You can't possibly be arguing that proper military targets in a war can gain immunity from attack by hiding among innocent civilians. Now, I suppose you might have a point if Israel had dropped an atomic bomb on Gaza City for the purpose of killing a particular Hamas leader. But that didn't happen. Israel didn't even engage in areawide bombardment for that purpose. Israel dropped a smart bomb on the guy's house. We did the same thing to Gaddafi - and we missed him and killed several members of his family. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the problem with what Israel or the US did.

But to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause. -Goldfarb

More likely it will strengthen his resolve.

Maybe I'm missing something... -DBL

You are. It's called 'the point.'

Of course there will be collateral damage during war. That doesn't mean it should be encouraged and embraced as a tactic, as Goldfarb is implying. He's saying that killing someone's family as a deterrent is a good idea, a deterrent.

As with torture, not only is it reprehensible, it's also wrong.

DBL, then perhaps you also subscribe to the disproportionate targeting of civilians by al Qaeda. All's fair, isn't it?

That was the point of Greenwald's post and his citation of Orwell. Neoconservatives like yourself want it both ways: the use of lethal force against civilans and the selective perception of whose lethal force is morally objectionable.

DBL -- I see two difficulties with your line of reasoning. The first, where in Gaza are there not innocent civilians? I gather it is rather crowded. Second, is the focus on process instead of results. Hamas has bad process, because their missiles are not carefully aimed at military targets (and in fact, it is not clear that they can be). Israel has good process, because they use smart bombs that can be precisely targeted.

The problem is, there is a horrible disconnect between process and results. Israel has killed an order of magnitude (or so) more innocent civilians than Hamas. This seems like a problem to me, and makes me think that talk of process is a diversion.

"the ethics of Osama bin Laden being explicitly adopted by the organs of mainstream conservatism,"

Indeed. Recall that the U.S. Army kidnapped a target's wife so's they could get at him. And Abu-Gharib was essentially set up as a torture center to warn the rest of the Iraqi public ("You see! You see what happens!..."). What a bunch of shitheads.

Wasn't there a general during the war for the plains that advocated killing Native American children on the grounds that "nits make lice"? Same theory.

DBL@10:18

Aside from the fact that it radicalizes the rest of his family to a suicidal level, dropping a "smart bomb" from a hundred miles away on innocent women and children, just to kill one man, is as chickenshit as it gets. They should hold their manhoods cheap.

This is simply vicious an inhumane. Goldfarb forfeits all claims to decency and morality.

DBL - the Greenwald post (and the subsequent comments threto) did not address the propriety of Israel's actions; his subject was the Michael Goldfarb commentary which went well beyond arguing - as you seem to say - that collateral civilian damage is acceptable.

Goldfarb was arguing that collateral civilian damage is not just acceptable, but desirable as it may serve as a deterrant. Which effectively removes the "collateral" qualifier and endorses the killing of innocent civilians to influence the political behaviour of an opponent. A practice which, when done by Hamas, I expect you would describe as terrorism.

It's a wonder that civilization has advanced as far as it has, considering the persistence of the thugs who want to drag us backward.

But The Hamas shooting rockets indiscriminately into Israel and having suicide bombers blowing themselves up in malls is OK? Israel should just accept that and not try to blow up military targets that hide like cowards in the middle of civilian areas? If the Hamas want to fight like men and not risk their civilians, they should go to unpopulated areas and fight. But noooooooo!!!! They want to to hide among civilians, bait Israel, and then try to call Israel the bad guy.

NickNayme - Generally I agree with you. Terrorizing civilian populations to force an end to a war (e.g., the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo) is morally questionable, although in the circumstances of a total war to the death (e.g., WWII) I can see why it's done. In any event, that's not what Israel is doing or has ever done.

But Matt's headline, and yours, implies the exact same thing. I read Matt's post with the same curious question, and now yours.

Why do you think it is necessary to put icing on the cake of the neo-cons? They are pretty good at it, and when you do it, it only obscures the necessary distinctions between the unavoidable and the unnecessary.

A lot has been made about the Hamas rockets which killed no people as compared to Israel's war, which did kill people. The rockets targeted civilians, and the terrorism part was clear: more psychological damage than actual damage was done.

Maybe after so many years of listening to Bush/Cheney, we have forgotten that terror is the point of terrorism. They don't have the actual power to injure a nation. But we let Bush/Cheney elevate terrorists to a national threat.

Then, we, as a people, allow our leaders to start a war against these guys, and we buy into their terror. We lose. Israel loses. But after the war starts, it is a little too late to complain about the tactics of war. If we need to kill a terrorist leader, and the only place we are sure to find him is at home, guess what? Please blame the idiot terrorist who thought he could go home to his family while he shoots missiles at his enemy. Really shame on him for endangering the lives of his family. War is not a Bugs Bunny cartoon where you can punch out at the end of your shift.

I hope all of the Israeli abused Palestinian children I have seen on television the past week read Mr. Goldfarb's essay very well.

As has been pointed out above, the Israeli apologists on this blog entirely miss the point. You can argue the bombing of Hamas targets amidst civilians till the cows come home but Goldfarb touting it as a strategy for deterrent is particularly heinous.

Goldfarb is condoning (and encouraging) actions identical to the terrorists - target civilians to further the cause. Which makes his statement " because it's not clear that they are rational, at least not like us" all the more outrageous. Double standard anyone?

Just out of curiosity, where is Israel's legendary Mossad in all of this? They seem to be able to kidnap and kill people all over the world with no problem, why can't they just do the same in the small plot of land called Gaza? I know there is lots of mythmaking going on with them, but it seems they have dropped off the map. Or is it Israel just wants to show it has the (US supplied) ordanance and has not qualms about using it?

But to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause. -Goldfarb

More likely it will strengthen his resolve.
Posted by: doubtful

Do you really think there's a shortage of resolve on Hamas' part?

Seems to me all is going to plan for Hamas. They've declared the destruction of Israel to be a key part of their platform, thus ensuring that Israel would never treat them as a real negotiating partner and would keep the clamp on Gaza. They've been lobbing rockets at Israel at a steady pace, thus ensuring Israel's hand would be forced and they would counter. They locate their leadership, launch sites, and weapons stores in and amongst their people, thus ensuring any action by Israel would result in the deaths of innocent people. There's a fairly straight line between Hamas' behavior and the recent actions, with few surprises in between. Hamas isn't stupid, and Israel's response has been predictable. Why isn't this what Hamas wants?

Republicanism has spent 40 years appealing to people's basest feelings. Goldfarb is a chickenhawk coming home to roost.

DBL, objectively pro-terrorism. (i mean, what else would you call it when violence is carried out to give other people "pause" about their policies?)

From USC Title 18, this is how U.S. law defines international terrorism:

Section 2331. Definitions

As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

Do you really think there's a shortage of resolve on Hamas' part? -sjrsm

I don't recall saying there was a shortage, but since it's not quantifiable, finite, or tangible, I don't think there has to be a shortage or resolve prior to a strengthening.

Seriously, though, there are so many people missing the point today; I'm starting to believe it deliberate.

This isn't about whether Israel is right or Hamas is right or whether the chicken or the egg was first. It's about 'collateral' damage as an acceptable, even encouraged, state sanctioned tactic.

My belief is that, like torture, it may satisfy a vengeful blood lust in some, but it will most likely fail to achieve meaningful goals and will encourage further opposition. So besides being morally reprehensible, it's ineffective.

Again, this isn't about whose right in the Middle East, it's about Michael Goldfarb saying it's okay to kill your mom if we don't like you.

Why isn't this what Hamas wants?

It is what Hamas wants. They have no problem sacrificing their civilian population to advance their political goals. With suicide bombers they do it one person at a time, by baiting Israel they just up the numbers.

I say a pox on both Hammas and Goldfarb. Both have embraced terrorism. As to those apologizing for Goldfarb out of misguided loyalty to Israel, I say stop destroying the dream of Israel by supporting a bunch of thugs.

"War is not a Bugs Bunny cartoon where you can punch out at the end of your shift."

Morality is also not something that only applies to the actions of the other guy. Either killing civilians is wrong or it isn't. Goldfarb was, at least, contemplating the idea that killing civilians isn't wrong as long as the correct people do the killing. If you don't understand how poisonous that thinking is to Israel, the United States and all civilization...you're a typical neocon.

In defending itself it may be, and probably is, necessary and unavoidable that Israel will have to kill civilians. But the difference between "necessary and unavoidable" and "good" is not just semantics.

Mike

Two points:

1. This two ton smart bomb was a blunt instrument. It was not intended to kill one man or even just his family. It flattened an area. To say this is morally justified is to admit you have abandoned moral standards.

2. Supporters of Israel who cheer on the attack need to understand that the destruction of Gaza seals the fate of Israel as a democratic Jewish state. This attack ends the viability of a two state solution. A single state cannot be both democratic and Jewish. This is short term satisfaction, but long term folly (like smoking).

Red State Mike wrote: Hamas isn't stupid, and Israel's response has been predictable. Why isn't this what Hamas wants?

gttim wrote: It is what Hamas wants. They have no problem sacrificing their civilian population to advance their political goals. With suicide bombers they do it one person at a time, by baiting Israel they just up the numbers.

Which, ISTM, makes Israel allowing itself to be goaded into such a predictable response strategically questionable, quite apart from the question of its tactics vis-a-vis civilians.

Doing not just what your enemy wants, but what you know your enemy wants? Sun Tzu would be appalled.

So, I guess his point is that if Hamas was really serious about changing Israeli conduct, they wouldn't just fire rockets into the sand, they'd start wiping out families of Israeli politicians?

I mean, it would give the PM pause about sparking an open confrontation with Hamas if he'd seen a colleagues entire family had been wiped out?

> "democratic Jewish state"

Democratic for jews only. South Africa was 'democratic' too... for whites only.

Someday americans will see the moral equivalence between the two situations.

Somewhere the point was lost that Hamas is using their civilian population as cover, as human shields. They store munitions in a place of worship. They launch attacks from civilian areas.

And apparently they want to go home to their family at night and pretend that they are part of a normal military/government.

I don't agree that Israel's operations are good policy, but they decided to wage war and their citizens more-or-less agree with the decision. Once you decide to wage war, it is a little late to decide to be nice.

OTOH, it is a pointless waste of time to rationalize killing children or innocent civilians. There is a difference between realizing that war is Hell and comes filled with tragedy, and trying to make everyone feel good about it using some kind of moral cost-benefit analysis. That is what you get with an-eye-for-an-eye morality. When war becomes just we get more war. War should be about something more than that, this one probably wasn't.

Thank you JohnN. Hamas should become serious about changing Israeli conduct.

Somewhere the point was lost that Hamas is using their civilian population as cover, as human shields. They store munitions in a place of worship. They launch attacks from civilian areas.

Somewhere the point has been lost that this is an excuse used to destroy civilian infrastructure, such as the American School that was totally destroyed this week.

Somewhere the point has been lost that Israel has been starving Gaza by blockade for upwards of two years.

But since "those people" are "not like us" we don't care about that. And the evidence that they "are not like us" is that they bomb civilians under the excuse that there are no innocent civilians in war?

The first thing that needs to be noted is that the point of the original post was that it is reprehensible to deliberately target noncombatants as a strategy for intimidating a population into compliance. That is the textbook definition of terrorism and it is what Goldfarb is advocating. The man is a moral vacuum.

This does not vindicate Hamas in any way. They have made every effort to target noncombatants, and their relative lack of success doesn't excuse the intent. But it is important to recognize why the Palestinian people have chosen this extremist organization to lead them.

For decades, the Palestinians have been treated as foreigners in their own homeland. Their homes and farms have been bulldozed in acts of group punishment. They have been subjected to economic deprivations that no American would ever stand for. The IDF, on more than one occasion, have engaged rock-throwing protesters with automatic weapons. Unable to defend themselves in open warfare against a military supplied by the greatest superpower on Earth, is it any surprise that they have turned to one group that is willing to strike back, however futilely?

All of which bears no weight on the question of whether Michael Goldfarb is a monster or not. He is.

Although I am Jewish, I am by no means a strong supporter of Israel.

That said, I can see what the Israeli government is trying to accomplish. They are trying to make life in Gaza under Hamas (which was democratically elected let's not forget) so miserable that the people there shift their support back to Fatah, which is willing to negotiate with Israel.

The problem is that even if that does eventually happen, Hamas is not just going to disappear as a political entity, leading to the possibility of civil war within Gaza between Hamas and Fatah.

This is the crux of the problem...the fact that no matter what happens politically, there will always be a significant number of Palestinians seeking to destroy Israel. Even if that number shrinks over time to 5-10% (highly unlikely) of the Palestinian population, that will still be more than enough people to cause problems.

Given that virtually no political progress has been made in 30+ years of negotiating, it may just be that Israel now thinks that their best strategy is to make life in Gaza so miserable that the Palestinians living there switch support to Fatah and beg for peace.

Look, Hamas rockets have been hitting sand because of lack of competence and lousy aim. You don't see suicide bombers going after sand. They want to hit civilians, and their aim and range are improving. How many Jewish people have to die before Israel is allowed to defend itself?

This attack ends the viability of a two state solution.

Do you mean the original two state solution, (Trans) Jordan and Israel, the latest two state solution, or the next two state solution that will be presented if the current one goes through? Arabs will never be content as long as Israel exists. They have made that point very well known. If Palestine becomes a nation, the Arabs will just invent another new make believe country that just "has a right to exist." They have probably already picked out another name of a long lost society out of the Bible to be the next cause.

More likely it will strengthen his resolve.

And/or help them feel more justified in the "rightness" their cause since their opposition has resorted to unquestioningly despicable acts.

Yet another instance of a right-wing tough-guy wannabe like Goldfarb not really thinking through his penis-rattling.

Heart of the matter.

Why does a state based on domination by a single racial/religious group (at the expense of the other peoples who lived there) have some particular and special 'right' to exist?

Aside from the morality of the situation, it is certainly not the sort of place I want my tax dollars going... or any investment money.

In defending itself it may be, and probably is, necessary and unavoidable that Israel will have to kill civilians. But the difference between "necessary and unavoidable" and "good" is not just semantics.

Excatly - and, in Goldfarb's case, "preferable".

Some superficial readers on this thread have the very much mistaken impression that Goldfarb is merely excusing collateral damage. He isn't. He's actually advocating the killing of (certain) innocent civilians as an affirmative tactic.

As a few people here have pointed out, this is not only morally despicable, it also unquestioningly, obviously constitutes terrorism by any remotely rational and honest definition. And, as an added bonus, it's actively counterproductive, both tactically and strategically.

So, Goldfarb is arguing FOR: (1) evil (2) terrorism which will (3) harden Israel's enemies and radicalize moderates on the other side.

And that's defensible ... how, exactly?

I do not wish to defend Mr. Goldfarb who I do not know.
But I hope to get your attention for a minute about an assumption YOU make in your critique.It is a common assumption that as Westerners we make without consideration. But is incorrect for other cultures.
It is that, for us, the basic unit of life, if you will, is the INDIVIDUAL. Sort of one man one vote one soul.
But in other cultures that is NOT the basic unit!
For instance in Chinese culture it is the Family.
And the maintenance of the family is more important then the individual. I suspect in Somalia it is likely to be the extended family or Clan.
Some of this of course remains within our culture. As in the Army where one puts his life on the line to protect his buddies. Here the important element of life is not the self, but the maintenance of the Unit. And we call the hero's behavior "selfless"
So if the Palestinian norm is say the family not the individual, then what Goldfarb suggests could make sense.
Here is an ethical question:
If what is central for a Palestinian is that his family, not his own life. And if what is central for us is our own life. From our point of view his life and our life are equal. From his point of view, he is more willing to give his life as long as his family survives.For us it is our own survival.
So for him, the basic unit of death is that of his family. Ours is ourselves.

Is that the equilibrium point???
Hmmmm.

plschwartz, you are saying that Goldfarb's position is defensible because to kill the family is the way to kill the individual Palestinian?? You don't see yourself as disgusting?!

plschwartz:

Good lord, where to begin.

First off, where on Earth do you get the idea that non-westerners don't believe in the value of individual lives or the existence of individual souls? For that matter, what makes you think that families aren't as important to westerners as they themselves are? And where do you come up with the ridiculous notion that individuality and concern for one's family, clan, tribe, or culture are even incompatible, much less opposites?

And do you really not see the difference in sacrificing yourself for the betterment of a group, and someone else making that choice for you?

And are you really suggesting that targeting the innocent civilian families of your enemies is worth considering because they might actually be part of some alien hive-mind?

And where do you get your ideas about world culture? L. Ron Hubbard?

From his point of view, he is more willing to give his life as long as his family survives.For us it is our own survival. -plschwartz

You have a very shallow view of 'Westerners' to think that self preservation is universally more important than the safety and well being of our families.

What Goldfarb suggests does not make sense to any rational person, and even more so if you accept your broad and baseless assumption that families are more important to other cultures, since, by employing his tactics, you've sent a loud and clear message that you will employ 'collateral damage' as a tactic.

...by employing his tactics, you've sent a loud and clear message that you will employ 'collateral damage' as a tactic.

Yeah, I just wrote that.

I need a drink.

I need a drink.

After reading Schwartz' post, so do I.

Goldfarb = Scum.

What Goldfarb suggests does not make sense to any rational person...
Posted by: doubtful

I think it is highly rational. What they are saying is, "If we find you, and you're important enough, we will kill you even if it means killing innocents with you."

I don't think the Israelis used a 2000 LB bomb in order to purposely kill off the family. I don't think they waited until he was with his family to take him out, in order to take them out too. But I may be wrong.

Nazir sent his own son out as a suicide bomber. I have a hard time getting into the mind of someone who would do that.

Sorry, I don't see it.

Goldfarb COULD have meant that the collateral damage, while not intentional nor desireable, could give Hamas extremists pause. Collateral damage is a common result of military offensives. Who can deny it? (Maybe it shouldn't be, but it IS common.)

The observation he MIGHT be making is not entirely implausible, nor horrifying a statement. It's also not particularly insightful.
Worries about family safety MIGHT affect SOMEBODY's thinking? No, duh.

I think it is highly rational. What they are saying is, "If we find you, and you're important enough, we will kill you even if it means killing innocents with you."

That may be what Israeli government policy is, but that clearly is not what Goldfarb (who is not a group, but a single person) is saying, which is clearly that it is desirable to kill innocent civilians if they are people that those who are legitimate military targets would care about.

This is, precisely, an endorsement by Goldfarb of preferential targeting of civilians as an Israeli policy (whether or not such a policy of the Israeli government actually current exists).

Worries about family safety MIGHT affect SOMEBODY's thinking?

Or it might encourage fatalism, "Nobody is going to survive. My family is certain to be killed. Therefore I might as well take a few of the bastards out before they snuff me and my family."

That is as likely, or even more likely in a hopeless situation, than any other result.

I think it is highly rational. What they are saying is, "If we find you, and you're important enough, we will kill you even if it means killing innocents with you."

For chrissakes, that is NOT what Goldfarb is saying.

Re-read the thread and try again.

I think it is highly rational. -sjrsm

Which is why I included the qualifier 'rational person.' Your opinion on these tactics, in light of that prerequisite, is not necessary.

Additionally, you have fallen off the topic, as you are wont to do. My discussion is limited to the intentional targeting of civilian non-combatants as a deterrent, as espoused by Goldfarb, not about the specific attack.

If you are going to cite me, than at least address what I am discussing instead of trying to derail the topic at hand.

My discussion is limited to the intentional targeting of civilian non-combatants as a deterrent, as espoused by Goldfarb, not about the specific attack.
Posted by: doubtful

I think someone needs to just ask Goldfarb if that is what he meant, rather than all the tea leaf reading going on here.

come back here! i'll bite you to death! it's just a flesh wound!

sjrsm: I think someone needs to just ask Goldfarb if that is what he meant, rather than all the tea leaf reading going on here.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Goldfarb wrote his column in English. Although I accept your statement that you can't seem to comprehend it.

BUSH'S PARTING GIFT TO OBAMA - SCORCHED EARTH POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
President Bush is the first American President to openly talk about a two state solution in the Middle East. But beyond that him and his Secretary of State Condi Rice have done everything to destroy the Middle East peace process.

Bill Clinton left him a fairly advanced peace process, but GWB took an axe and crushed it. First, by declaring the Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat a terrorist and then unleashing Ariel Sharon on the Palestinians. The same Ariel Sharon who was wanted in a European court on terrorism charge for instigating and killing of over one thousand innocent men, women and children in Sabira and Shatilla camps in Lebanon.

It seems that Bush and Sharon's policy was to weaken Palestinians to such an extent that a planted Palestinian leader, Mahmood Abbas would accept whatever peace agreement was offered to him. But that was doomed to failure. Israel continues to fight and has not only suffered humiliation but also lost invincibility at the hands of a rag tag Hizbollah.

And now, when it seemed that Israelis had started talking peace and King Abdullah's peace plan and when a new U.S. President was about to be sworn in with much hope for Middle East peace, President Bush & Condi Rice have encouraged Israel to attack Gaza and possibly destroy all chances of peace.

A majority of American public and many Jews around the world (who otherwise support Israel) have shown anger and disgust at Gaza attacks and are refusing to buy Bush Administration's rhetoric. It seems that the World and Americans cannot be rid of George W. Bush soon enough. Even in the dying days of his Presidency he is hell bent on causing death and destruction and leaving behind a scorched Middle East.

Touche, Morpheus.
Don't try to read the mind of madmen.

A major reason behind the ruthlessness of the bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan during WW2 was to make the experience of war so painful for the civilian population that they would never want to go to war again. Not just to destroy the military but to discredit and destroy militarism by making the cost in suffering unbearable. And it succeeded, didn't it ? The militarist, authoritarian Right in both Germany and Japan were completely destroyed. So much for "violence doesn't solve anything" or "killing one only creates another".

The Palestinian people chose war and rejectionism. The problem with the Palestinians is that they will never make 100% of peace because no matter what piece of paper is ever signed, 50% will storm away from the table shouting that they have been sold out and vowing to fight forever. As things stand now. And there will be a Muslim rejectionist power to arm and fund them. That is why the cost to the Palestinian people must be made so unbearable that that 50% will be reduced to 5-10% tops by a war weary people. The cost in suffering must be made so unbearable that the Palestinians refuse to let Iran fight Israel to the last Palestinian.

As a consequence of the Intifadah, Palestinian society is now ruled by gangs of teenage boys with guns. Teenage boys are ruthless and utterly fearless. Like the Terminator they don't know fear, pity, hesitation, or remorse. The only thing they are afraid of is looking like a wimp in front of the guys. You can't reason or negotiate with them until you have broken their will to fight. So it will take a lot of firepower to tame those alpha male hormones.

Interesting set of comments
To DHWalker, I will suggest that there was nothing in his comments that suggest he is aware that the values of other cultures may be completely different then his. Nor that his set of values may be arbitrary.
Let me just give two quick sets of family values which I do not think we have in our society (at least since the Hatfields and the McCoys)
1. In a traditional say Pakistani culture a woman gets raped. The family sees that as a defilement upon them all. So a near relative, often a father or brother kills her to avenge the dishonor.
2. We learned rather late in Iraq that having soldiers break into a house was an affront to the extended family. It helped radicalize many who had at first welcomed the end of Saddam. Worse, killing a bystander set the whole family upon revenge (I am simplifying this of course for brevity)

Glenn made it sound like Goldfarb, the Weekly Standard writer and former John McCain aide, had endorsed deliberate military attacks against innocent civilians.
...
But it wasn't a mistake; that's exactly what Goldfarb argued.

Steve Benen is correct, and Goldfarb is clearly wrong. The best that can be said is that Hamas tactics make it impossible for Israel to target military sites (most to date have included munitions stores behind concrete walls, in churches, and in basements -- hence the big bombs) without killing innocent civilians. Hamas is hiding behind their wives and children because they are militarily too weak to attack the IDF.

Maybe Goldfarb was writing in despair, and will come to his senses and repent.

As a writer above noted, punishing the civilian population was a major goal of the Allied Bombing of Germany in WWII, in the hopes that the civilians would rise up against their government (as had happened on a small scale in WWI.) This goal was not achieved, and such intentional bombing of civilians was prohibited in the subsequent Geneva Conventions, along with hiding behind human shields. All combatants include at least a few people willing to use the ancient and recent rhetoric to justify what the rest of the world will perceive as atrocities. It's depressing.

Matthew R Marler wrote: Maybe Goldfarb was writing in despair, and will come to his senses and repent.

"Repent" is a mighty soft word for advocating war crimes. Your continued posting here indicates that repentance for odious and dishonest advocacy is thin among the right.