Yeah but if he said that it was bad to kill civilians due to military action (self defense or otherwise) then we would be VERY bad for what we did in Iraq.  So we have Ambassador Bolton saying that the value of the lives of one group of people are higher then the value of the lives of another group.  Maybe he wants his new title to be "God" Bolton instead of "Ambassador".

I also hope someone in the press asks him to explain his position... 

Why "obsession" ? That implies "repetitive" and no one post is repetitive .If Clemons had contributed a series of posts re Bolton you could have written "your obsession" and that would have made grammatical sense.

And you go on to criticize him not for his content but for his choice of subject. Surely that's up to him .

Clearly I'm being pedantic- but for a reason.

I've read with interest your recent contributions on the subject you suggest Clemons should have chosen. This post was not of that quality . Rather it suggests you have a particular disagreement with Clemons but instead of stating it you chose a couple of (illegitimate- I think)ways to disparage him. Essentially an ad hominum .

Maybe you think the deleted sentence was OK . Or that Bolton's doing a fine job .Or you disagree with other contributions by Clemons . Or something .

You usually have no difficulty being forthright . Pity you weren't this time. .

First, Bolton's initial "equivalence" statement is a massively irresponsible one for an American ambassador to the UN to release. 

But I also wonder at the implication that Israel lustily seeks innocent civilians (and let's not diminish the emphasis on children here) to attack and kill:

An Israeli air strike has killed 54 civilians -- including 37 children. This after the strike against a UN observation facility where UN staff were killed -- and also after hundreds and hundreds of other innocent Lebanese have been killed in the exchanges between Hezbollah and Israeli military forces.

Why do we avoid or neglect the evidence that Hizbollah exploits the cover of civilians and the positions of UN peacekeepers, which may have a significant role in these attacks after all?

And is this as tone deaf a moral discourse as John Aravosis suggests...?

So here's the ethical question of the day. Someone is firing hundreds of missiles at your citizens each day, and launching them from civilians areas because think they think you won't hit back (or hope you do, and thus kill civilians, causing a storm of bad publicity). As for the civilians, it's an open question whether they are helping harbor the guys with the missiles or not, i.e., whether or not they have a say in telling Hezbollah to take a hike (and if they do have a say, would that change your answer)?

So the question is this, under those circumstances, what do YOU do as the leader of country that's receiving 100 rockets a day raining down on your cities?

Second question, which I've posed before. At what point does a local citizenry become responsible for the crimes it supports? When Israel is on the receiving end of bombs, I hear a lot of talk about how every Israeli is a legitimate target because they all support the government. So does the same apply to every Arab, every Muslim, every southern Lebanese, and every American?

I'd just like to see some real discussion of where the line is here, and why some folks seem to care less when the targets are Jewish civilians.

Aravosis:

When Israel is on the receiving end of bombs, I hear a lot of talk about how every Israeli is a legitimate target because they all support the government.

He hears a lot apparently, but not enough to cite any of it. I suspect if he did this would make more obvious his tactic of taking a fringe viewpoint and trying to apply it to anyone appalled by the Lebanese civilian casualties.

The choice of word "bombs" as opposed to "missiles" is particularly onerous. He seems to be suggesting that Israeli civilian deaths in suicide bombings are widely seen as legitimate casualties of war.

That is certainly a fringe viewpoint not widely shared on the left. If Aravosis, or those who cite him approvingly, want to criticize "some folks" for their apparent apathy towards the deaths of innocent Israelis, perhaps they would be so good as to indicate, with examples, who these "folks" actually are.

Help! I've been out of contact for 2 weeks -- someone please tell me:

Did he get confirmed? Please tell me no!

Thanks,

Jan Knaus

Where is the denuciation of the Hezbo's practice of using civilians and UN personnel as human shields? Siting a missile launcher next to an apartment building is a war crime. Bombimg that launcher is not. The blood of those civilians is on Hezbo's hands.

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

Siting a missile launcher next to an apartment building is a war crime. Bombimg that launcher is not.

You are completely wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Speaking with feigned authority on a subject about which you know palpably nothing. Both acts are war crimes.

One cannot justify one's own actions merely by pointing to the bad behavior of someone else. That is such an elementary moral axiom, that even Bill O'Reilly is wont to cite it.

And if Bill O'Reilly isn't good enough for you here's Protocol 1 of the 1977 Geneva Conventions:

Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

[...]

Any violation of these prohibitions [e.g. using civilians as human shields] shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

This appeared at Haaretz yesterday as an op-ed.

Cry to those using babies
By Naomi Ragen

My son is in the army. He is not the type at all, believe me. Quiet, studious, a writer, a lover of Jewish history, Talmud, ethics. He spent two years in a pre-army program in the Galilee called Karmei Hayil. He made many good friends there from all over the country, and now he and all his friends are in the army.

One of them I know well. A bit chubby, with payot (sidelocks) and a great laugh. He and my son have become like brothers. While both of them tried out for the elite paratroopers unit, only his friend made it in. He and his unit are the ones in Lebanon. They were there over a week, fighting under horrific conditions, running out of food and water. Even though the Israel Air Force dropped tons of leaflets warning civilians to flee because they were in terrorist territory and likely to be injured, they still encountered civilians.

My son spoke to his friend yesterday, and this is how he described it: "The village looked empty, and then we heard noises coming from one of the houses, so we opened fire. But when we went inside, we found two women and a child huddled in the corner of the room. We were so relieved we hadn't hurt them. We took up base in one of the empty houses. And then all of a sudden, we came under intense fire. Three rockets were fired at the house we were in. Only one managed to destroy a wall, which fell on one of us, covering him in white dust, but otherwise not hurting him.
[....]

Please remember this when you hear about the "atrocity" of the Israeli bomb that killed many civilians in Kafr Qana, a place from which Hezbollah has fired hundreds of rockets at Israel. Unlike previous administrations, Mr. Olmert has my respect when he says: "They were warned to leave. It is the responsibility of Hezbollah for firing rockets amid civilians."

Terrorists and their supporters have lost the right to complain about civilian casualties, since all they have is one goal: this entire war is to target civilians. Every single one of the more than 2,500 rockets launched into Israel, is launched into populated towns filled with women and children. Just today, another explosive belt meant to kill civilians in Israel was detonated harmlessly by our forces in Nablus.

So don't cry to me about civilian casualties. Cry to those using babies and wives and mothers; cry to those who store weapons in mosques, ambulances, hospitals and private homes. Cry to those launching deadly rockets from the backyards of kindergartens and schools. Cry to the heartless men who love death, and however many of their troops or civilians die, consider themselves victorious as long as they can keep on firing rockets at our women and children.

[...]

That terrorists have been unsuccessful in killing more of our women and children is due to our army, God and prayers, not to any lack of motivation or intention on their part. If you hide behind your baby to shoot at my baby, you are responsible for getting children killed. You and you alone.

The writer is an American-born novelist and playwright who lives in Jerusalem.

Steve,
I am hardly one to defend Bolton, but I think you have misunderstood his point, which was somewhat awkwardly expressed. He is not saying that Israeli deaths are less regrettable than Lebanese deaths. He's focusing on the act of killing, rather than the result, and making the widely accepted argument that the deliberate targeting of civilians is morally different from the causing of civilian deaths in connection with attacks on military targets.
This still doesn't amount to a convincing defense of current Israeli behavior. When the number of civilians killed in military action by the "counterattacker" (Israel) far, far exceeds the number of civilians killed by the other side, the sheer quantitative imbalance overwhelms the qualitative moral difference between the two kinds of killing. Israel may not deliberately target civilians, but the numbers surely suggest that it doesn't demonstrate a great concern to minimize civilian deaths. Moreover, there is evidence that Israeli forces in some cases have targeted civilians deliberately, e.g., in attacks on vehicles carrying people trying to evacuate.

BrianOC,

Speaking with feigned authority on a subject about which you know palpably nothing. Both acts are war crimes.

Yielding before your greater knowledge, how does any of this apply to Hizbollah as they are civilians themselves and not technically a military component of the state of Lebanon?

how does any of this apply to Hizbollah as they are civilians themselves and not technically a military component of the state of Lebanon?

Why would you imagine that would make any difference?

You seem to be suggesting that Hezbollah should bear no responsibility for crimes of war based on it's non-governmental status. Such arguments have no basis in legality.

From Article III of the same Protocol:

The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party.

Let us be clear on this.  You maintain that Israel is discriminately targeting children.  Correct or not?

Excellent. Now who enforces it?

Since we must assume the Hezbollah war criminals among the civilians of Qana have already been subject to the ultimate justice, I can only infer your avidity is for enforcement against the living war criminals on the opposing side of the conflict.

Now I must defer to your field of expertise, do you think another Kahan-type commission is likely to ensure in this case?

Brevity is often a virtue. But perhaps I am the only person reading your staccato responses in this thread on whether Israel committed a war crime, wondering just what exactly are the pertinent point or points you are making.

Be assured though, I will not be diverting much valuable time trying to pierce the veil of your inscrutability.

As long as Israel causes more Lebanese civilian deaths--many more than the Israelis killed by Hezbollah--Israel's justification for war against Hizbollah seems to be wearing thin.

Interestingly enough, Israel is using American-made laser guided munitions and Hizbollah is using unguided Iranian-made rockets. Who do you think is more responsible for the deaths of innocents?

Oh, and initiation of war crimes proceedings against Olmert, his cabinet, and the Israeli general staff.

Except that the killing of civilians by Israel is not accidental. It is a collective punishment strategy intended to undermine political support for (or even tolerance of) Hezbollah.

Zionista quoted me (partially)

No one supports Hizbollah killing Israeli citizens.

Great. Then you must support Israel's demands that Hizbollah return the captured Israeli soldiers and to give up their private army. Welcome aboard.

It often helps to reading the entire post and put it into context. Israel wants 2 captured soldiers taken by Hizbollah. The response is to destroy the infrastructure of the neighboring country. This is to teach the Lebanese military that their 60K armed forces have to do something that the much better armed 500K IDF is finding to be something less than a cakewalk. In my estimation this was an impossible task for the Lebanese military. A foreign peacekeeping force will likely serve as cannon fodder for both sides.
My post suggested that if the true goal was to create a secure Israeli border, then the best option is to continue the march into Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. As the IDF displaces Shiites refugees to the north and with pictures of dead Lebanese on TV, there will be more Shiite volunteers ready to join Hizbollah. There will also be some Christian Lebanese who will be more sympathetic to Hizbollah since their country was destroyed in the process of retrieving 2 Israeli soldiers. The Lebanese military and government are impotent. The US Sec of State walked away from Lebanon while bombs continued to fall. This is not a good medium for creating pacifists. Some Iranians and Syrians will feel the need to increase their support of Hizbollah, or any new offshoot groups created. The disgruntled Lebanese, Iranians and Syrians will develop other methods of attacking Israel. Iran will continue its work on a nuclear bomb, so try to lessen it's chances of being attacked by an outside force. Since 2 soldiers are worth destroying Lebanon, the threat of a nuclear Iran is worthy of an even greater response. The only military solution is to continue moving on country by country until they are all bombed into submission. Just keep on going. Get it over with. Israel is the ME superpower and can flex all the muscle it wants without a fear of US or international repercussion. No one to negotiate with? Just continue across the entire ME.
Finally, I should make it clear that I fully expect Israeli to move Hizbollah back for a period of time until Hizbollah regroups or transforms into another terrorist entity. I have only posed questions as to possible outcomes of the victory. Many of us feel that MSM lacks the ability (guts) to fully and freely disgust these issues. There is no blogger that has the ability to get GW and Condi to change their plans or to get Israel to rethink it's response to 2 kidnapped soldiers. It's just discussion. We are not closet Mel Gibson's who blame the Jews. Many of us do have a sense that this is the forever war. Both sides are dedicated to the destruction of the other. Some of the posts reflect frustration that there will never be a solution.