One man's war crime is another man's good strategy or "collateral damage". Who would charge the Israeli soldiers? Who would press those charges? Israel? I don't think so.

If anyone else did, would Israel pay any attention to the charges (other than dismissing them angrily and contemptuously)? No.

The United States paid no attention to the World Court's ruling against it over Nicaragua in the 1980's. Same deal. The Russians are not going to answer to anyone for war crimes in Chechenya. Same deal.

There is no tribunal in this world with the strength to make either Israel or the USA listen to them, except maybe one convened by the USA itself, and the USA is not going to do that.

War crimes have been committed by both sides, and will continue to be, I'm sure. So what else is new?

Why were the Allies not charged with war crimes at the end of World War II? Because they won. And they had the power, that's why. (BTW, I am by no means equating Allied war crimes with those greater atrocities which were committed by the Axis, but the Allies did commit war crimes nonetheless...it is virtually inevitable that this happens in war. Either try ALL the guilty participants...or surrender the pretense of exclusive moral superiority that the winners customarily assume over the vanquished.)

I believe that the post which started this thread was intended to do nothing more than suggest: that Israel itself is capable of, and has committed, both terrorism and war crimes...a suggestion which is considered anathema in traditionally pro-Israeli quarters, but which is no more than applying the same rules of conduct to the Israelis which are normally applied to other human beings everywhere.

It's rather like saying, in public, that the king has no clothes on. People in the king's court may have a fit if you say that. They may threaten you with excommunication or call you a racist or accuse you of anti-semitism or satanism or racism or blasphemy (all marvelously potent terms with which to demonize someone)...BUT IF the king indeed is walking around naked, then it is still true to say he has no clothes on, regardless if people have a fit or not when you say it. Regardless of what they call you. This king has no clothes on. This king is standing naked before the world, and virtually the whole world knows it. If the king cannot admit to it, he is either blatantly dishonest, or he is lost in some grand delusion, or he is mad.

- LH