Andrew has a good post on this.

A very uncomfortable division in perceptions:<blockquote class="smalltext">"It is very hard to understand from the people calling for a cease-fire how you have a cease-fire with a terrorist organization like Hezbollah," John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, told reporters.

...

Sounding an alarm about humanitarian conditions in southern Lebanon — where Israeli bombs, rockets and shells have pounded villages, roads and bridges, much of the population has fled and supplies are running short — the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, said the fighting might amount to war crimes. "The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control," she said. Ms. Arbour is a former war crimes prosecutor. </blockquote>

Let me start this by saying that in the past, particularly when she was on the SCC, I had great respect for the opinion of Ms. Arbour.

But this statement is pretty difficult to take. It would appear from other text of her remarks, that she was intending to be even-handed and the NYT is responsible for the anti-Israeli "slant". But, again, it is this even-handedness which is troubling.

Ms. Arbour's remarks can be taken to highlight the all-to-often displayed equivocation of the UN, its commissions, and other international institutions like the ICJ, which is the reason why countries like the US, and Israel hold such institutions, for the most part, in contempt. What is contemptible is the oft-stated ability of these internationalists(as Churchill said, recently quoted by Andrew Coyne in his excellent article in yesterday's NP) to be "impartial in support for the fireman or the fire".

Ms. Arbour and the like-minded, would seek to constrain Israel's attempt to defend itself against terrorist attacks by the rubric of "international law". The State of Israel, a functioning democracy which respects the rule of law, the equality of women, freedom of religion etc, and a state for which cares about its international reputation, is an easy target for Arbour to hold to such a standard. This world-view would seem to be unable to distinguish between what went on in Srebrenica and what is happening in south Lebanon.

By suggesting that leaders on both sides could be, and therefore, should be, held criminally responsible, her remarks will more likely be used to support a characterization of the Israeli leadership also as "international criminals". The leadership of lawless, terrorist, stateless Hamas and Hezbollah, sworn to the destruction of Israel, and who would kill Israelis with impunity if given a chance, continues to get a pass by this disgusting "even-handedness".

You now require me to actually read what you write as you are under the rule of arbitrary deletion. But you have made a point which has a morsel of merit - but you have not admitted the obvious which is there is a limit to what Isreal can do against civilian populations in its defence of itself. The actions against Hezbollah are distinct from this and, if measured, valid.<p>You and I do not know where that point is under international law or in the battle. But the idea that anything can be done by Isreal because it deemed the Cedar Revolution over due to a kidnapped soldier, as you seem to imply, is farcical. I know that you honestly think that there is always going to be a distinction from Srebrenica in anything done in the name of attacking the terrorist however he exists even in diapers but that is an embarassment to reason. <p>Be measured in your response, too, as you will merely be wasting your time as it will be deleted. You would do better to go find an echo chamber of hobby haters where you can preach your cruelty more freely.

Darcey points to a thank you from the Lebanese Canadian community to the Federal Government.

Of course, Israel can do not do "anything" in its defence and security.

But can any responsible, credible person suggest that the Israeli's indiscriminately kill civilians, simply for the sake, and with the express purpose, of killing civilians?

And of course the present conflict has litte to do with kidnapped soldiers. It is directly related to the buildup, unabated by the Lebanese "government", of weapons (ie. rockets) by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

The obvious problem is that southern Lebanon has become a "rogue state within a state" controlled by Hezbollah, and supported by significant sections of the local civilian population. If Hezbollah are using civilian homes, apartments, or office buildings, as bases for attacks, and organizing attacks, on Israel, are these homes, apartment buildings, or office buildings, not legitimate targets? Are civilians who support the Hezbollah "destruction of Israel machine" not legitimate targets?

If not, then the leaders of the Allies in the Second World War, by this reasoning, are "war criminals" for the indiscriminate bombing of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nakasaki and to use Ms. Arbour's words) "... the scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability".

Do you not have to compare the actions of Israel with Hezbollah or Hamas, and ask: what does either side want?

Israel only wants to secure peace and security, within its borders.

The other side, as its reason for being, wants to destroy Israel, kill all the Jews, and take Israel's territory, to wipe out what it sees as a "cancer" in the Middle East.

How can anyone in the West can be "morally conflicted" between these stated two objectives?

There is a very reasonable argument that the broad nature of this attack as a response to the kidnapping is meant to trigger change in Lebanon through making the slow pace of the Cedar Revolution unacceptable. That Hezbollah has made it slow or non-existent is quite arguable. But involving new areas of Lebanon in the fighting as a means to this end is the question at hand, not your standard thoughtless broad brush of "bad is bad" and your other dopey <i>quotation marked</i> killer points.<p>Of course Isreal is better than Hezbollah - but are Israel's particular actions now acceptable invovling large and new civilian areas. Try to limit yourself to that sort of specific question and you may see something new...an idea you have not pre-determined. <p>But if you actually think civilians who support the Hezbollah - separate from any infrastructure of Hezbollah - are legitimate targets you are just pathetic. That is not even what people are reasonably charging Israel has done. By that logic, the US would have been within its rights in Iraq to glaze suburban areas identified as Ba'athist supporters' residences. But they did not as that would be a war crime. Not surprized to see that you are actually in favour of such illegality as it befits your alliance with hatred and cruelty despite your avowed faith. Pathetic.

<blockquote>
But if you actually think civilians who support the Hezbollah - separate from any infrastructure of Hezbollah - are legitimate targets you are just pathetic.
</blockquote>

You're using an overly narrow definition of support. If someone hides shells, or grenades, military advisors, troops, or missiles in their basement -- but doesn't use them -- they're supporters. And if there's a whole community of people doing this, then if you're targeting houses/apartments that you believe have a reasonable probability of containing them, then that's the way it goes. No one, least of all the residents should be suprised with the outcome.

Warfare doesn't stop because your enemy hides amongst civilians (and "civilians") nor does it stop because they're using human shields.

I am not being narrow at all. If there are areas where munitions are (my aside on infrastructure above) for example, that is one thing which has to be handled in a very specific way. But that was not numbnuts statement. He said just "support". That is Guernica and that is pathetic.

I wrote this elsewhere, so sorry for the lack of context (impliable though it is).

<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>
You seem to have assimilated a rather odd modern idea that the purpose of war is to met out justice to a perpetrator, or perhaps a way of handing out a measured amount of revenge. Israel has the more traditional view that war is about defeating enemies. Thus, taking measures to destroy the ability of your enemy to launch future attacks is pretty measured and restrained indeed.

<li>
The reason airports are being attacked is that the terrorists have been supplied with some rather sophisticated weapons recently [1], including probably a radar guided missile and a team to set it up and launch it. It also removes an avenue of escape and retreat.

<li>
Limited precision airstrikes make sense if you know where to strike and my understand is much of the bombing is of this nature. I.e. we are not seeing carpet bombing of civilian areas. Hezbolla assets are well hidden amongst a population that strongly supports Hezbollah's goals, so now they're getting what the reasonably could have suspected what was coming for believing in "war in your country, peace in mine".

<li>
Israeli international support diminishing? Egypt and Saudi Arabia [2] have already told Hezbollah to go f-ck themselves. No one's seriously discussing sanctions, peace keeping forces and other such nonsense.

<li>
We'll see how it affects Harper's support the next election. I suspect rabble.ca wasn't going to be on board anyway.

<li>
Hezbollah's ability to continue attacks not diminished? Words like crushed, demolished and so forth are starting to appear in the press [3]. I've also read about a large decline in missile attacks but I can't find the reference right now.
</ol>

All in all, it's looking like a pretty successful campaign for Israeli so far and a humiliating defeat for Hezbollah and its supporters.

[1]
<br>
[2]
<br>
[3]
</blockquote>

Yes and I agree with all that. I think Arbour would have to show that #3 is not the case which in this day and age of specific striking tools is not going to be an easy case to make. But it is still a proper issue for her to raise and not, as numbnuts indicated, out of line at all. As to who is a supporter and who is practically a hostage in those areas is another matter which ethically has to be considered as well.<p>By the way, your #2 also applies to the bridges. The best way to stop truck based rockets is to make the bridges fall down.

Here is an incredibly stunned opinion on the dual citizenship in which essentially economic factors should measure the weight to be made of one's passport. Oddly, it is on a blog that one would think would be all over the inherent rights of man (one core one being protection from the state diminishing one's rights as citizen). But I suppose where there is an opportunity to create a "B" class and make it apply to them over there, who really can resist?

Jeffrey Simpson noted in the Globe the same "triggering change" goal in part to influent Lebanese politics down the road:<blockquote class="smalltext">Hezbollah had morphed into a political organization in Lebanon, with members of parliament and even two cabinet ministers. By raining destruction on parts of Lebanon, Israelis are betting (hoping? praying?) that, if not now in the midst of violence, then later when tempers cool, other Lebanese will blame and ostracize Hezbollah for having precipitated this violence. Israel is hoping, in other words, for a domestic internal reaction against Hezbollah that, when married to a military mauling, will leave Hezbollah less capable of hurting Israel and rallying support in Lebanon and beyond.</blockquote>