I agree; I should’ve made that obvious. “war criminal” was an uninformed, rather dumb choice of words.

Perhaps it would be counterproductive to shut down propaganda aggressively. I guess I’d do it every time I could frame it as a matter of convenience. “On our way to bomb the military target, we took out both Hamas radio antennae. To see the lies silenced, well, it was worth the extra ten seconds.”

Spies can be put to death because spies don’t display their allegiance, partisan or not, to either side. This is called a violation of the laws of war and thus the provisions providing for POWs do not cover them.

The execution of spies is to discourage spying, otherwise, everybody would use civilian clothes as a shield and thus bring risk to everybody’s civilians. Like the Islamic JIhad does right now, precisely because we don’t execute spies anymore. They are all at GitMo or at the New York Times, living fat, happy lives.

And while the war is being waged, do we not try to shut down enemy propagandists?

You do but you don’t use the justification that it is some kind of war crime to do so.

I still believe that allowing your enemy propagandists free reign is a sign that you are in trouble, that your fight is in trouble.

What’s at issue here is your statement here.

Those who spread propaganda during war are war criminals.

>> What it is is a de facto complicity in one part of the conflict. It makes propagandists partisans of one or another party in a conflict. >>

Ymar, I agree that propaganda is as much a part of war as guns, bullets, and rockets. As are spies. We do put spies to death. Are you sure propagandists are never jailed, once the war is won?

And while the war is being waged, do we not try to shut down enemy propagandists? I doubt we never give them a free hand, as Israel has allowed Hamas and Hezbollah free reign on the airwaves, newspapers, in the schools.

I still believe that allowing your enemy propagandists free reign is a sign that you are in trouble, that your fight is in trouble.

Glad you liked it. The study of the true history of Amerindians and their relationships with American settlers provided a strong foundation for comprehending the Surge and the necessity in a strategic overhaul in Iraq.

What it is is a de facto complicity in one part of the conflict. It makes propagandists partisans of one or another party in a conflict.

Deana, two of the best sources were “Ghost Empire: How the French almost conquered North America”, by Philip Marchand [ http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Empire-French-Conquered-America/dp/077105677X ] and Fred Anderson’s “Crucible of War” http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Anderson+Crucible+of+War&x=0&y=0 – a long, excellently detailed treatise of the Seven Years War and how it led to the American Revolution. Another source is Father Marquette’s memoirs (especially on his relations with the Illinois Indians), but I can’t find the source.

It sounds from all the comments above that the key to destroying Hamas and to saving the Palestinian children is to destroy the gunmen.

Has an international military force ever successfully ended a meaningful war? I’m not aware of one. The sentiment that it could happen is veru nice, but the world is not.

What I really want to discuss is the propaganda that is allowed to freely flow within Palestinian terroritory, for the purpose of programming their children towards hatred of Israel, martyrdom, and the inculcation of the belief that Israel must be destroyed and its millions of people driven into the Meditteranean surf, there to be murdered to the last person.

Those who spread propaganda during war are war criminals. Israel should pursue them, capture them, and hold them forever, and not in comfort. (I’d recommend death, but I know that won’t happen.) You must drive the propaganda of your enemy underground. You must not grant it the moral legitimacy of being broadcast and taught publicly.

It’s more important to kill the armed militants of course; and the capture of prominent “government officials” of the enemy is probably second; but the removal of the propagandists to jails may be equal in importance to the public officials, or perhaps a close third. You cannot ignore them.

Let them inculcate their hate privately in living rooms, mosques, and basements. Do not grant it public legitimacy, ever. That is moral weakness and moral cowardice. This is not a free speech issue, not when an enemy is attacking you, not when you are at war with an enemy. An enemy’s propaganda is not free speech.