The botched Russian rescue mission which killed 117 hostages held by Chechen terrorists in a Moscow theater this week illustrates the grave difficulties involved in fighting the war against terrorists. Since the deaths were apparently caused by the gas used by the Russian security services in their attempt to neutralize the terrorists, it raises questions about the proper tactics to be utilized in dealing with terrorist threats. The New York Times ("The Slaughter in Moscow," Editorial, October 28, 2002) manages to confuse an already complex issue with semantics and parallels usually reserved for Israel's battle with Palestinian terrorism: it refuses to brand the terrorists as "terrorists," it blames both sides equally for the loss of life, and it partially excuses the crime due to the possible legitimacy of its cause.

Yesterday's failed terrorist attack on the Negev moshav Yevul provides another example (as if we need it) that terrorists are determined as well as creative, and that the answer to terrorist incursions is trained manpower, not fixed defenses (see "The Sharon Buffer Zone Plan," Feature Articles, February 24, 2002).

The terrorist attack on the nightclub in Bali, coming in the wake of the attacks on US Marines in Kuwait and on the French tanker off Yemen should be understood for exactly what it is: the graphic answer to two questions which have entertained the US media for the past year:

- did bin Laden (or at least el Qaeda) survive the American attack in Afghanistan? and
- are there ties between el Qaeda and the Iraqi regime?

The answers to both these questions are a resounding yes.

US Middle East envoy Anthony Zinni has stated that the US should delay any military action against Iraq until further notice. Arguing that the Israeli Palestinian peace process should be revived and concluded before a campaign against Saddam can be launched, Zinni has added an interesting twist to his position: Israel will be at fault for actions whose results will be "catastrophic."

Amnesty International issued a report yesterday entitled, "Israel and the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian Authority - Killing the Future: Children in the Line of Fire." Reported in the Western media as a criticism of both sides for killing children with impunity, this report is yet another example of the amorality and bias we have come to expect from "Amnesty" and other international organizations in their dealings with the Palestinian Israeli Conflict. We will not analyze the report in depth here, but it bears mention that the 11 page report dedicates nearly 5 pages to "Killings pf Palestinian Children" and slightly more than one page to "Killings of Israeli Children." It is also significant that in its conclusions, Amnesty calls for states which supply weapons to both sides to ensure that the weapons are not used in the unlawful killing of children. So far so good. But Amnesty calls on states supplying Israel to demand "effective and enforceable guarantees" to that effect. For the PA? "That they give clear orders and exercise control." An interesting "balance" by any standard.