palestine

what is the difference between a militant and a civilian? A civilian is a citizen of a state, so perhaps a better term is militant civilians. Do you categorize child soldiers as children killed, or as militants?
The catch 22 of war. It is impossible not to resist.
From an article critiquing the philosophy of israeli warfare "concerning the difference between combatants and non-combatants, justifying it thus:"
[Israeli war manual]
'We reject such conceptions, because we consider them to be immoral. A combatant is a citizen in uniform. In Israel, quite often he is a conscript or on reserve duty. His blood is as red and thick as that of citizens who are not in uniform. His life is as precious as the life of anyone else (p.17).'"

So is a militant. The difference i see is that soldiers are sent to kill, that is why the distinction has historically been made. That supposedly the fight should be between willing parties. (although mandatory conscription has made this arguement less relevant as does modern warfare which expertly targets civilians)

After having finished reading the article I think his words say it better than mine:
"The moral distinction is based on the fact that combatants have intentionally embarked on acts of violence and are actively seeking to endanger others, whether they are conscripts or not, thereby forfeiting their right to security and to be left in peace. In addition, combatants are armed, prepared for combat, and capable of defending themselves militarily."


Welfare:
In reading Globalization and its discontents' side by side with milton friedmans book there seem to be a point both miss. friedman says ' you cannot do good with other people's money'. stiglitz uses the term 'spread' the wealth or re-allocate it etc. I agree with friedman. The point these interpretations miss is WHOSE wealth has been stolen. When a corporation, or single individual takes over a river to build a dam, they are stealing the resources of the community. the water for the farmers, the land from the people who live there. Land allocation shows the history of collective theft all over the world. They are not doing good with other people's property. When Stiglitz uses the term 're-allocation' it buys into this same idea that you are giving people hand outs of something that does not belong to them. welfare. free money. pity. When in fact, this ideology is better attacked head on. Stolen land, stolen wealth, give it back.
Unionization fails in the sense it does not challenge the idea of ownership. A corporation cannot have entitlement to a communities' wealth. so just as the person who does no work is not entitled to the earnings of the hard working man, an individual has no right to take away someone's means of being able to do work. Namely resources. ideologically it seems friedman would agree. He says he is suspicious of concentrated power. and that ownership breeds productivity. (main critique of communism). So let the people own their own land!!