It may indeed be that many in the Arab world will never content themselves with the Jewish state.

There in lies the problem and it will never have a solution until we ask Arab nations to acknowledge Israel's basic right to exist. Until then, it really doesn't matter what either side does or says. There is no possibility of peace.

On a more cynical note: should we even care? We have begged, prodded, and pleaded for many years to try to achieve peace and what have we done? Precious little. The people in that area have been warring off and on for thousands of years; do we really think we can stop that? They have to choose peace. Maybe a war where one wins clearly will engender peace. I don't know. But I wonder why it is our moral concern at all. We have tried.

Oh, Ezra, keep saying this, please. I've argued this point with very dear friends and family to the point of tears. So I really appreciate you writing this. Really.

If this is true...

One man with one bomb. One terrorist group able to lay its hands on one nuclear weapon. One splinter sect able to detonate one biological agent.

Then why is this true?

But many is better than most, and some would be better than many, and a few extremists would be better than some.

If only "a few" extremists are needed to destroy Israel, why should Israel pursue policies that may simultaneously reduce the number of extremists and increase the ability of the remaining few to achieve their goals?

Attacking the messenger rather than the message is standard fare, but it isn't nice to be on the receiving end of these 'attack by labelling' missives.

I honor your courage and that of other voices that speak sanely on this issue. I wish I could reassure you that your thoughtfullness and balance would someday result in real change. I can't offer that however, because if there is to be change there must be collective will (here and in the mideast) and that needed collective will drifts further into the distance each decade.

great post... keep'em coming. the US needs more discussion about this. very few US reporters or politicians have the balls to oppose the "israel-first" facists

Well, at least Klein has come out and admitted that he doesn't think Israel should do anything when people shoot rockets at them. He hasn't quite come out and said it's OK to shoot rockets at Israel, though. Yet.

I take it that the people accusing you of anti-semitism are not aware that the Palestinians are Semites?

Re: "should we even care?" - caliban

Why do I continue to wish Israel well, even though every other breath of mine contains another criticism of her behavior.

Because there are unheard Israeli voices that argue for sanity...and my hope one day these voices will have power enough to wage peace the way others wage war.

This guy http://southjerusalem.com/2008/12/pride-fury-fire/#more-731 writes thoughtful pieces and he should be widely read. If people had alternative solutions in their back pocket, these "leaders" who want "war eternal" would be mocked.

If only "a few" extremists are needed to destroy Israel, why should Israel pursue policies that may simultaneously reduce the number of extremists and increase the ability of the remaining few to achieve their goals?

I don't understand the question. Which policies do both of those?

(I guess you might mean ending the blockade, but that obviously couldn't keep missiles away from the extremists, so how it could have prevented them from getting anthrax or a nuclear weapon I have no idea. I can't think of any other possibilities than that off the top of my head.)

As expected, my inbox has filled up with e-mails accusing me of anti-semitism, and Israel hatred, and all the rest. So be it.

When people resort to rhetoric that ridiculous, it's clear they're wrong.

It wasn't that long ago that those who thought Iraq did not warrant an invasion were labeled "America-hating."

When a reasonable advocacy of non-violence is met with accusations of bigotry, that is the sign that those who point their fingers are morally bankrupt.

It never ceases to amaze me that people named "Ezra Klein" can be accused of anti-semitism.

You're right about this being a completely astrategic move. But if you want to understand it, you have to realize that elections are coming up. And this current government... is the /left-wing/ side. And they're really unpopular. So they're basically trying to steal the right-wing's thunder before an election. If they lose this election, we won't even have lip service to peace. We'll just have this kind of bombing as a status quo.

Not that I support this at all. There just isn't anyone in Israel to support anymore. Isn't it sad when I'm wishing that a war criminal hadn't slipped into a coma, so he'd be around to fix things.

Vidor's condemnation of pedophilia is unforthcoming. I think we can draw certain conclusions from Vidor's silence.

This has to be one of the phonier posts I've seen. So Ezra's apparently kneejerk anti-Israel positions, in ALL instances of regional conflicts, comes from a tender concern for Israeli survival. How many chances can we take, he bleats, as though there were any idea of WE between him and the Jews of Israel. There is no such WE, because all his past behavior and writing is from the point of view of enemies of Israel. His feeble attempt to sell outright appeasement as a form of concern for Israel won't fly --at least, I hope sensible people will see through it. He doesn't need to be accused of anti-semitism. But who can buy that he is concerned for Israel?

I'd echo the thanks for writing this. The bombing is morally questionable and strategically inept, IMO. And what is infuriating is the lack of empathy, the unwillingness to consider the question "If you were Palestinian/Arab, how would you react to this bombing?". Along with the lack of empathy the hubris to think that your opponent will never reach military parity.

Right now Israel (and Palestine) needs some leaders, hard to know where they're coming from.

This has to be one of the phonier posts I've seen. So Ezra's apparently kneejerk anti-Israel positions, in ALL instances of regional conflicts, comes from a tender concern for Israeli survival. How many chances can we take, he bleats, as though there were any idea of WE between him and the Jews of Israel. There is no such WE, because all his past behavior and writing is from the point of view of enemies of Israel. His feeble attempt to sell outright appeasement as a form of concern for Israel won't fly --at least, I hope sensible people will see through it. He doesn't need to be accused of anti-semitism. But who can buy that he is concerned for Israel?

This is a pretty good example. Basically, one is with position X or one is with the terrorists. Because EK is against the bombing of Gaza, his writing is "from the point of view of enemies of Israel." Also, "he bleats" for an apparently unironic 1984 reference (bonus!). Completely bogus, morally bankrupt, and rhetorically vacuous.

Also, quite possibly a joke post and now I look like an idiot.

Exactly right, and very well said. This is the commentary I read your blog for. Keep it coming and ignore the name-calling. Anti-stupid-policies-by-Israel does not equal anti-semitic. It's like Obama - anti-stupid-war does not equal anti-all-war.

Ok, no more hyphens for the rest of the day. I've reached my quota

2 more thoughts.

First, The current Israeli leadership is heedlessly squandering the moral & political capital built up by wiser, less arrogant previous generations of leadership.

Second, if it weren't so tragic, the current American and Israeli military predicaments seem to me similar to the Seinfeld episode of Kramer versus the 8-year olds. Like Kramer gassing on about how his "Katra" philosophy enabled him to find the inner strength defeat his (8-year old) opponents, Americans and Israelis obliviously insist that "military necessity" requires them to inflict a 300-1 casualty ratio, and they (we) seem puzzled when the world recoils in horror at the consequences of such complacent, thoughtless killing.

The fundamental problem here is that Israel isn't treating this like a diplomatic, security, or humanitarian isse, but rather as an opportunity to get into a dick-measuring contest with a group who considers martyrdom the quickest path to heaven. That'll turn out well

I completely agree that the "pro-Isreal" faction (they're not actually pro-Israel, they're just pro-war) is morally bankrupt. My only two cents is that they've always been this way -- I remember when Arafat was the source of all the dissention, and how the Palestinians would make peace at once with Israel if only they could get rid of the corrupt tyrannical Arafat and his secular, Communist-influenced Fatah party. Then Arafat died, and the Palestinians elected the thoroughly religious Hamas, and none of those "pro-Israel" commentators ever acknowledged in public that they had been wrong...they just switched to blaming Saddam Hussein for all of Israel's problems.

Ezra's point is just that since the "pro-Isreal" faction is really pro-war, all they are ever going to do is promote policies that are going to guarantee war, except that one day changing technologies means that Israel is going to go to war yet again and lose. Ezra's point is that this is both an entirely predictable and entirely preventable outcome, but the "pro-Israel" faction is more intent on making it happen than they are on accomplishing anything positive for Israel.

Re: your alleged anti-semitism.

My elderly parents happen to be Polish Jews who survived the WWII, my mother by fleeing to Russia and my father in several concentration camps. My mother watched tv with me last night in horror, as CNN showed small children being carried into ambulances. My father was alive when the IDF destroyed Jenin, and he couldn't believe Israelis were attacking unarmed refugees. Neither of them could be described as anything but the most ardent, often kneejerk supporters of Israel, but they know these policies are wrong, wrong, wrong.

My mother, once fearful that Obama would be "anti-Israel," actually expressed disgust at David Axelrod's pro forma defense last night of Israel's actions. My guess is that most American Jews know full well that besides being self-destructive, this set of attacks are shameful and criminal.

Count me and my family in with Ezra's strain of anti-semitism.

Your common sense is an affront to the quasi-mythical Israelis, revealing you to be a Semite terrorist loving anti-Semite self-hating tool of terrorists. As such, you are sentenced to an eternity of having Marty Peretz say mean and condescending things to you.

From blogger Rod Dreher: "In 2005, Israel withdrew its troops and uprooted its settlements from the occupied Gaza Strip, turning over limited sovereignty to the Palestinians. It was a land-for-peace gamble; if the Gazans showed they could live in peace with the Israelis, there was every expectation that the Palestinians would gain full control of their affairs.

In 2006, the Palestinians of Gaza elected -- that is: chose -- Hamas to govern them. Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the imposition of Islamic theocracy. Hamas carried out an internal coup that crushed all internal opposition. Hamas then began smuggling weapons into Gaza, and firing rockets into Israel. Hamas also hid its military assets in civilian areas, guaranteeing that any Israeli self-defense would unavoidably hit civilians.

So when Israel finally got sick and tired of theocratic fascists openly dedicated to their destruction shooting rockets into their territory, they hit back, hard.

Naturally, many in the West see the Israelis as villains. Plainly, then, the Israelis should do what no other country would ever be expected to do, and commit suicide. Bafflingly unlike many in contemporary Europe, the Israelis seem disinclined to hate themselves into bloody oblivion."

I agree with Dreher. I also agree with Caliban from 12:52, why should we American's give a damn? What's it matter to us anyway? Israel is a tiny country of zero strategic interest to the U.S. Enough already.

Calling a black person an "Uncle Tom" is widely perceived as racist; why not the same treatment for accusing someone of being a self-hating Jew?

You have to ask, looking at this thread and others, why there is so much moral outrage directed at Israel, and that's even assuming that Israel is viewed as the aggressor. After all, there are many international acts of aggression. To take a recent one, the Russian incursion into Georgia. I bet people who post on this blog would generally have sided with Georgia, somewhat. But you would never hear the kind of moral huffing and puffing about Russia's actions that you do about Israel's. Same with Chinese incursions in Tibet, the Sudanese behavior in Darfur, and so on. These struggles are not imbued with the moral weight and outrage that this one single one is. What accounts for the difference? I don't think it is simply that Israel is a US ally. There really is a kind of animus at work here. And a double standard the likes of which would be hard to find elsewhere. For instance -- no outrage at Palestinian parents who encourage their children to commit suicide? Why not? It's because of the vehement condemnation of Israel for doing what normal nations do, that some people get worked up and begin launching accusations of anti-semitism. There has to be SOME explanation for the rush to condemn Israel, and Israel alone.

There has to be SOME explanation for the rush to condemn Israel, and Israel alone.

If you can find another regime in the entire world that commits the kind of crimes that Israel does with as much financial, military, and rhetorical support from the United States, then you can come back with your sleazy accusations of antisemitism.

Egypt: receives huge financial support and arrrests and tortures dissidents, other human rights abuses, pollution out the wazoo; Saudi Arabia: human rights abuses too numerous to mention, women second class citizens, barbaric penal code; our friends the Kurds: female genital mutilation; Afghanistan, um, where to start; even Britain: you must be unhappy with their prosecution of war against Irish "terrorists", and with Falklands war...the list could go on

Keep saying it Ezra. I am so tired of a political culture that insists that no one mention the realities of the I/P situation. So long as Israel tries to rule entirely by brute force, it will confront brutes. It is up to the strong to make peace with the weak -- unless it can exterminate them all. I hate seeing Israel going the extermination route.

And our country would do well to remember the same truth.

On a more cynical note: should we even care? We have begged, prodded, and pleaded for many years to try to achieve peace and what have we done? Precious little. The people in that area have been warring off and on for thousands of years; do we really think we can stop that? They have to choose peace. Maybe a war where one wins clearly will engender peace. I don't know. But I wonder why it is our moral concern at all. We have tried