When you look at the scenes of devastation and bloodshed in newscasts from Iraq and Lebanon, it's sometimes hard to think of the term "the rules of war" as anything but an oxymoron. But it's an important concept that has not been adequately addressed in any of the supercharged news reporting, analysis, commentary, and outright blather covering the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Over many hundreds of years, as civilization advanced, nation-states formed, and armies grew larger and more capable, the international community came to understand that wars needed to be fought under some commonly-accepted rules in order to keep them within some bounds. These rules, eventually codified in law, tradition and such agreements as the much-quoted and much-misunderstood Geneva Conventions, included such concepts as force used only by recognized and uniformed combatants, proportionality, the protection of civilians, the humane treatment of prisoners of war, and the prohibition of inhumane weapons (such as poisoned or exploding bullets). And those rules have worked pretty well over the years. Until now.

A very good opinion article in yesterday's Washington Post by retired Israeli general Moshe Yaalon is worth your reading. While it can be simplistically read as an attempt to justify Israeli strategy and tactics in the war with Hezbollah, it nevertheless makes a profound point: that the rules of war are being systematically ignored by Hezbollah and its allies at the same time they are used as a cudgel to beat the Israelis...and no one is remarking on it. Did you ever wonder why it is that there is little outrage when twisted Islamic clerics sanctimoniously justify the employment of suicide bombers whose bombs are packed with nails, laced with rat poison, and deliberately targeted at civilians, while there are howls of righteous indignation when the Israeli military, although employing massive force, tries to precisely target specific threats? While the loss of innocent life in Lebanon is a horrific tragedy for which the Israelis are, with some justification, blamed, why is there no concurrent condemnation of Hezbollah's blatant use of the Lebanese population as human shields?

Read Mr Yaalon's article in the context of the pieces I recommended to you in yesterday's post, and think critically about what's going on here. Regular readers of this blog will know that I am not an apologist for either side in the Middle East: there are legitimate claims, issues, and concerns on all sides, and resolution is complicated by the utter unwillingness of some on each side to consider any type of compromise. But it's clear that, if we use adherence to the accepted rules of war as a yardstick, it is Hezbollah and its like that deserve the disgust and condemnation of civilized people everywhere.

Unfortunately, it won't happen. Ask yourself why.

Have a good weekend. Think critically. More thoughts coming over the weekend.

Bilbo