Your fuzzy thinking amazes me. The obvious difference is INTENT, and that difference carries huge moral significance.

Hamas intends civilian deaths. It targets them with rockets and suicide bombs. Civilian deaths are the reason d'etre of it's aggression. Likewise, Hamas' defensive strategy encourages - actually, is predicated upon - the death of it's own civilians.

Israel, for all it's faults, does not target civilians. It does not bomb and shoot with the intent of killing innocent civilians as a means to influence Hamas policy. Yes, Israel kills civilians, but only as an unintended consequence of attacks targeting Hamas, and, as you mentioned, such deaths are inevitable given Hamas' nihilistic strategy of putting those civilians in harm's way.

Probably the best "Daily Beast" article I've read so far. Aslan does a great job in calmly compareing the Israelis with the Palestinians, without heavy-handedly weighting the blame on one side or the other.

It reminds me of a Robert Altman joke: "What's the difference between a church and a cult? A church doesn't pay taxes."

What's the difference between an army and terrorists? (Fill in the punch line.)

Teuthida:

So if deaths are unintended or "inevitable," they're not immoral?

Give me a break. No difference between Israel and Hamas? No difference between state sponsored war and terrorism? No difference between civilians and soldiers?
Live in the US, do you? Where it's safer?
There is a difference between due process and a democratic rule of law and the singular lack of those things. There is a difference between deciding to set aside laws and agreements and having none to set aside. There is a difference between using force to protect one's self and one's country and using force to punish people with whom one disagrees or whom one has condemned because of differences of belief or race.
War is a nasty business, and in a perfect world, would not exist. Terrorism is nastier, and has even less justification.

re: What's the difference between setting aside laws and agreements, and having none to start with?
answer: Hypocrisy.

The next line, "There is a difference between using force to protect one's self and one's country and using force to punish people with whom one disagrees" Now, as an indictment of radical Islamic rule this makes sense, it's not okay to murder your own citizens just for being gay or an uppity female, killing or imprisoning those who harm no one is pretty sick and wrong.

But taken to mean the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it makes no sense. Both of them are fighting to remain sovereign nations. The argument could be made that Israel doesn't seek to completely destroy Palestine and that Palestine seeks to completely destroy Israel, but this is only the case so long as Israel continues a hard-line policy of preventing the settling of civilians into the disputed territories, as keeping with international law. To have civilians in buffer territories can be taken as preface to further invasions and taking of new territories to act as buffer zones, and so on.

If Israel doesn't obey international law (though I think lately it's been doing better in that regard), then they're both acting like rogue nations. I think they both deserve to exist, and so I believe the West needs to go ahead and support Israel since Palestine has the militant (though not civil) support of its neighbors.

As a matter of degrees, I'd have to say the Hamas government in Palestine is certainly far far worse than the Israeli government. I also very ardently doubt that the Hamas government was elected in any kind of fair process. But as nations, Israel and Palestine both need to behave more responsibly over a long period of time in order for this conflict to settle out in any way.

Though I do feel Israel is in the right in this conflict, I don't see how a bit of sober analysis hurts or threatens anything.

"Before it was a state, its military operations were conducted primarily by the Irgun, the Haganah, the Stern Gang, and the like, all deemed terrorist organizations by the international community."

The above is a prime reason why the Palestinians continue to fight the Israelis. They want the land back that was taken from them by terrorists.

To most people the difference between terrorist and army depends on which side they're on. "Four legs good. Two legs bad. Baabaabaa"

Here is the difference.. The goal of Hamas, as it has been repeatedly stated, is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. They will not be satisfied until all of the Jews and Christian "infidels" for that matter, are dead.

Israel has no problem with a 2 state solution and is willing to give up quite a bit to accomplish it. They allow aid to go into Gaza even though Gaza manages to get weaponry in without trouble - so why not food and medical supplies? Because it doesn't add to their persecution complex. Hamas is determined to keep the Palestinian people poor, starving, and without medical care so they can blame the Israelis and stay in power. They know that if things get better the average person will begin to question their scapegoating.

Israel repeatedly warned Hamas that if the rockets continued to be fired into Israel that the consequences would be dire. Hamas didn't listen and escalated their attacks. Israel has every right to defend her borders and people. If my child was being threatened with rockets daily my response would not be nearly as measured.

Israel sent text messages to Palestinian civilians warning them that the bombing would start soon and to get out of certain areas. Hamas targets civilians.

Israel agreed to much under Oslo that it's citizens opposed in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Yet again many Palestinians in power (I am not speaking of the average Palestinian citizen) proved that no matter what was offered it would never be enough. They would rather continue the killing and keep their populace impoverished so they could maintain control. If they can't keep the people blaming Jews then they themselves will have to take responsibility for and fix the problems Palestinians face.

I am all for a Palestinian state, but Hamas doesn't want it to happen. Until the Palestinian people realize that Hamas is determined to stay at war and vote them out (which they probably wouldn't allow anyway), there will be no peace.

Teuthida, then by your definition the founders and forefathers of The United States of America and the "military industrial complex" (as referenced by President Eisenhower) are equatable to Hamas.

I would like to know more about the run up for this bombing campaign on the most populated area on the earth. I read stories of Jews in Israeli ships trying to run the Blockade and send aid into Gaza. I believe Israel shot at targets of oportunity during the treaty period.

I asking for the truth and I would like to leave this comment with an ending statement.

It seems to me that the West Bank Palestiniians have done everything asked of them; even blaming Hamas a couple days ago. It appears to me, that no mater what the Palestinians do, at the end of the day they still seem to be Arabs. I would like to see a moral side to all this; if there is no Palestine then Israel bombs Israelis. One can not have it both ways.

"Israel does not target civilians." Are you kidding me? What kinda lala land do u come from? Israel has killed 430 Palestininas in 7 days and injured over 2000! If they are targeting Hamas only, then what do they have to say about all the innocent civilians they have masacared? "Ooops, missed my target." Hamas has been elected by the Palestinians to govern and protect them. Call them terrorists all you want but they are the only soldiers there to protect the Palestinians (Muslim & Christian) from an unlawful and brutal occupation.
Have we forgotten that this is occupied land? This land was forcefully occupied by the most blood-thirsty of all terrorits...the Hagana. If someone were to take your home by force, are you not not going to fight back by any means necessary?

Teuthida and others...

To say that Israel "doesn't target civilians" is patently absurd. The entire history of Israel's policy towards Palestine has been to collectively punish Palestinian citizens. The wall (which is actually a de facto land grab) , the bulldozing of civilian homes, the illegal settlements, the systematic starvation and dehydration of the populations in both Gaza and the West Bank have all been used as weapons against the Palestinian people. Not to mention the persistent violence perpetrated by the IDF against unarmed civilians that has gone on for decades. According to B'Tselem, the esteemed Israeli human rights organization, 4781 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces in the past 8 years. The number of Israeli's killed in the same time? 580. These numbers do not include those killed in the last few weeks.

If there is ever to be peace in the Middle East, we will all have to stop accepting any violence committed by either side. Every fatality is a murder, regardless of intent. To worry about the semantics is ridiculous at best and inhuman at worst. All war is terrorism even when we "intend" for it to be just.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Our founding fathers were terrorists to the British. Etc, etc.
Unfortunately the Hindus have not offered to mediate.

Obviously terrorism is used to describe acts by a group without the power to declare war. That is the single distinction between war and terror. To ascribe morality to war is to have the luxury of not having been there.

Trying to frame the debate as terrorist versus army/state/war, etc. is really pointless. The word is too subjective. George Washington and his Colonial armies would have gone down in history as terrorists had they not won. A sneak attack on Christmas against the "rules of war" at the time in Trenton, etc. Abraham Lincoln and the armies of the Republic routinely attacked civilian targets, as did the Confederacy. Etc. These days the word gets tossed around by weak-minded or cynical politicians to try and create sound-bite morale differentiation and rile the public in support of whatever cause. Using the word "terrorist" today is like the "Japs" or "Commies" of the past; its no more meaningful than radical Islamics branding Americans as "infidels."

The problem is framing the debate around this definition masks the actual issues. It reduces everything to a "see, its really complex and not black and white" kind of debate that makes everything out to be equal, like the proverbial teacher's response to any playground fight that "it takes two sides..." when in fact one side usually was more in the wrong.

We can debate all we want about whether Israel is an "occupier" or whether their responses are vastly "disproportionate" to the provocations, but that belies some simple, objective truths that only anti-Semites or partisans against Israel really dispute. The most critical reality is that the Palestinians (not every man, woman and child of course but a majority of their representatives in positions of authority) and some of their neighboring Arab states are the clear aggressors / provokers of this war, repeatedly. From the moment that the territories were first divided following WWII, Israel was under assault. Repeatedly since, Israel has entered cease fires and virtually never is the party that ends them. Repeatedly the Israeli state (and usually a majority of its population according to polls) has acknowledged the right of Palestine to exist as a state. Palestine has never really returned the favor (token gestures from political leaders with virtually no real power aside). Israel's stated mission is to assure the safety and prosperity of its people and any person of Jewish descent; Hamas' stated mission is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. One is a defensive stance, the other offensive. This is not equal responsibility.

The second simple truth is that both parties have a right to exist and a right to territory. The notion of many Arabs that Israel has no legitimate claim to their territory is about as credible as those who still try and protest that the Earth is really flat or that we don't revolve around the Sun - it is utterly without historical merit. There is no historical, morale or legal basis for claiming otherwise. There is, however, indisputable basis for disputing Israel's claim on some of the territory that they currently occupy or control. And there are is no doubt die-hards in Israel who have as their goal to permanently settle and control these areas. But that should not be allowed to cloud the issue. Israel has repeatedly acknowledged they will consider giving these places up if they can have assured security. And it is laughable to dispute that they should just take some more high ground and hand over territory that has been repeatedly used to attack them without provocation for 60 years even while the leaders of the populations of those areas continue to deny Israel's right to exist and admits they would continue to attack Israel. I would like to hear a rational, objective argument why any State would give up their security under such circumstances. Certainly the U.S. would not, nor Russian, China, India or any Western European power and there is no historical precedent for doing so. Why should we expect Israel to act in a way none of us would - to knowingly do something that will escalate their vulnerability to attacks that the other side has promised to deliver?

Third, there is a fundamental difference between attacking targets that are clearly being used for military purposes (or attacking military personnel), regardless of the scale of innocent civilian devastation, and systematically targeting civilian targets. It is not about a definition of "terrorism" or not. It is just a fundament truth. You can blame the population density of Gaza or the very really truth that Hamas is intentionally using civilian locations for military purposes, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is the morality of acts of violence done in self defense is morally ambiguous because what constitutes "defense" and what constitutes the initial treat is subjective. But a suicide bomber walking into a café or market is not morally ambiguous - it is morally reprehensible, period. One can try to use the David vs. Goliath excuse that Israel is blessed with a mechanized military and Hamas in its poverty has to use whatever means are at its disposal but that is just an excuse.

Fourth, the idea of Israel as the "Goliath" is laughable. There are 12 million Jews in the word, less than half of them in Israel. That's less people than there are Mormans and way, way less than the billion or so Islamics opposed to their right to exist or the collective population of the Arab states surrounding Israel that are "sympathetic" to the "Palestinian Cause." Israel has prospered economically and militarily, despite being under constant attack for 60 years and despite the Jew population losing more than half of its world population at the time to the Holocaust. That Palestine has not prospered, and is in fact in virtual economic collapse is a parable of the success of their missions. Israel focused on its prosperity, putting just enough attention on its defense to allow for it. Palestine has spent 60 years seething in hatred, blaming Israel for all its problems instead of putting real energy in solving them by any means other than a zero-sum destruction of one side or the other.

I am not Jewish or a particular crusader of Israel, BTW. I do think their responses are disproportionate at times and many of their choices have contributed to the escalation or sustainment of hostilities. And I feel for the suffering of the vast majority of the Palestinian population, forced to live in terrible conditions with very little hope for a bright future, for the kind of security and prosperity we all get to take for granted. This is a terrible conflict. But like the school yard fight, it is not equal. One party started it and no matter how many times the two sides are pulled apart and asked to settle down, that party refuses to shake hands, lick its wounds and move-on. Every time it jumps back into the fight. You can't throw a rock at someone then play the wounded party when they turn around and throw 5 at you. Don't throw the rock.