Our pet idiotarian over at warbloggerwatch is whining about the "massacre" in Jenin this morning.

I have just one question for him. If the Israelis wanted to indiscriminately massacre Palestinian civilians, why didn't they just pound the camp into rubble with air strikes? Why did they put their soldiers at risk (they lost a couple dozen of them) in house-to-house combat?

I see two possible (and mutually-exclusive) explanations:

1) They don't get enough satisfaction out of bloodless, remote atrocities conducted by air--they have a deep-felt need to go in and bayonet the infants personally, even at risk to their own lives.

2) They wanted to eliminate the terrorists, and the labs and armories, as precisely as possible, while minimizing civilian casualties.

I know which one makes the most sense to me. I can guess which one "George Orwell," in his fevered fantasies, will go with.

[Update at 9:27 AM PDT]

The UN passed their usual resolution yesterday condemning Israel for "'gross violations' of international law." In other shocking news, a dog is reported to have peed on a tree.

The BBC story contains no specifics. What the story does contain, however, is lots of allegations, with no actual evidence. All of the actual destruction described in the story sounds, so far, consistent with the Israeli government claims, with nothing to support Palestinian claims of a massacre.

But hey, we're the UN. "Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence!"

Rand: Have you seen this essay yet? "Jenin: The Big Lie" by Ariel Cohen, writing for NRO.

here's the link.

Yes, I saw it. Thanks.

Quit worrying about this guy. He's a troll.