Forgive me if I put up two pieces on Israel’s wars today (i’m not sure what I’ll write about next), but it’s not only on my mind, it’s the main news besides the American election. (See the daily “Nooz” for this other stuff).
I don’t like to use the words “self-hating Jew,” for I don’t think that an anti-Semitic Jew can really hate himself or herself. (Yes, there are anti-Semitic Jews: who do you think runs “J Street” and “Jewish Voice for Peace?”). I prefer “Jew-hating Jew,” and although that may seem a bit harsh when applied to Bernie Sanders, he has repeatedly taken actions against the state of Israel. It’s not because he hates Netanyahu, though I’m sure he does, but because he seemingly doesn’t favor the existence of the state of Israel. In other words, he’s an anti-Zionist, which to me equates to “anti-Semite,” ergo my characterization.
Again, I know some readers will disagree, but right now I think it’s the moral duty of the U.S. to help our closest ally in the Middle East—the only democracy in the Middle East—and fight against the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah. Given that the Israeli Army has taken great care not kill civilians as far as they can help it, and has produced one of the lowest civilians killed/Hamas terrorists killed in the history of warfare, there is no reason to decry Israel for a “disproportionate response” to being attacked by Hamas. For crying out loud, everyone agreed with Israel at the war’s outset that Hamas had to be eliminated after the butchery of last October 7. But when Israel tried to do that, and tried to avoid killing civilians, the world screamed “genocide” in response. It’s crazy.
So now, according to PBS, Bernie has prepared a resolution reducing American arms sales to Israel, just when it needs them to defend itself against Hezbollah as well. Click to read the PBS article.
An excerpt:
Sen. Bernie Sanders is preparing several resolutions that would stop more than $20 billion in U.S. arms sales to Israel, a longshot effort but the most substantive pushback yet from Congress over the devastation in Gaza ahead of the first year anniversary of the Israel-Hamas war.
In a letter to Senate colleagues on Wednesday, Sanders said the U.S. cannot be “complicit in this humanitarian disaster.” The action would force an eventual vote to block the arms sales to Israel, though majority passage is highly unlikely.
“Much of this carnage in Gaza has been carried out with U.S.-provided military equipment,” Sanders, I-Vt., wrote.
As the war grinds toward a second year, and with the outcome of President Joe Biden’s efforts to broker a cease-fire deal and hostage release uncertain, the resolutions from Sanders would seek to reign in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assault on Gaza. The war has killed some 41,000 people in Gaza after the surprise Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack that killed about 1,200 people in Israel, and abducted 250 others, with militants still holding around 100 hostages. [JAC: Where, PBS, did you get that figure, and how many of them were Hamas fighters?]
While it’s doubtful the politically split Senate would pass the measures, the move is designed to send a message to the Netanyahu regime that its war effort is eroding the U.S.’s longtime bipartisan support for Israel. Sanders said he is working with other colleagues on the measures.
Key Senate Democrats have been pushing the Biden administration to end the Israel-Hamas war and lessen the humanitarian crisis, particularly in Gaza, where people’s homes, hospitals, schools and entire Palestinian families are being wiped out.
I would ask Senator Sanders and all of his running dogs in the Senate, as well as the Israel-hating “squad” in the House, this question: “How do YOU propose to wipe out Hamas and end its terrorism if you put shackles on Israel, and, especially, call for a cease-fire that leaves Hamas in power?”
Yes, I know that we don’t know what will happen after Hamas is defeated, as it will be, but as I recall, when the war began, everyone agreed with Israel that Hamas needed to be extirpated. But when Israel started doing that, and civilians died (put most of their deaths at the door of Hamas), they decided that no, Israel cannot be allowed to win this war. And if Israel doesn’t win, Hamas’s terrorism will continue (remember, Hamas vowed to repeat October 7 over and over and over again).
So, it galls me endlessly when the “progressives” like Sanders conveniently neglect several facts:
- Israel is not committing genocide in the Middle East. The people who are doing so include Hamas, Hezbollah, and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who has killed off 600,000 of his own people, apparently bent on a genocide of Syrians. It’s clear that the terrorists want to wipe out Jews and the state of Israel, and that is genocide. It is not true that Israel’s aim is to wipe out all Palestinians. If they wanted to, they could have done so at any time in the last 50 years. They even gave Gaza to the Palestinians.
- If there was a permanent cease-fire and the war ended now, it would leave Hamas in power. That would guarantee that their terrorism against Israel would continue indefinitely along with their oppression of the people of Gaza. Hamas is an odious, murderous, theocratic, and hateful regime.
- Half of the death toll Sanders and everyone gives probably includes Hamas fighters, and of course those figures are provided by Hamas. The ratio of civilians killed to Hamas soldiers killed is roughly between 1.3:1 and 1:1—very low for warfare and especially low for urban warfare. Remember that Hamas puts its weapons and rockets under schools, in hospitals and Gazan homes, and even in humanitarian zones. Why? I think nobody doubts that it is in Hamas’s expressed interest to ensure that Gazan civilians are killed to secure the world’s hatred of Israel. So “40,000” is not the figure you want to bandy about.
- The “humanitarian” crisis in Gaza has been greatly exaggerated because tons more food is being delivered now than a few months ago. If Gazans are starving, it’s because Hamas is commandeering humanitarian aid. (I don’t think anybody doubts this. either) Yes, a lot of Gazan infrastructure has been destroyed, but put that again at the door of Hamas.
If Sanders really wanted to do something constructive, he could pass a resolution hauling Hamas and Hezbollah before the International Court of Justice for genocide. But of course neither he nor anybody else will do that.
It’s clear that the “progressive” Left in America is palpably against Israel in this war, decrying it constantly but almost never mentioning the war crimes of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Democratic “squad” in the House, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and their allies, are part of this anti-Israel brigade. And I’m fairly certain that, if elected, Kamala Harris would join right in. That won’t make me vote for Trump, but I was certain, when I voted for Biden four years ago, that he would never become “woke”, for he vowed to “reach across the aisle.” I was wrong. And I’m pretty sure that Harris will be even more “progressive,” which is why Russia is trying to sabotage the U.S. elections in favor of Trump. (Their consideration is, of course, largely Ukraine.)
At any rate, opposition to Israel in the war is fueled by lies and misinformation, and, if I wanted to be cynical, I’d say that Bernie. his colleagues, and the Squad could care less if the state of Israel disappeared. And without US aid, it might.
One more comment, this one directed especially at Thomas “I Am a Moron” Friedman at the NYT. (See his latest column.) I’ll put it in caps: A TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS NOT THE “SOLUTION” TO THE WAR OR THE EMNITY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HAMAS. The Palestinians don’t want such a solution (they’ve rejected it repeatedly, for what they want is a one-state solution that eliminates Israel), nor do the Israelis, who now realize that a Palestinian state abutting their own will subject them to constant terrorism. The two-state “solution” can be possible only if there are honest brokers and Palestinian leaders who truly want their people to thrive (I don’t see Netanyahu as an “honest broker” in this respect.)
Such a solution if possible, is decades away. So people who propose such a “solution” are deeply ignorant of history. And that includes Bernie Sanders, who seems superannuated to me.
So in the spirit of a picture being worth more than words, I’d like to put a picture of Senator Sanders’ four children, seven grandchildren, and wife in front of him and ask him whether he would support taking up arms in their defense or whether he would let them be killed rather than harm their murderers or would-be murderers or over a concern that an innocent bystander might be injured or killed in the crossfire. That is the choice facing the Israelis. If the Senator would let his family be killed rather than possibly harm their would-be murderers then he lives in a mental space that no argument can reach.
” Russia is trying to sabotage the U.S. elections in favor of Harris. (Their consideration is, of course, largely Ukraine.)”
I think you meant to say Russia is trying to sabotage the U.S. elections in favor of Trump.
Yep, my mistake. Thanks.
Your points 1-5, above, are excellent and need constant repetition. The U.S. promised strong support to Israel immediately after October 7 but, when people saw that Israel was going to act decisively this time—no more “mowing the lawn”—the U.S. lost its nerve. As a consequence, it can be argued that the U.S. has delayed Israel in getting the job done in Gaza, causing more civilian death that would have been the case had U.S. support been unequivocal and solid. (It’s impossible to know for sure.) Whatever his motivations, Senator Sanders is only making the situation worse. Even if the bill to cut support fails, he is furthering the demonization of Israel, which not only hurts Israel also but may exacerbate antisemitism here at home.
Dear Vice President Harris. If you’re reading this—and I know you are—please tell us how you plan to help Israel win the current war in Gaza, how you will help Israel defend against Hezbollah on Lebanon, and how you intend to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and delivery system. So far, I’m hearing only crickets.
Be thankful. The crickets have more sense.
The Sanders resolution seems unlikely to pass, says the article. So Sen. Sanders seems to be saying, “No, I can’t defeat Israel all by myself. But I can make my contribution by doing my best to undermine her.” We have people like that in our government, too.
It seems to me that many of the foreigners pontificating about what Israel should or should not do fail to take on board that Israel is fighting an existential threat. If they lose they all die or are displaced.
All the half-assed ideas put forward so far do not address this existential issue – there is no room for failure. And given the political actors involved no room for success either.
Yes, and I know from contacts that many Israelis do feel that it is an existential issue. And it is. They won’t lose in Gaza, but if Hezbollah fights them in a hot war, and if Iran joins in, then Israel may very well disappear.
As well as not “getting” how Islam motivates people in the Islamosphere, we in the secular secure west really DON’T understand the odds or imperatives Israel is facing.
For most of our lives our wars have been discretionary, “luxury” wars.
Not the case for Israel.
Hamas had a conference in 2021 in Gaza – see a forthcoming article of mine about that – which spoke of their intentions were they to win a war with Israel.
It was horrible.
D.A.
NYC
In your blog post you say:
I would ask Senator Sanders and all of his running dogs in the Senate, as well as the Israel-hating “squad” in the House, this question: “How do YOU propose to wipe out Hamas and end its terrorism if you put shackles on Israel, and, especially, call for a cease-fire that leaves Hamas in power?”
Wait a minute, on Saturday September 14th you said “Israel has won the war, or at least achieved its aim of defeating Hamas.”
If Hamas is defeated, then you would expect Israel to stop the war in Gaza. If that happened, that would really call out the possible bluff of Hezbolla that they will stop bombing Israel if the Israel stops bombing Gaza. And again, if they did stop the maybe there would be no need for an escalation of violence into Lebanon, and Sanders resolution might help calm things down in the middle east.
Hezbollah has been firing rockets into Israel since long before October 7. It’s just what they do. There is no bluff to call. They’re not going to stop just because Israel stops attacking Hamas.
I want to correct a naive misunderstanding of what means to “win” a war. Re Gaza, there has been no unconditional WW2-type surrender by Hamas that is binding on all its military forces (including civilian gun-men) to lay down their arms and no agreement to an armistice that would end hostilities pending a punitive Versailles-type peace treaty (which never came to pass in Korea: it will soon become another Hundred Years War.)
So Israel has not won the war. All Israel can say is that major combat has ended as Hamas seems at present unable to carry out concerted military action and can be put on the back burner for now. This means Israel will, as it has done since the beginning, only bomb targets in Gaza from which Hamas remnants carry out free-lance attacks. It has never been bombing Gaza for the sheer hell of it, just because there are a few buildings left standing, as you imply. That would be wasteful. If it is still bombing Gaza, it is because there are still military targets there.
What I meant was that it looks as if Israel was going to win. That is, if things continue, I think Israel will win. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hamas isn’t truly defeated until Yahya Sinwar is dead or captured. If Israel stops the war in Gaza now, Hamas will take over.
I don’t think it’s time for Israel to stop the fighting, for if they do, Hamas will take over again.
Thanks for the clarification PCC.
Leslie, I did not imply such a thing. I do think however, and sorry for the negativity, that if Israel’s ultimate goal is to not have animosity against it from neighbours and to live in peace, it will almost surely not going to achieve it by fighting until every single person who does not want Israel to exist is dead. A moment will have to come when a serious effort by everyone involved is done to achieve peace some other way. There will have to be, I think, serious concessions on all sides. No, all land taken from people in the last 70 years will not be given back, but some serious good will gesture from Israel will have to be offered to try and secure peace by winning the hearts and minds of their neighbours. Again, I admit I am being naive here, but I just see no other way out for long term peace in the region.
I believe that Israel, the U.S., and the U.N. have all offered territorial concessions to the Palestinians, for over 70 years. As Golda Meir famously said: “You cannot negotiate peace with someone who has come to kill you.”
I’m afraid that the tradition of Jew-hatred (rooted in Koran) mixed with Nazi propaganda in the Islamic world (from 1930s) and Soviet “anti-Zionist” propaganda (from 1950s) are now so deeply ingrained in the minds of Israel’s neighbours that the idea of winning their hearts and minds is an unobtainable pipe dream. Israel made plenty of serious good will gestures – several offers of land for peace, Oslo Accords allowing an arch-terrorist and his band to come to Israel and building the Palestinian Authority, a gift of the whole Gaza – all of these “good will gestures” ended catastrophically for Israel. No, there is no other possibility for Israel to live in peace with its neighbours but strength. The Arab and Islamic world must be finally convinced that Israel is there to stay, that it’s so strong that any attempt to attack it would end in a total disaster for the attacker. Israel cannot expect to be liked by its neighbours but it can expect to be respected.
And here is a link to an article by an Arab living in Sweden who writes about Israel’s peace offers and good will gestures: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-819959 If in the future more than a handful Arabs think like this one, a real peace and friendship are possible.
You are aware, aren’t you, that Israel has offered a two-state solution at least five times, and the Palestinians have turned it down. And those offers weren’t niggardly either. As one Israeli PM said, “THe Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance.” Are you saying that Israel has never made a peace offer except by fighting? And yes, Israel made serious concessions. It is the Palestinians who won’t make concessions.
Yes I am aware and to be honest it has been mostly from reading the posts and discussions here, so thanks for that. And no, I do not know the details of the offers for a two state solution. Thanks Malgorzata for the link, perhaps a well meaning article but really does not allow one to learn much… I will not write more today so as to not dominate the discussion. My knowledge of such a complex and vast subject really is not that extensive (doubt that most people know much more than I do) and so once again thanks for the posts. I do miss the science ones (the reason I started reading the blog).
There is NO hope of any peace with the Pals. Ever. Their national identity is built UPON their intended graves of all Israelis. Even Arab Israeli citizens.
Their anti-Israel ideas are actually anti-Semitism as per the Koran and generations of Arab “nationalism” and Jew hatred.
It isn’t about land at all. Land is one prize they seek, land to bury their enemy which is the Jews and ultimately, the west. So you and me.
In the west we tend to think in terms of land, goals, money, etc.
The Pals and other Islamic Brotherhood spawn are fighting a completely different war than we see. They tell us in Arabic, sometimes English even (see Memri.org). Theirs is an eliminationst battle, not a fight for square miles and stuff.
If Oct.7 should have taught us anything – it is that.
best,
D.A.
NYC
Yeah yeah I know, heard it before. BILLIONS dead in Gaza, mainly babies, puppies and kittens. All mashed by the evil Z*&nists! How terrible. How DARE the Israelis want to just live their life …. in defiance of a pure Islamic Republic from Indonesia to Morocco? Horrors. Allah Akbar and all that.
It tires me sometimes but like a car crash on the FDR drive I crane my neck to watch. And so do you. 🙂
BUT… let’s not indulge the morally retarded, the factually deficient in our quest for the truth and a moral judgement here.
I’ve written here and in my column about how institutions can decrep and devolve over time. Witnesseth the BBC, Pan Am, Time magazine. Onceuponatime these things were worthwhile, intellectual and admirable. No more.
And my metrics apply to individuals also and Bernie is a good example. For decades he was a tad strange but a golden hearted leftist with all the right intuitions and his heart was in the right place.
Now he’s like the hulking, ruined Pan Am jet – reminder of a happier yesterday – you can barely see the blue and white of as it is parked in an Arizona airplane graveyard. He’s now a ranting old fool.
D.A.
NYC
Having asked exactly those questions to an US lefty, I can report that his answer was:
“I don’t have the expertise to answer, but I know that killing women and children is wrong and has to stop now.”
Personally I think that the word genocide has suffered concept creep (similar to e.g. violence or racism). Most people hear ‘genocide’ and think of ethnic cleansing with death squads roaming the street and murdering everyone. But the technical definition includes for example if a population is displaced as the result of a war.
Since Hamas / Hezbollah and a majority of Palestinians want Israel gone and the Jews, if not dead then gone as well, they are genocidal. Even if Israel were bent on displacing the Palestinians, I’d rather take that genocide that the alternative genocide.
So your interlocutor has the perspective of a child then. Great.
Displacement during war is not one of the five acts constituting genocide. Forcible transfer of children out of the target group is perhaps what you are thinking of. The implication is to prevent their mating with their own kind. (There is also no such thing as cultural genocide.)
If forcible transfer (not necessarily during war) was done in such a manner that large numbers would die during the transfer, e.g., by not feeding them or not sheltering them from harsh weather on a forced march, that could be considered genocide, as would pushing them into the sea in unseaworthy boats. But mere “ethnic cleansing” creating refugees would not. You need bodies.
Thank you for the clarification. Apparently I got bamboozled in the discussion with said lefty, that I accepted evidence that forced expulsion is a war crime and a crime against humanity as evidence that forced expulsion is genocide. It was considered to be, but apparently is not.
I am amused at the number of lefties who cling to the quaint notion that women should not be killed in war. Dying is, apparently, a man’s duty. “Women and children,” indeed.
Imagine the political realignments and rhetoric in Washington DC if Russia had instead invaded Israel and it was Hamas that was bombing “women and children” in lily-white, traditionally-Christian Ukraine.
It is the duty of male soldiers — male because they can usually do the duty better — to protect their own women from murder, rape, and abduction by the enemy. Wombs are precious, testicles are not. But the enemy’s women are fair game, protected only by their usually non-combatant status, not because they are women. Indeed, if an enemy arms its women, they are first ones you should shoot.
Yes again, Leslie.
Not comforting for us dudes to feel so replaceable, but we so are and evolution fans herein should know about that.
Wombs are precious.
D.A.
NYC
ps — sorry so much posting from me today, over my allotment. 🙂
Between us we are re-writing the Pentateuch, David. Goodnight, my friend.
Leslie, are you under the impression that you are disagreeing with me, or are you instead amplifying what I merely suggested?! Emphasis: lefties. Edit: place quaint in scare quotes.
I will pick up on your colloquialism of “fair game.” Games have rules. That war similarly does is another quaint (no scare quotes) notion. There might be pragmatic reasons not to exceed certain bounds. There might be moral or other cultural ones, too. I am not suggesting we abandon our own restraint, but woe to the weaker party who violates the rules of the stronger.
We shall see how principled the West is when one day it again faces an enemy who is at least as militarily strong yet laughs at and readily violates our “rules” and “laws” of “just” war. Look how readily some leaders in the West, when facing obstacles to their domestic power, agitate to change rules and procedures that were implemented to foster tolerance, protect minority rights, and ward off both despotism and the tyranny of a majority mob. When they believe that their lives are at stake, they will shuck off their formerly-vaunted principles the second they calculate that doing so might help them to live.
“We shall see how principled the West is when one day it again faces an enemy who is at least as militarily strong yet laughs at and readily violates our “rules” and “laws” of “just” war.”
My bet is that any Western country attacked, other than the USA, will be silently stripped of its Western identity. I mean, if Russia invades Lithuania tomorrow, the USA will decide that Article 5 is not so binding, will provide fractions of the weapons and ammo needed, with great delays and endless discussions about whether this aid would be “escalation”, and will impose on Lithuania a condition not to use these weapons to hurt Russia.
Doug, I hardly ever disagree with you. If you’re not sure if I was disagreeing or amplifying, you should default to assuming amplification….as now.
The rules of war have undoubtedly saved millions of lives by encouraging reciprocal moderation in killing, if only to deny an excuse for retaliation. The purpose of rational war is to destroy the enemy’s ability to fight, not to annihilate him. When the war eventually ends, one hopes on “our” terms, there will be two realities:
1) The two countries have to live in the same world after.
2) One’s own soldiers come home and have to be able to be trusted not to kill their own wives and babies when they get tired and angry.
Both these realities call for moderation in wars that are to some degree elective. It might even be rational to admit you are losing and hope for the best peace deal you can get.
But in an existential war where the enemy wants to slaughter every last one of you, he’s not worried about Reality 1. He dreams of a world without you in it. Further, if his soldiers are so indoctrinated that they see a world of difference between your babies and his, he may not be bound by Reality 2. Israel is bound by both realities. It’s enemies are not. In that situation, Israel must win by any means necessary, even though it still has to live with the realities after: there will still be organized states wanting to annihilate Jews, and her soldiers may become what they fight.
I’m not an American but I chanced upon this summary of the disastrous foreign policy in the Middle East of the “progressive” Obama-Biden administrations. There is also a list of indicators that Harris would be even worse.
https://andrewpessin.substack.com/p/calling-all-jewish-democrats-its
(Free to read)
Interesting read, Frau. Thanks. He certainly made a good case for supporters of Israel to not vote for Harris. It’s a shame that Trump is the alternative. Bad choices everywhere we look.
I agree. It’s a terrible choice.
Even more baffling are various far left groups, and also Muslim populations in the US who announce they are with-holding their vote for Harris because they do not approve of the policies of the Biden administration. This is worrisome as the election is a virtual tie right now. Of course these folks must be aware of what will happen if the Orange One were elected, and so here I sit, very baffled.
I will write a letter to my senators and copy my rep stating how much I disagree with Sanders. Israel is fighting for their existence. It is difficult for us in the US to relate to this situation. Israel is being presented as a vicious aggressor, instead of a nation aggressively defending themselves.
You may also be able to send your letter directly to Senator Sanders as well. Twice I have sent letters to Senator Fetterman via his government web site, thanking him for his unyielding support for Israel even though I am not a constituent. That put me on the mailing list for his newsletter, which is good since my mother lives in Pennsylvania and is a constituent.
Interestingly, but somehow not surprising, I was unable to send a letter (via e-mail) to Representative Pramila Jayapal critical of her positions on Israel. Since I am not a constituent with a zip code in her district, her web site blocked me from sending my comments. So, I sent them to my congresswoman and asked her to convey them to the honorable Ms. Jayapal! I’m sure she was thrilled to be asked to do that. 🙂
Totally agree. Israel is fighting for its very existence.
If I understand correctly, the US is not giving $20 billion in arms to Israel, we are selling those arms, so this is not a case of us sending money to help Israel. We are only making our weapons market open to them. I can’t understand the objection. Would Sanders and his Squad buddies support banning Israel from all future military purchases from the US?
Meanwhile, we are giving $8 billion ($5.6b from existing stock, weakening our reserves and another $2.4b in arms that we will buy for Ukraine and send to them) in arms to Ukraine because their leader just interfered with our election by explicitly endorsing one candidate over the other. This is direct assistance to Ukraine, not the same as selling.
I’m in favor of supporting both Israel and Ukraine as both were attacked by their neighbors.
Zelensky didn’t endorse anyone, Trump and his minions claim he does.
Dear host,
I think there might have been a mistake, since the link that’s supposed to be a source for the claim that Russia is interfering in favor of Harris leads to an article about Russia interfering for Trump against Biden.
Thank you for your excellent work.
FX
If/when Hamas are comprehensively eliminated, can there not be a credible return to the Oslo Accords?
Most incompetent genocide in history:
https://jwbliliephoto.net/M/Palestinian_Terr_Pop.png
The Syrian civil war does not have a particularly bad ratio of civilian to combatant deaths, or ratio of deaths/population for such a long war. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a rebel-sympathizing outfit at the outset, used to count all rebel fighters als “civilians” during the first years; this is where the horrible numbers for direct civilian deaths came from. The Syrian Observatory now have become somewhat less partisan and no longer do that. The newer numbers to my knowledge count 330 000 to 600 000 deaths overall, with a bit less than 100 000 civilian deaths. A separate count of children and women killed gives 26 000 children and 16 000 women, which, as the percentage of children and women in the general population is known, is a pretty good indication that the civilian/combatant death ratio is on the low rather than the high end as modern wars go in Syria, especially considering that the rebels used child soldiers.
From Wikipedia:
“By mid-March 2022, opposition activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 25,857, and that 15,761 women had also been killed.[2]
The Western participants in that war who fought against ISIS did no better than Assad or the Russians. They all bombed cities in which militants had placed themselves and their equipment in civil infrastructure, same as in Gaza.