Today’s Ha’aretz editorial calls the Gaza strike an act of state-sponsored terrorism. I don’t agree, but only because I like to quibble semantically about the proper use of the term “terrorism”–the word should be used to describe acts that deliberately aim to inspire terror in a civilian population. Within this narrow definition, terrorism is what happened on Sept 11, and what Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyrs Bridgade do when they send out a suicide bomber.

What Sharon is guilty of is pursuing a military objective with wanton disregard for civilian life. His mindset is the same mindset that allowed Hiroshima and Dresden. Of course, the Gaza strike is much smaller in scope, and if you don’t condemn Allied actions over Hiroshima and Dresden then you cannot condemn Sharon without being a hypocrite. But Hiroshima and Dresden had one thing going for them–they did shorten the war, whereas the Gaza strike will not.

The moral difference between terrorism and what Sharon ordered is small, though. If you know with certainty your actions will cause civilian casualties way out of proportion with any military or political objective, then intent is irrelevant. If you order a missile strike on a city block, civilian casualties are not a mistake.

Meanwhile, here is the ‘My country, right or wrong’ defense, in the Jerusalem Post. It’s written by Uri Dan, who also wrote the Bull’s Eye story for the New York Post. I don’t know about you, but I can’t really tell the difference between his op-ed pieces and his straightforward news reporting.

As usual, the details of what went wrong are messy.