But in the cases I cite, civilians are targets not "collateral damage".
In total war, the whole economy is the target. Nothing is collateral. In such a context, isn't this a distinction without a difference?
I've been meaning to ask you how you would categorize the incident I read about frequently in which I think it was Shamir, perhaps others, who bombed a hotel full of civilians (you can tell from my recounting that I probably don't even have the outlines correct) but I'm certain you know about the incident. It's the one in which, in these arguments about terrorism, the reply is that certain future Israeli leaders were terrorists.
I suppose you mean the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946. I think you could class it as a military target, since it was British Military Command HQ and it was full of soldiers. Also there was a telephone warning, which the British ignored. I would say it's borderline.
There's no doubt that the Irgun and the Lehi used terror tactics. There's also no doubt that they were responding to a long history of terror tactics from the other side. The fight for Jerusalem was very nasty on all sides. Even then, the Jews never matched the Arabs for attacking civilian targets as far as I can see. (And before we get the usual cries of "Deir Yassin" raised from the usual quarters, let me note that was the one exception, and even that followed a battle with Iraqi troops to take the village, which was on the road to besieged Jerusalem. And you can find dozens of Arab instances to set it against.)
More about it here.
us-israel.org |
