See this page for links to articles on OpEdNEws that articulate both sides on the issues in the middle east. It is the goal of OpEdNews to air opinions from both sides to stretch the envelope of discussion and communication. Hate statements are not accepted. Discussions of issues and new ideas for solutions are encouraged.
In an article in the Forward, Ori Nir writes: "While intentionally targeting civilians or civilian property is forbidden, international law takes a more nuanced approach to the unintentional striking of civilians when pursuing military targets." [Editor's italics and underscore]
"When targeting such sites," he writes, "the impact of the attack on civilians must be carefully weighed against the military advantage that the attack serves."
Then he quotes Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study's Michael Walzer, who he terms a leading authority on ethics in war-time: "From a moral perspective, Israel has mostly been fighting legitimately." If Israeli commanders were brought up before an international tribunal, Walzer maintains that thanks to the Hezbollah human shield defense -- apparently accepted wisdom now -- "the defense lawyers will have a good case."
Worse, this kind of legal parsing over how many angels (newly minted from dead Lebanese children, one presumes) can fit on the head of a pin is almost as dreary of that of fanatical Islamists and their fatwahs calculating how many Westerners deserve to die for their sins against Islam.
Why not call Israel's bluff? If asked to convene a beth din (rabbinical court) -- like, yesterday -- how can it refuse? One suspects Israel knows that, even if permissible in a court of international laws, its questionable military strategy isn't likely to secure the imprimatur of Talmudic scholars.
