PJ;

Why would that be anti-semitic? It just sounds anti-life to me.

If Semites are a subset of the living, doesn't being anti-life automatically imply being anti-Semitic?

"They deliver an unambiguous message: All Jews -- men, women, children -- are legitimate targets of political murder."

Under this criterion how can the Nazi's then be considered anti-semitic?

PJ is too harsh on Prof. Wolin (who is clearly opposed to all forms of terrorism). For the article makes clear that Honderich's philosophy of "liberation-terrorism" is monstrous, but in an equal-opportunity fashion. Any sufficiently oppressed people can avail themselves of terrorism, according to Honderich; if the tables were turned, Jews could legitimately use suicide bombings against an occupying Arab state.

So, technically, Honderich's endorsement of suicide bombing isn't anti-Semitic, but it is very evil.

What makes the bombing so evil is NOT that it's directed against civilian targets, which, since WW II, are legitimate. It's that the purported goal of such bombings, a Palestinian state, has been TWICE rejected by Palestinian leaders. Thus, one must conclude that the bombers aren't "freedom fighters", but genocidal maniacs.

They weren't particularly offered much of a state.

Still it's pretty frightening that around 75% of Palestinians are OK with suicide-bombing civilians.

Peter - It's not clear to me that every people has an "equal opportunity" to be judged "sufficiently oppressed" by Professor Honderich. Are not the Jews oppressed by Palestinian suicide-bombers? Is not the very reason for the existence of the state of Israel oppression of the Jews by the Nazis? Are not the Palestinians largely oppressed by their fellow Palestinians, notably Arafat, not by the Israelis, who want them to have a state of their own? Why shouldn't the Jews qualify as more oppressed than the Palestinians?

M Ali:

In '47, they were offered as much of a nation as Israel, and if they'd taken it, they'd have been the richest non-oil-exporting Islamic nation on Earth, given their proximity to the second most innovative nation on Earth. In fact, the whole region has given up, unwittingly, vastly more potential wealth than currently exists there.

In '00, the report was that Arafat was offered, and turned down, 95% of his demands. That seems like nation enough, and far better than they'll eventually get.

I've read that between '67 and '94, Palestinian GDP, under Israeli occupation, grew 400%. Since Arafat became the "elected" leader of the PA, it's halved.

"Why shouldn't the Jews qualify as more oppressed than the Palestinians?" Because they're not the ones under foreign military occupation, silly.

Kidding aside, I suspect that Wolin would apply his philosophy anti-Semitically -- if the tables really were turned, Wolin would find some way to comdemn Jewish suicide bombing. But that's speculation. Less speculatively, Wolin probably believes that if Israel were to unilaterally retreat to the '67 borders all her problems would be over.

Wolin follows Frantz Fanon in crudely rationalizing leftist violence. If terrorism can bring down world capitalism and Western imperialism, Wolin's all for it. This philosophy is evil, but not anti-Semitic.

PJ;

No, because Judenhass (the term I prefer to "anti-Semitic") implies a special animosity to Jews. It is the case that the Palestinians are using suicide bombings in a Judenhass way, but suicide bombing itself isn't Judenhass. I think it diminishes the evil of it to label it that way.

AOG - point well taken. But - the question debated in the article is "Are Suicide Bombings Morally Defensible?", not "Are Suicide Bombings Such a Grievous Evil that Calling them Anti-Semitic Diminishes Their Evil?"

M Herdeegen:

Why in 1948, should they have been willing to surrender their homes and land to a bunch of foreign invaders?

And the 2000 settlement was not as generous as you think it is. It would have meant a patchwork "state" with little in the way of water resources and with frequent roads and checkpoints bisecting it for the security of Jewish settlers.

Why is this a moral question? Name me all the other international interrelations that are decided based on morality.

Free trade. No.

Collective security. No.

Immigration control. No.

Patent protection. Maybe.

And so on.

I don't mean I'm indifferent to whether murder is moral or not. But if you want to define, say, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as murder (I don't, but I can see why some might), then I'm cool with murder.

Seems to me, the moral issue for the suicide bombers is whether it gets the job done.

Killing for a purpose is difficult to justify but sometimes possible. Killing for no purpose is impossible to justify.

On the other side of the coin, it would be impossible for the suicide-bomber victims to regard the bombing as moral, wouldn't it?

Harry, well said.