[UPDATED] The Children of Hamas.

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."

This was the lead in a story I came across this morning:

Israel dropped a one-ton bomb on the home of a Hamas strongman Thursday, killing him along with two [actually, 4] wives and four [actually 9] children in the first attack on the top leadership of Gaza's rulers.

Really hard to read. Euphemisms are a wonderful thing, and "collateral damage" is a great one, but the wrenching specificity of assassinating a leader in such a way that you take 9 of his children with him is terrible to contemplate. And I am so certain it must be condemned.

And then I read further in the same article, and I learned:

[The assassinated Hamas leader] was closely tied to Hamas' military wing and was respected in Gaza for donning combat fatigues and personally participating in clashes against Israeli forces. He sent one of his sons on an October 2001 suicide mission that killed two Israeli settlers in Gaza.

And in a world where that is possible, the need for euphemisms (not just "collateral damage," but "suicide mission," "settlers," and especially "sent") starts to overwhelm. Starts to seem like the rules I live by (consciously recognized or not) are...well...quaint.

Starts to. But then: I just cannot believe that son would have killed himself to murder others without the encouragement of his father (understood broadly). I don't like writing children off as delinquents, much less as terrorists. And so I'm left struggling to find the rationalization for their innocent deaths.

In various philosophy courses, I've always been troubled by the doctrine of double effect -- that is, essentially, judging an act not based on the results of the act but based on the intent (on "the risk posed," as Alan Dershowitz argues in today's WSJ). My tendencies toward consequentialist ethics rearing up, I suppose. I closed a poem once: "the doctrine of double effect is/ no venial sin, it is/ an abattoir of lifetimes." I still believe that -- despite my sympathies for its various expediencies. The lack of particular intent to murder the 9 children (in exchange for 1 Hamas leader) just isn't enough.

I am generous with abstract sympathy -- I feel it, at various times, for all sides in this interminable conflict. I suppose, in the end, all I'm saying is that I find the strategic choice Israel made in this instance to be deeply awful and readily condemnable -- as is, I understand, the fact that it was faced with such a choice. But, here, I think, the decision was worse than the choice (if language holds up that far).

Fittingly, I'm not sure how to end this post. So bookends will have to suffice:

Now the rovin' gambler he was very bored
He was tryin' to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on Highway 61.

[UPDATE: Apparently, the final death toll was 4 wives and 9 of 12 children. I've changed the numbers throughout.]

[NOTE: Various other updates/changes were made throughout since the original posting, and are not marked.]