> > I don't take a position here, although I think the analogy between
Kosovo
> > and the Occupied Territories is not very good,
>
> Sure, there are plenty of differences. I wasn't aiming for exact
similarity
> of circumstance or even in all the relevant respects. However, I was
> attempting (rather poorly, I guess) to point out how little sense it makes
> to call an intra-country conflict between two incredibly mismatched sides
a
> "civil war." The KLA, IRA, Hamas etc. are pitiful organizations that
> couldn't wage war if they wanted to.
I think you're wrong about the KLA. At its peak in the summer of 1998, it controlled 40 percent of Kosovo's territory with no outside help. It was no Wehrmacht, but it was a very effective guerrilla force. Since when do both sides have to be evenly matched in order to have a civil war? You can have a lopsided civil war.
Seth