While it seems appalling at first blush, Nathan Lewin has a possible, right-out-of-the-bible-eye-for-an-eye solution to discourage human bombs--kill their families.

It's not quite that simple. He proposes sparing any who will renounce the act and don't accept the blood money from the terrorist sponsors, so they have an out. But he hopes that it will create a dramatic change in the incentive structure for the "martyrs."

You know, a few years ago I would have been appalled. But given the track record of the bombers' families, I am rapidly reaching the point where a suggestion like that sounds reasonable. Indeed, I am almost ready to declare as combatants anyone over the age of, say, 12. I would also be happy to include anyone at SFSU who carries that ubiquitous "Death to the Jews" sign.

I have to agree with Josh Chafetz of Oxblog: better that Israel be destroyed than stoop to something so despicable.

The homicide bombers' actions are utterly despicable, and I have no sympathy at all for either them, their families, or their "cause". But I believe the bottom line is that these people are pawns in a vile game that's been played for decades by the Arab world's political leaders, in concert with the leaders of the terrorist organizations. And let's face it - no one ever won a chess game by knocking off only the pawns.

It is the Arab politico-terror leadership structure that must pay dearly for its actions. Does anyone remember the story of what happened one time in Beirut back in the mid-'80's when Hezbollah made the VERY bad mistake of kidnapping several Soviet diplomats? The Russians didn't negotiate. They didn't propose UN resolutions. They sure as hell didn't try to talk anyone into making political concessions to assuage anyone's frustrated national aspirations.

What they DID do was to dispatch a KGB team to Beirut. This team kidnapped a male relative of one of Hezbollah's top leaders. The relative was castrated alive, shot to death, then dumped in a vacant lot with a note pinned to his shirt informing the terrorist leader that an identical fate would befall his remaining male relatives, one by one, unless the Soviet diplomats were released immediately.

Needless to say, the Soviet diplomats were released immediately.

Was the Hezbollah bigwig's relative innocent? Maybe he was. More likely, if he wasn't actively involved in terrorist activity himself, he was probably benefitting from his familial connection to the Hezbollah leadership. Is that last statement a big-time rationalization? Sure it is. But the castrated corpus in that vacant lot in Beirut was probably a hell of a lot less innocent than the 8-year old brother, or the 68-year-old grandmother, of Mr. Lewin's hypothetical homicide bomber. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were able to send a brutally clear message by killing just ONE individual - not entire families.

"Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

I'm sure those people celebrating on 11 September included 8 year old boys and 68 year old grandmothers, too.

I just saw a piece on the CBC where some Islamist leader declared the World Trade Center to be a "center of evil" and that the people killed deserved what they got. To him, there is no such thing as "innocent civilians." I turned it off in disgust, but I also wish the same to him and his family.

Actually, I also (almost) agree with Josh. However, I am nearly ready to declare that any male over the age of 12 is assumed to be a combatant, and therefore a legitimate target.

As for them being pawns, so what? Draftees are pawns, too. And a large proportion of Palestinians, possibly a majority, are willing pawns. They are disappointed with Arafat not because he failed to bring peace but because he failed to destroy Israel.

Still, while what the KGB did is despicable and not to be repeated, there is no rule of any sort against summarily executing illegal combatants, and this should be pursued aggressively.

Sorry to all the soft hearted types...if you use 16-year old girls as combatants, you lose the right to declare them noncombatants. When you use 12-year-old boys as combatants, you lose the right to declare them 'innocent civilians'. As Col.Kurtz said, "Kill all the brutes".

In case anyone is still checking back, I heard a slightly "kinder, gentler" suggestion this morning: Confiscate any monies paid to bombers' families. Worth a thought...

My significant other has been saying the same since the Passover massacre. I have to think the bombings would grind to a halt pretty quickly.

I think the family of a bomber should be arrested and put in jail. The charge should be conspiracy to commit murder. Assisting someone who intends to murder is a crime. Offering to pay money for an act of murder is also obviously criminal. If I offer to pay anyone to kill a bunch of people in some restaurant, I'm the murder. What's the problem in understanding this? Even a State shouldn't offer to pay any money to any individual for the death of anyone- the reward should be dead or alive- the state preferring the guility party alive, but will pay if dead. Even in war it's better to get prisoners than dead bodies. So, only criminals want to murder for the purpose of murdering.
Killing the family could be "ethically permissible" but that's hardly a standard to use. In other words if you were to attempt to arrest the family and they resisted arrest you could use enough force that may result in the death of this family resisting. It's like war, whereas it's not "ethically permissible" to shoot someone for a traffic violation, child abuse, or littering.
Once arrested, and was proven in court that they accepted money for the murderous act, then that would be evidence that they were guility conspiracy to commit murder. Or evidence that family members or associates were "supportive" of this murder, could be charged with abetting murder.