normblog: The rights and wrongs of Israel's military action: "Here's something else we should be clear about, however. While some of the condemnation voiced by critics of the Israeli campaign is in good faith, much of it is not. How can you tell? This is how.
(1) Do the critics of Israel condemn Hizbollah for themselves putting civilians at risk in the areas in which they operate, attempting 'to shield military objectives from attacks' by the way they locate these military objectives?
(2) Do these critics allow that some of the civilian casualties caused by Israel in Lebanon are inevitable, and fall within the laws of war, precisely because of this policy of Hizbollah, which bears responsibility for them? Do they charge Hizbollah with war crimes?
(3) Do these critics allow that some of the damage to infrastructure is permissible within the laws of war, where the piece of infrastructure in question is a legitimate military target?
(4) Do these critics condemn Hizbollah for targeting Israeli civilians?
(5) Are they anguished by the deaths of Israelis, as they are by the deaths of Lebanese?
If the answer to these questions is no, their criticism is not in good faith. It betokens a hostility to Israel and its people, a hostility preceding rather than following from Israel's actions. There's a lot of that about."
I don't agree with everything in this posting. Norm has a link to justify his assertion that Israel has committed war crimes, but the argument seems to me to be that Hiz'b allah is committing war crimes, and I don't buy that Dresden and Hiroshima were war crimes, although I think it is at least arguable. (And I may have a bias, as Hiroshima may well have saved my father's life before I was born.)
But these points are good, and should be on anyone's mind when they listen to Kofi Annan or Human Rights Watch.