily, Judge Goldstone himself was more balanced.”
The report’s imbalance goes beyond the claims made about Israeli tactics. Its imbalance in the way it was written. Israeli is mentioned often by name in the report but when it comes to the other side Hamas is never mentioned. You could hardly tell from the report who Israel was fighting never mind why?
Even Goldstone has had a hard time answering such basic questions about the report. He said in fact that the report is only a preliminary investigation a sort of pretrial assessment and not a final conclusion about guilt.
This is lost on Israel haters like MacEachern2.
There is more, but never mind. It’ll be lost on the macattackers.
Halbertal’s article was first rate as some other posters have said.
Richard Landes did a thorough job critquing the Goldstone report:
"Fisking Goldstone’s Response to Berman: Whereas Clause #3"
by Richard Landes
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/
The article is in many parts. Scroll down the thread till you get to the first article.
Richard Landes did a thorough job critquing the Goldstone report:
"Fisking Goldstone’s Response to Berman: Whereas Clause #3"
by Richard Landes
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/
The article is in many parts. Scroll down the thread till you get to the first article.
An example of Godstone's dishonesty:
"Whereas clause #3: “Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures;
[Goldstone:] “2. Paragraph 4: This is factually incorrect. Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror it caused to the people living within their range. The finding is made that they constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. ... view full comment
An example of Godstone's dishonesty:
"Whereas clause #3: “Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures;
[Goldstone:] “2. Paragraph 4: This is factually incorrect. Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror it caused to the people living within their range. The finding is made that they constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.”
[Berman Response]: Paragraph 4 [Whereas #3] of H.Res.867 is addressing the mandate, not the Report. It reads as follows: “Whereas the mandate of the ‘‘fact-finding mission’’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures”. That statement is an accurate characterization of both the formal mandate, as passed by the UNHRC, and of the broadened mandate requested by Justice Goldstone."
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/11/05/fisking-goldstones-response-t...
I think it may be a bit unrealistic to expect that any side in any war is going to value the lives of the enemy, even if it's only the most active and dangerous enemies' family members, supporters, and neighbors, the same as its own citizens and soldiers. The value of the lives of Israeli citizens to Hamas, not to mention the lives of the Arabs they regularly kill, torture, use as hostages, etc., is pretty clear
That said, I don't think there is an example in all of history when an army defending its home and people has taken greater and more costly measures to safeguard the lives of enemy civilians who are not actively firing on them than Israel's.
I think it may be a bit unrealistic to expect that any side in any war is going to value the lives of the enemy, even if it's only the most active and dangerous enemies' family members, supporters, and neighbors, the same as its own citizens and soldiers. The value of the lives of Israeli citizens to Hamas, not to mention the lives of the Arabs they regularly kill, torture, use as hostages, etc., is pretty clear
That said, I don't think there is an example in all of history when an army defending its home and people has taken greater and more costly measures to safeguard the lives of enemy civilians who are not actively firing on them than Israel's.
Illuminating to the extent that it reveals the largely irreconcilable ethical quandaries which exist as a result of the status quo. The author tries to discount the report (with sound argument) but proceeds in an attempt to narrow accountability to individual circumstance. More revealing, though, is a general lack of accountability, a purposeful ambiguity meant to allow the conflict to be fought on a microcosmic level. This code allows for a flexibility as demanded by a particular situation, but doesn't give much in the way of establishing a universal code and accordingly abandons a need for specialized ethical training and decentralizes decision making, all of which are mutually supportiv ... view full comment
Illuminating to the extent that it reveals the largely irreconcilable ethical quandaries which exist as a result of the status quo. The author tries to discount the report (with sound argument) but proceeds in an attempt to narrow accountability to individual circumstance. More revealing, though, is a general lack of accountability, a purposeful ambiguity meant to allow the conflict to be fought on a microcosmic level. This code allows for a flexibility as demanded by a particular situation, but doesn't give much in the way of establishing a universal code and accordingly abandons a need for specialized ethical training and decentralizes decision making, all of which are mutually supportive elements in Israeli military policy. Highlighted by the extant technical barriers is the need for a paradigm shift, not in policy but in a larger political context...it is precisely that to which Halbertal consistently alludes but is shy of stating outright. Even going as far as to criticize the Goldstone Report for analyzing the "bigger picture" (again, he does so with force and a well-articulated POV), it seems that this piece, while addressing many exceedingly relevant issues regarding Israel's military campaign against asymmetrical warfare, is nothing but another reactionary piece to emerge from the Zionist camp (his association is with the Zionist left wing which is notably progressive and academic-minded but plagued by an unfortunate disclarity of reflexive reactionism). Being so articulate and having an unusual degree of acuity in his perspective it is unbecoming that he should neglect to mention the need for a sweeping change in the status quo, whether that be a 2 state solution, a tristate confederacy (I'm just joking here), or a binational state (and here).
Josh Milstein “Illuminating to the extent that it reveals the largely irreconcilable ethical quandaries which exist as a result of the status quo. The author tries to discount the report (with sound argument) but proceeds in an attempt to narrow accountability to individual circumstance. More revealing, though, is a general lack of accountability, a purposeful ambiguity meant to allow the conflict to be fought on a microcosmic level. This code allows for a flexibility as demanded by a particular situation, but doesn't give much in the way of establishing a universal code and accordingly abandons a need for specialized ethical training and decentralizes decision making, all of which are ... view full comment
Josh Milstein “Illuminating to the extent that it reveals the largely irreconcilable ethical quandaries which exist as a result of the status quo. The author tries to discount the report (with sound argument) but proceeds in an attempt to narrow accountability to individual circumstance. More revealing, though, is a general lack of accountability, a purposeful ambiguity meant to allow the conflict to be fought on a microcosmic level. This code allows for a flexibility as demanded by a particular situation, but doesn't give much in the way of establishing a universal code and accordingly abandons a need for specialized ethical training and decentralizes decision making, all of which are mutually supportive elements in Israeli military policy.”
This wordy reply is nonsense, Josh, since it begs the question about whether the “establishing a universal code” is even possible or desirable. Though the article doesn’t rule it out its focus is on a specific war rather than on wars in general.
“Illuminating to the extent that it reveals the largely irreconcilable ethical quandaries which exist as a result of the status quo.”
Really? Care to explain this bizarre comment? What precisely is the status quo and why should it lead to “ethical quandaries?” Did the status quo say in Britain or the US lead to an ethical quandary? What exactly are you talking about?
“Highlighted by the extant technical barriers is the need for a paradigm shift, not in policy but in a larger political context...”
What bullshit. Josh is reading into the article his own desire to see “regime change” in Israel. This is totally irrelevant to the either the article or the report.
“Even going as far as to criticize the Goldstone Report for analyzing the "bigger picture" (again, he does so with force and a well-articulated POV),”
He does so because the Goldstone report very hypocritically castigates Israel on issues unrelated to its mandate while refusing to see the “bigger picture” in the Hamas ruled territory. Moreover Hamas isn’t even mentioned by name in the report.
“….it seems that this piece, while addressing many exceedingly relevant issues regarding Israel's military campaign against asymmetrical warfare, is nothing but another reactionary piece to emerge from the Zionist camp…”
This says it all about your own point of view. Your screed is just another vulgar and wordy attack on the Jewish State by a leftist twit.
“(his association is with the Zionist left wing which is notably progressive and academic-minded but plagued by an unfortunate disclarity of reflexive reactionism).”
This is an opinion not a fact.
“Being so articulate and having an unusual degree of acuity in his perspective it is unbecoming that he should neglect to mention the need for a sweeping change in the status quo, whether that be a 2 state solution, a tristate confederacy (I'm just joking here), or a binational state (and here).”
Your whole comment is one long joke, Josh.
The Goldstone reports was supposed to be narrowly focused on the Gaza war and the article is a comment on the report not on the Israeli political establishment. Josh Milstein has an anti-Israel ax to grind. Too bad it’s such a dull ax and he doesn’t seem to know how to wield it.
Stick to posting on "Rabbi"Michael Lerner's web site, Josh.
Milstein: the military code of which country in the world, the military practices of which country in the world, the military training of which country in the world, the ethical training in which military of which country in the world, meet your high standards?
Milstein: the military code of which country in the world, the military practices of which country in the world, the military training of which country in the world, the ethical training in which military of which country in the world, meet your high standards?
Josh Milstein makes it seem that can use code words like "progressive" and that would be sufficient to clinch an argument. Problem is this Norman Geras post makes clear progressive has had many meanings including a number of reactionary ones. (Remember uncle Joe?)
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/11/not-peace-but-a-sword-by-se...
“Not peace but a sword? (by Sean Coleman)”
[The comment below, emailed to me by Sean, is posted here with his permission - NG.]
Slavoj Žižek's misappropriatio ... view full comment
Josh Milstein makes it seem that can use code words like "progressive" and that would be sufficient to clinch an argument. Problem is this Norman Geras post makes clear progressive has had many meanings including a number of reactionary ones. (Remember uncle Joe?)
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/11/not-peace-but-a-sword-by-se...
“Not peace but a sword? (by Sean Coleman)”
[The comment below, emailed to me by Sean, is posted here with his permission - NG.]
Slavoj Žižek's misappropriation of Jesus is a standard one. He says:
Literally, terror is an emanation of virtue. That is to say, in a radical situation of injustice, the only actual proof of love is to accept to fight, to accept to struggle. This could be the lesson of it. And it's simply true; we shouldn't be afraid of it. Jesus Christ says precisely the same thing, when he at the same time says love, turn the left cheek and all that stuff, and then he says - you remember? - if you don't hate your mother, your father, you are not my follower; and then he says, I bring sword, war, destruction, I don't bring peace, and so on and so on. It's as simple as that. This is the radical emancipatory logic which one should accept.
Zizek's Christ sounds like a crazed insurgent, a bloodthirsty messiah, with the Gospel transformed into an Orwellian credo for revolutionary shock troops: 'the only actual proof of love is to accept to fight'. The actual quote, from Matthew 10, 34-39, (King James Version), has Jesus saying this:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Naturally, these incongruous exhortations have attracted a welter of biblical comment; and some commentators have indeed, like Zizek, taken the passage as conclusive demonstration that Jesus actually advocated violence in spreading the Word of the Gospel. In this reading, the emollient, love-thy-neighbour, turn-the-other-cheek rhetoric officially proclaimed as Jesus's message - which Zizek dismisses as 'all that stuff' - is cast aside for the sterner, more truthful realpolitik of power and salvation. Even Christ, the argument goes, had an iron fist inside the velvet glove.
(Interestingly, 'Not peace, but a sword' has become a kind of rallying maxim of a 'harder', less compromising Christian faith - especially so among the reactionary precincts of my own Church - whereby frivolous things like secular engagement, ecumenical dialogue and sceptical reassessment of dogma are discounted as wayward diversions from the true faith. Witness the tenor of interventions like these: 'Secularists and theists are not engaged in a sharing of interesting though irrelevant ideas, but a war for the minds and hearts of mankind.')
But to read the passage in this way is not only woefully to misinterpret the message of Jesus, but also to wilfully disregard the elementary standards of textual criticism. Basically, you will understand what it means if you read what precedes it. Chapter 10 of Matthew's Gospel finds Jesus instructing his Disciples as to their ministry and mission in Galilee: he is cautioning them about the hostile and truculent response that their preaching will likely receive, and assuring them that, notwithstanding the persecutions they will likely face, divine safeguards will protect their endeavours. Then he warns them of the divisions and disputations, even between family members, that his 'coming' will inevitably generate. 'Not peace but a sword' is therefore primarily a forewarning of bitter ideological and theological conflict to come, and the concomitant physical strife that will doubtless follow in train. (Such was indeed the exact course of early Christianity). Jesus is spelling out not only how difficult the work would actually be, and the dedication it requires, but how necessary it is: 'he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me'.
Obviously, this is a brief gloss on words that have been parsed and discussed and freighted with all manner of interpretations. But to see them as mandating violence in pursuit of some 'necessary' goal is to misconstrue them entirely. (Moreover, nowhere does Jesus say 'if you don't hate your mother, your father, you are not my follower'). Across the vast canvas of the four synoptic Gospels, the recurring, insistent command of Christ is for non-violence. Consider the famous litany of uncompromising demands on his followers beginning at Luke 6, 27, for example:
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you; Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
Jesus consistently opposed violence, ordering Peter (Mark 26, 52) not to use the sword to protect him, and forbidding resistance to Roman oppression (Mark 12, 17). This was the essential Christian message: love your enemies. Does that really sound like the kind of 'radical emancipatory logic' that delivers the divine imprimatur to Leninist 'struggle'? (Sean Coleman)”
I think, if correct, Mr. Halbertal raises a significant issue as to why certain critical questions were not even asked in the Goldstone report. Drawing conclusions after failing to ask critical questions, reveals a bias. An illustration. I remember when Senator D'Amato's Whitewater Committee went after Hillary Clinton on whether she had the missing Rose Law Firm billing records. One morning, majority counsel, Michael Chertoff, got up from his panel seat and headed around to testify to the committee about his thorough study into who had the billing records when the banking committee was looking for them. He divided up the world into time periods and groups and asked everyone on his list ... view full comment
I think, if correct, Mr. Halbertal raises a significant issue as to why certain critical questions were not even asked in the Goldstone report. Drawing conclusions after failing to ask critical questions, reveals a bias. An illustration. I remember when Senator D'Amato's Whitewater Committee went after Hillary Clinton on whether she had the missing Rose Law Firm billing records. One morning, majority counsel, Michael Chertoff, got up from his panel seat and headed around to testify to the committee about his thorough study into who had the billing records when the banking committee was looking for them. He divided up the world into time periods and groups and asked everyone on his list if they had had the billing records at the time they were being sought. Everyone said, "No." except for two people whom he had not asked if they had the records, Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton. Vince Foster, being dead of suicide, was ruled out by Mr. Chertoff. That left his conclusion: Hillary withheld the records from the banking committee -- solely because Chertoff had never asked her.
jacksondyer: "And of course Mac is munitions expert and he knows that for sure that Yaalon was lying..."
(Shrug) Last time I had direct experience of this was at the Staunch Gladiator firepower exercises at CFB Gagetown a couple of years ago, where the safety zone used for air-dropped _500-lb_ bombs was about a kilometer. Before that, my military experience was in the 1970s. Mk 84s were around at that point, and the fundamental properties of detonating Tritonal and fragmenting metal haven't changed since that time.
So, yeah. If Yaalon claims that the IDF can drop a 2000-lb bomb into a crowded Gaza residential neighbourhood and have any reasonable expectation of not causing a lot of collateral ... view full comment
jacksondyer: "And of course Mac is munitions expert and he knows that for sure that Yaalon was lying..."
(Shrug) Last time I had direct experience of this was at the Staunch Gladiator firepower exercises at CFB Gagetown a couple of years ago, where the safety zone used for air-dropped _500-lb_ bombs was about a kilometer. Before that, my military experience was in the 1970s. Mk 84s were around at that point, and the fundamental properties of detonating Tritonal and fragmenting metal haven't changed since that time.
So, yeah. If Yaalon claims that the IDF can drop a 2000-lb bomb into a crowded Gaza residential neighbourhood and have any reasonable expectation of not causing a lot of collateral casualties, then He. Is. Lying. Through. His. Fucking. Teeth.
Clear enough? And how about you? What's your experience of this, beyond masturbating to the IDF video feeds?
" Last time I had direct experience of this was at the Staunch Gladiator firepower exercises at CFB Gagetown..."
So are you Canadian?
I have had experience with anti-tank weaponry, but I wouldn't presume to set myself up as an expert who can gainsay what Israeli experts in the field say.
"So, yeah. If Yaalon claims that the IDF can drop a 2000-lb bomb into a crowded Gaza residential neighbourhood and have any reasonable expectation of not causing a lot of collateral casualties, then He. Is. Lying. Through. His. Fucking. Teeth."
Cool it boy.
Shehadeh was no boyscout and he was one of the founders of Hamas's Izzedine al-Qassem Brigades. Of course killing and terrorizing Jews is no big deal to y ... view full comment
" Last time I had direct experience of this was at the Staunch Gladiator firepower exercises at CFB Gagetown..."
So are you Canadian?
I have had experience with anti-tank weaponry, but I wouldn't presume to set myself up as an expert who can gainsay what Israeli experts in the field say.
"So, yeah. If Yaalon claims that the IDF can drop a 2000-lb bomb into a crowded Gaza residential neighbourhood and have any reasonable expectation of not causing a lot of collateral casualties, then He. Is. Lying. Through. His. Fucking. Teeth."
Cool it boy.
Shehadeh was no boyscout and he was one of the founders of Hamas's Izzedine al-Qassem Brigades. Of course killing and terrorizing Jews is no big deal to you. Your getting excercized over the death of this murdered tells us a lot about you. (YEA I KNOW YOU ARE ANGRY AT OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE KILLED, though you don't whow the same lever of anger or any anger over the murder tens of thousands of people in the SUDAN or other victims of Islamic terrorism.
I apologize if you were taking aback at my wordiness, jacksonyder
At no point does the author suggest that an ethical code is unnecessary. Quite to the contrary he reveals his personal investment in devising such a code and merely relates that difficulty to the larger one of reconciling moral issues involved with asymmetrical warfare with the positions held by the international community. I’m not sure where you got the idea that he suggests that a code may be unnecessary. As he stated several times throughout the article, there is a code in place but it is predicated on the need for flexibility. The effect this has is to decentralize the accountability; try to take this more as neutral cons ... view full comment
I apologize if you were taking aback at my wordiness, jacksonyder
At no point does the author suggest that an ethical code is unnecessary. Quite to the contrary he reveals his personal investment in devising such a code and merely relates that difficulty to the larger one of reconciling moral issues involved with asymmetrical warfare with the positions held by the international community. I’m not sure where you got the idea that he suggests that a code may be unnecessary. As he stated several times throughout the article, there is a code in place but it is predicated on the need for flexibility. The effect this has is to decentralize the accountability; try to take this more as neutral consequence than politicized hyperbole. Because Israel’s military has adapted a nonconventional set of procedures for a nonconventional conflict any accusations of war crimes against an individual are difficult to address from the point of the international community since it is trying to assume a single viewpoint which can be applied equally throughout the world; a strategy which is, no doubt, a universal failure.
The author illuminates that there are decisions which must be made in asymmetrical warfare which provide for obvious ethical quandaries. An example of one is in measuring proportionality – how many civilians and/or combatants may be put in harms way to accomplish the mission. He calls into question Dresden and other like situations – he is right to do so as far as a strategy to deflect criticism is concerned (it is, as I’m sure you know an argument which is applied quite often). The assumption that decisions to put a single human life at risk in any situation does not rest easily upon thinking and humanist-oriented men, which the author seems to be, is plainly unqualified. The “status quo” in the singular context of this article (though I have intimated that this article is itself entirely too narrowing) is asymmetrical warfare.
“Regime change?” That’s a very bold and unqualified accusation. I don’t recall advocating support for any particular political wing and if that’s what you saw when reading between the lines I think a visit to the optometrist is in order. As far as the notion of this article being tied in to the larger political context, I cannot understand why you would think to isolate this operation, this report, or this article from the historical processes to which it is entirely subject. There is an overarching need for a paradigm shift in order to alleviate the very difficulties which are addressed in this article. For too long have the actors in this conflict narrowed the scope of relevant discussion. Granted, they are of great significance, and such deliberation is the nature of diplomacy, but after 61 years it is clear that while maintaining this atmosphere will not necessarily lead to Israel’s destruction (as many left-wing critics claim as impetus for the 2-state solution), but neither will it see an end to conflict.
If international actors have difficulty resonating with Israel’s flexible military policies, it is that much more difficult to address the nature of an organization like Hamas which indiscriminately kills civilians and uses the civilian populace in its area of operation as “human shields.” It may well be that the report has a significant degree of bias. Many people are looking for, at the least, a quid pro quid analysis of the belligerents actions. This expectation of tit-for-tat analysis is, again, the nature of diplomacy. It is thus predictable that the Israeli government would lean away from analysis which is at times largely equivocal.
Your attack on my personal credentials is alarming in that it reveals precisely the reactionary trend to which I was referring. Your infant-like diatribe is all too common but understandable when considering your associations, which I assume to be among the right of center unequivocal supporters of the State of Israel, focused on narrowing the dialogue to more particular issues. Such are the tactics employed in hasbarah, with which I am intimately familiar (as I assume you are) as one who has long been a purveyor of such strategy.
As far as my “anti-Israel ax” I am again saddened at your blinded and deterministic reactionism. I am, rather, a critic of the State of Israel, which is not to say that I am anti-Zionist, overwhelmingly biased, or any of the other associations which I’m sure you’ve already made. I believe strongly in the need for a Jewish state, if you must know. My personal imperative is to see management by objective and honest brokers, not including the likes of special interests group to which much of the dialogue is subject. I should hope that you would come to see those who do not necessarily agree with your point of view as people who harbor different but similarly viable viewpoints. Considering them objectionable is a personal decision but decrying one whom you disagree with as a “leftist twit” is not only incorrect, it is sickening display of virulence.
Who is Michael Lerner?
jacksondyer: Sorry, but there's nothing complicated there. A 2000-lb bomb will have certain effects when it detonates, that's all. Blast will kill people directly and topple walls out to a particular distance, fragments will kill people at a greater distance. The question isn't whether Shehadeh was a bad man: he was. The question is whether Halbertal's channeling of Moshe Yaalon's excuses is anything but self-serving. The IDF approved a tactic for killing Shehadeh that guaranteed the deaths of innocent people in the area: those people were then killed. Crocodile tears about their deaths from the IDF afterward, and Halbertal's pathetic little excuses, just make the whole exercise even more ob ... view full comment
jacksondyer: Sorry, but there's nothing complicated there. A 2000-lb bomb will have certain effects when it detonates, that's all. Blast will kill people directly and topple walls out to a particular distance, fragments will kill people at a greater distance. The question isn't whether Shehadeh was a bad man: he was. The question is whether Halbertal's channeling of Moshe Yaalon's excuses is anything but self-serving. The IDF approved a tactic for killing Shehadeh that guaranteed the deaths of innocent people in the area: those people were then killed. Crocodile tears about their deaths from the IDF afterward, and Halbertal's pathetic little excuses, just make the whole exercise even more obscene.
Josh I don’t usually take seriously people who make assumptions about their interlocutors as you do without knowing anything about them. I have been posting here for many years have some other posters and I can tell your assumptions are completely off.
Here are some of the assumptions you made about me:
“Your attack on my personal credentials is alarming in that it reveals precisely the reactionary trend to which I was referring. Your infant-like diatribe is all too common but understandable when considering your associations, which I assume to be among the right of center unequivocal supporters of the State of Israel, focused on narrowing the dialogue to more particular issues.”
Then:
“ ... view full comment
Josh I don’t usually take seriously people who make assumptions about their interlocutors as you do without knowing anything about them. I have been posting here for many years have some other posters and I can tell your assumptions are completely off.
Here are some of the assumptions you made about me:
“Your attack on my personal credentials is alarming in that it reveals precisely the reactionary trend to which I was referring. Your infant-like diatribe is all too common but understandable when considering your associations, which I assume to be among the right of center unequivocal supporters of the State of Israel, focused on narrowing the dialogue to more particular issues.”
Then:
“Such are the tactics employed in hasbarah, with which I am intimately familiar (as I assume you are) as one who has long been a purveyor of such strategy.”
I will not tell you about my personal beliefs since that would make it too easy for you and I am not in the mood to be of any assistance to a tiresome cuss like you, Josh.
However some short answers are in order:
The only hasbarah I know is the Hebrew word which means an explanation. The fact that the Israeli government has finally started to talk back to its critics after years of silence, really bothers you, doesn’t it, Josh?
As for my associates, who exactly are my associates? Which right are you talking about, the first right after a left turn or the first right after a right turn? Hard to say with you!
About attacking your credentials, it would be fairer to say that I do not give any credence to your self declared intentions and beliefs.
For example, you say that you are pro-Israel but you rhetoric and style make me think that it is only a pretense. Mearsheimer too says that he is pro Israel.
I won’t go into a detailed discussion of the Goldstone report or the laudable critique of it by Moshe Halbertal. However, I will say that your view that your comment that:
“… it is that much more difficult to address the nature of an organization like Hamas which indiscriminately kills civilians and uses the civilian populace in its area of operation as “human shields.”
This is pretty lame. First even a cursory look at Hamas’ founding charter will show that it is an antisemitic genocidal organization whose final aim is the elimination of the State of Israel. None of this appears in the report which makes that document useless since it gives no reason why Israel went to war with Hamas in the first place. But then the report doesn’t even mention Hamas by name.
Finally, I will echo another poster’s question in modified form: could you tell us what State in the universe and especially in the Middle East do you believe Israel should turn into?
Which country has a better human rights record than Israel in the middle east? Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia?
Please keep you answers short as I don’t have hours to waste on any single post.
SMacEachern2
“jacksondyer: Sorry, but there's nothing complicated there. A 2000-lb bomb will have certain effects when it detonates, that's all. Blast will kill people directly and topple walls out to a particular distance, fragments will kill people at a greater distance. The question isn't whether Shehadeh was a bad man: he was.”
Well, no the question is how best to fight the Hamas terrorist infrastructure. The bomb did what it was supposed to do kill Shehadeh a lethal architect of murder and terror.
You can gainsay the methods used, but are you sure that had they used a smaller size bomb it wouldn’t have had equally disastrous collateral damage? What if a smaller bomb had kille ... view full comment
SMacEachern2
“jacksondyer: Sorry, but there's nothing complicated there. A 2000-lb bomb will have certain effects when it detonates, that's all. Blast will kill people directly and topple walls out to a particular distance, fragments will kill people at a greater distance. The question isn't whether Shehadeh was a bad man: he was.”
Well, no the question is how best to fight the Hamas terrorist infrastructure. The bomb did what it was supposed to do kill Shehadeh a lethal architect of murder and terror.
You can gainsay the methods used, but are you sure that had they used a smaller size bomb it wouldn’t have had equally disastrous collateral damage? What if a smaller bomb had killed by standards but not its intended victim? Israel would then have been accused anyway.
“The question is whether Halbertal's channeling of Moshe Yaalon's excuses is anything but self-serving.”
I didn’t read it that way.
I am still waiting for you to show a similar lever of outrage at the deaths of tend of thousands of people many of them children in the Sudan and elsewhere, Mac.
When it comes to Israel one death is a tragedy, when it comes to the Sudan or some other theater of genocide all the deaths are mere statistics to be explained away.
I am not sure anyone is reading this thread any more. However, just in case Josh shows up he should be aware of this insightful post about what it means to be pro-Israel:
Pro-Israel
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/11/proisrael.html
"In case anyone had failed to notice it, let me just say that this blog is pro-Israel. If I'd ever been asked to say whether it was, I would have affirmed it without any hesitation; I wouldn't have stopped to ponder the meaning of 'pro-Israel', merely taking this in a rough and ready sense. I say that merely by way of ... view full comment
I am not sure anyone is reading this thread any more. However, just in case Josh shows up he should be aware of this insightful post about what it means to be pro-Israel:
Pro-Israel
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/11/proisrael.html
"In case anyone had failed to notice it, let me just say that this blog is pro-Israel. If I'd ever been asked to say whether it was, I would have affirmed it without any hesitation; I wouldn't have stopped to ponder the meaning of 'pro-Israel', merely taking this in a rough and ready sense. I say that merely by way of a preamble to expressing my bafflement over the debate referred to in this piece by Josh Nathan-Kazis. He writes of American Jewish students who have misgivings about describing themselves as 'pro-Israel'. As far as I can see, only two reasons are put forward for their misgivings. First, those who have them 'wonder whether J Street can use the term while promoting policies that oppose the positions of the Israeli government'. Second, they don't want their views to be associated with the views of AIPAC.
To take the second point first, I'd have thought you can't describe yourself as anything without it putting you in someone else's company. The trick is to make the distinctions you need to make in order to differentiate your views from any of theirs that you find objectionable. So the first point is the more important one. And why it has me baffled is that it's just obvious that being pro-something - an organization, a country or other collectivity - doesn't commit you to all the policies of those running it. Thus, you can be a supporter of a charitable organization and still criticize some of its statements or priorities; of a political party and think that it has made mistakes in government or in campaigning, and want to say so; of a church and yet regret its unwillingness to rethink some of its doctrines. These are banal truths. They are made more emphatic by the circumstance that people who so value a collective as to choose to belong to it don't necessarily feel that this imposes a duty of silence on them so far as criticism is concerned.
Thinking, now, about the meaning of 'pro-Israel', I'd say that not much more is needed as a basis for describing oneself in this way than some combination of supporting Israel's right to exist, having the interests of the country and its people at heart, liking features of the country and its traditions, taking exception to the special vilification of it common amongst its enemies (both regional and worldwide) and which go beyond normal political criticism, resisting, more generally, the idea that Israel is to be singled out and judged, or treated, according to standards that don't apply to other countries, and so on."
I liked the comment by Geras and am happy to be introduced to his blog.
It's of course a telling critique of the inveterate Israel bashers (as opposed to responsible criticism of specific policies or actions) to ask them what countries meet the standards they hold Israel to.
Once they can't answer, they are in fact answering other things.
I liked the comment by Geras and am happy to be introduced to his blog.
It's of course a telling critique of the inveterate Israel bashers (as opposed to responsible criticism of specific policies or actions) to ask them what countries meet the standards they hold Israel to.
Once they can't answer, they are in fact answering other things.
For Example:
The Right Way to Investigate Gaza
Evelyn Gordon - 11.09.2009 - 10:51 AM
"...A group of South African immigrants to Israel submitted a novel proposal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week. Netanyahu, they said, should accede to the UN’s demand that Israel investigate its own actions during January’s war in Gaza. But it should do so in the only way that makes sense: not by focusing on Israel’s actions in a vacuum but by comparing them to those of other Western military campaigns in populated areas – for instance, American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or NATO’s bombing of Serbia.
“I particularly mention Serbia, where the number of bombs dropped on a civilian ... view full comment
For Example:
The Right Way to Investigate Gaza
Evelyn Gordon - 11.09.2009 - 10:51 AM
"...A group of South African immigrants to Israel submitted a novel proposal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week. Netanyahu, they said, should accede to the UN’s demand that Israel investigate its own actions during January’s war in Gaza. But it should do so in the only way that makes sense: not by focusing on Israel’s actions in a vacuum but by comparing them to those of other Western military campaigns in populated areas – for instance, American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or NATO’s bombing of Serbia.
“I particularly mention Serbia, where the number of bombs dropped on a civilian population was tremendously high,” Charles Abelsohn, one of the proposal’s authors, told Haaretz. “This is how war is conducted. But all of a sudden, when Israel is involved, there is a law of human rights that doesn’t appear to apply anywhere else.”
The South Africans are right: The Gaza war can only be understood comparatively. Only by analyzing how the level of civilian casualties and efforts to minimize them compared with casualty levels in other Western military campaigns, only by assessing how Hamas’ efforts to use civilians as cover compare with those of other terrorist groups in other conflicts — only then can a fair determination be made about whether Israel is a war criminal, as the Goldstone Report claims, or whether it “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare,” as British Col. Richard Kemp claims.
Abelsohn is also right that such data would “assist those who are fighting the good fight on Israel’s behalf.” Without comparative facts and figures, Israel’s assertion that its Gaza operation was a model of morality will not convince anyone not predisposed to believe it – unless, like Kemp, they have the firsthand knowledge needed to make their own comparisons. But because most people have no combat experience, they have no basis for comparison.
During World War II, according to historian William Hitchcock, the British bombing of one single city, Rouen, on one single day, April 19, 1944, killed 900 allied civilians. And that figure, which was not atypical, does not even include combatants and enemy civilians.
By comparison, according to IDF figures, Israel killed 1,166 Palestinians in Gaza over the space of three weeks, of whom 709 were combatants. Hence, even if, as Palestinians claim, the total casualty figure was higher and the proportion of combatants lower, Israel would clearly not fare badly in an international comparison.
I doubt that would matter to the Goldstones of the world. But it would matter to those who would like to think well of Israel but are troubled by the endless stream of accusations, which Israel has done too little to counter. Israel needs to produce the necessary comparative data, and its friends need to make sure it gets disseminated. Indeed, this should have been done long ago. But better late than never...
Shorter Harbetal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR200911...
Shorter Harbetal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR200911...