This ideal manifests itself in many forms. For instance, in a bar fight, you're not supposed to hit the other guy below the belt (I've witnessed many bar fights, and participated in a few. I've never seen one where one, both or all of the participants walked away without being hunched over and holding their nuts). In war or armed conflict, we're supposed to target enemy soldiers and operatives, and the leaders they answer to, but never, never civilians. Indeed, all conceivable precautions must be taken to ensure that civilian deaths on our enemy's turf are minimal, at the very worst. We are to do this even at the cost of prolonging battle, enabling our eneimes, and losing the lives of our own armed forces personel. We do this because it is "the right thing to do."

Like most Americans, I've always considered this to be so obviously right as to be above questioning. Wars should be waged between fighting men who deliberately pick up arms. Civilians, particularly those who are unarmed (which is the vast majority of them), are unwilling pawns stuck in the middle. This is particularly true in wars involving Muslim countries and terrorist groups, where the fighters deliberately hide themselves among innocent civilians because they know nations like America and Israel won't take the scorched earth approach necessary to kill them in such situations. It's noteworthy that these are the same cocksuckers who deliberately attack civilian targets, such as restraunts, schools, and schoolbusses full of children.

But the civilians themselves are not to blame. Most civilians on either side of a war rarely want anything to do with it, and would prefer it had never happened, so they could go about living out their days peacefully and without much interference. I have always believed this without question, like an article of faith.

As of late, my faith has been shaken.

I'm not saying I've changed my mind, not yet anyway. I'm just saying that recently I have realized that it may be possible that civilians are not entirely seperate from the actions of their governments, their armies, or their terrorists. To make it even wierder, my faith in this matter has been shaken by, of all people, Alan Colmes.

For those of you who aren't hopeless political junkies who get their fix via the 24 hour news cycle, I'll expound. The second highest rated program on the Fox News Channel is its opinion show Hannity & Colmes, a conservative vs. liberal debate show hosted by Sean and Alan, respectively. The format is pretty simple: put an unwavering neoconservative mouthpiece in a room with a liberal who carries no regard for logic or reality, throw in one or two guest pundits to be savaged by either side (and often by each other), give them a topic to discuss and watch the sparks fly. Colmes is the show's faithful left wing nutjob. He's certainly better than most liberal pundits, and certainly better than anyone on Crossfire, since he attempts to make rational sounding arguments and rarely gives into the temptation to simply shout down his opponents. Indeed, he'd be a brilliant man if he weren't so incredibly delusional, but I suppose that can be said for a great many liberals.

Anyway, I was recently listening to an arguement between Colmes and an army colonel. Unfortunately, I heard this on FNC's satellite radio broadcast while I was driving, and I didn't catch the colonel's name. I have also been unable to track down a full transcpript of this show segment. If I find one, I'll post a link.

The two were arguing over the ongoing fighting between Israel and and Palesinian terrorist group Hamas. For those of you who have been living in a cave for the past year or so, Israel long occupied the Gaza strip, along their eastern border. Th Palestinians claimed that the land was rightfully theirs (as they claim all of Israel to be) and their terrorist groups, such as the PLO (led by the late Yasser Arafat) and Hamas carried out strings of attacks against Israel for years trying to get it back. Israel, although showing remarkable restraint (they could erase the entire Palestinian poulace in minutes if they wanted to), has never been shy about responding with bombs of her own. Last year, however, Isreal forcibly evacuated all of its citizens from Gaza, and as some sort of damned fool peace offering or token of goodwill, surrendered it to the Palestinians. The Pallies, of course, immediately began using their newly acquired turf to stage more attacks against Israel. Rockets, mostly. When their last election came around (the first since the death of Arafat last year), the Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted Hamas into power in most offices of their "government."

Which brings me to Alan Colmes. Colmes argued long and loud that a) Hamas is the democratically elected and therefore rightful government of the Palestinians, and b) as such, Israel must lay down its arms and go to the negotiating table with them.

Obviously, point "b" is absolutely ludicrous. Hitler was the duly elected leader of Germany during WWII. That didn't mean other nations were forbidden from fighting the Reich when they started invading neighboring countries. Negotiating with them was a waste of time and blood. Chamberlain proved it.

But that first point, well, that's dead on the money. The Palestinian people did elect Hamas into power. Deliberately. Hamas's platform is pretty straightforward. No economic package, no tax cuts, no universal healthcare, it consists of one and only one campaign promise: we will kill as many jewish men, women and children as humanly possible. This is what the Pallies voted for. This must be what is important to them. This must be what they want done. In short, under Colmes's theory, it's not just some fringe terrorist group that is responsible for these attacks. The Palestinian people themselves have declared that they want no less than the death of every Israeli jew. They are actively working toward that goal.

If that is the case, then why should Israel take any precautions against killing them? Indeed, why shouldn't Israel be wiping them out altogeher?

Now, before anyone damages their monitor while cursing my name, I'd like to say that I do not think this is good idea. Mass genocide is so unspeakable a thing, I'm loathe to think of any conceivable scenario where it would need to be an option (I'm not saying I can't think of any, only that I am loathe to). Still, if the choice ever came down to one people or another being eradicated, I can't say I'd ever fault either people for making sure it wasn't theirs. I just can't imagine that there could ever be a no-other-way scenario.

Also, I have no idea what portion of Palestinians are actually voters. For instance, do women vote? Do the young? The old? How much of the vote is based on fear of Hamas? Was it a true count, or did Hamas just claim it was and muscle their way in because the Palestinian Authority had simply grown too weak to oppose them? All of this would have to be determined before I could support any change in the policy of minimal civilian casualties.

Still, Colmes's point does reveal that that very situation could very well exist. Indeed, traditionaly speaking, when the duly elected and recognized governing body of one nation aggressively attacks another, that is considered an act and open delaration of war. In open war, all bets are off. With the love of God and maybe a little dumb luck we might just avoid the kind of dreadful scenario I've been pondering.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch.