Without limitation:

Yesterday (or was it the day before), to give but one example, Israel took down an entire apartment block in a mainly Christian, non-Hezbollah, area of Beirut. It was occupied by people eating ther evening meals. It is not credible that they thought there were only (or even mainly) Hezbollah there - even if part of the block had been (and I have yet seen no evidence to that effect) used to launch or plan a Hezbollah attack. That can only have been a deliberate attack on civilians.

Israel is leafleting Tyre (sp?). Any vehicle that moves is being targeted. We've all seen the pictures of the Red Cross ambulance with the rocket hole right through the middle of the red cross. There is not even a pretence that civilians are not being targetted.

There is a difference between "civilians" and "all civilians".

I set out above why Ham's preferred article was logically indefensible. The US government links of the writer and the place of publication made it suspect. The internal defects made it laughable, for the reasons I have already given in my post specifically directed to it. Go and check. You don't have to kowtow to the author merely because he has a CV you like.