So Nir and yet so far

An American journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.
Nir Rosen

The war-mongering (or is it ex-war-mongering, now that he's decided to no longer support the Iraq debacle) Marxist who likes to get his head up the arses of his neo-con chums gets worked up because Nir Rosen seems to 'justify' the killing of civilians which, of course we all know is 'terrorism'.

Geras himself would never justify the killing of civilians* even if it meant ridding the world of a nasty dictator, right? Oh, no, that's wrong.  It WAS all justified in Iraq, wasn't it? Until, that is, it looked like the deaths from the 'liberation' were about to dwarf the deaths that the nasty dictator was guilty of. At that point, Geras quietly sneaked off and concentrated on his fucking Mamas and Papas collection or another tedious  circle-jerk blog profile, until we'd all but forgotten that he was ever an enthusiastic supporter of Bush and his blood-thirsty old cronies and their destruction of Iraq

Read Geras and then read Rosen and ask yourself, if there was one space left on the lifeboat which one would you drag to safety?

*Get out of jail free card:  But the point is that the terrorists are intending to target civilians whereas the righteous just kill them by chance as a consequence of raining thousands of tons of ordnance on them. Quite different, don't ya see?

For more Gaza links see Shell Israel