The fact that a law profesor wrote this editorial and that the Wall Street Journal published it is astounding. The gist of the piece is that civilians in Gazans are actually legitimate military targets because they elected Hamas and allow (?) Hamas militants to embed weapons in their homes, schools, hospitals and the like.
The fact that he apparently doesn’t know a single person who might have been able to convince him that this was a shockingly bad argument, both morally and legally, is also very, very sad.
The arguments made in this editorial are nearly identical to the rationalizations terrorists use to justify murdering civilians. Here is how Osama bin Laden rationalized killing civilians (h/t Jamelle Bouie):
[T]he American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.
(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.
Or, stated more simply: “We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets.”
So, I think it’s safe to conclude that Rosenbaum’s editorial ranks among the most outrageous, insane, and immoral things ever published in the Journal.
currently listening to Ralph Vaughan Williams (outstanding, late English composer), and working on the Kickstarter rewards.
lotta Kickstarter-folk being miserly w/ rewards, man. shit. you’ll get bang for your buck on my Kickstarter, man. like, nuclear blast for your buck. your buck’ll cause fallout in the food and water. your buck’ll cause nuclear winter.
"help fund Very Unpopular Web Show because—
1) it has 0 trans fat
2) it beats a bump on the head don’tcha know
3) Bin Laden wouldn’t have wanted you to. (not that the show is anti-Muslim—I just don’t think it would be his thing, ya know?)
4) I saw a cool bird in Florida once. we can all agree birds are cool sometimes.”