THE ALIENATOR: I haven't read Caleb Carr's book on terrorism yet, but if yesterday's NYT op-ed concerning the Israeli attack on Shehade is any indication, he should stick to novels.
Regarding the condemnation directed at Israel after the attack, Carr writes:
The reason was not Mr. Shehada's death ... but the fact that the Israeli military and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon understood that the attack in a densely populated neighborhood, at night, would result in many civilian deaths. The raid was nonetheless ordered — and the world received its clearest demonstration yet that the Israeli government is prepared to knowingly inflict substantial civilian casualties in its response to Palestinian suicide attacks.
Despite Carr's assertions, it appears that Sharon did not, in fact, know that the attack would kill many civilians. And a big reason for the criticism was that the seeming carelessness with civilian lives was a great exception to Israeli practice and capabilities - in other words, a recognition of the fact that Israel had not been "prepared to knowingly inflict substantial civilian casualties in its response to Palestinian suicide attacks."
Carr also says:
The Sharon government is more diplomatically isolated than ever, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two Palestinian groups widely reported to have been considering a trial cessation of attacks against civilians, now say they will step up their assaults.
"More diplomatically isolated than ever?" I won't bring up 1967, 1982 (when President Reagan publicly placed a photo of a Palestinian child casualty on his desk) or any number of past dates. What about Operation Defensive Shield in April, when international public opinion was ready to string Israel up for nonexistent "massacres?" Is Isarel's international standing so much worse than it was then? I doubt it. For evidence, see this report that the President is not interested in taking up the cause most dear to the hearts of Middle East "sophisticates," an end to Israeli settlements.
And about that supposed "cease-fire," see this piece, as well as this summary from the Times of London:

If those Palestinian terror groups under Yassir Arafat’s leadership were ready to end suicide bombings then such an initiative would be hugely welcomed in Israel. But the proposal floated would not have ended attacks on Israeli soldiers, did not bear the signatures of any Palestinian leaders and comes after all too many protestations of peace more honoured in the breach than the observance.
Above all, the ceasefire offer did not have the backing of Hamas, the organisation led by the intended target of Monday night’s attack, Salah Shehade. Given his record, and that of his organisation, the likelihood of any cessation of hostilities from Hamas seems wildly improbable.
I haven't studied the larger historical issue of the effects of civilian killings in warfare, but I'm suspicious of his historical claims given Carr's misstatements regarding the present.
UPDATE: Orin Judd directs me to his review of Carr's book, which seems plausible. It seems all too convenient to say that a usually-evil tactic is always counterproductive. Before operation Defensive Shield in April, it was apparent that Palestinian terrorism was working, despite its evil.