GS wrote:

I don't understand your point about cluster bombs. Israel clearly has left a lot of cluster bombs in Lebanon, and they certainly will kill a lot of children. So I assume you are objecting to the implication that that was the *intention* rather than an unfortunate side effect. Is that right? If so then I think the article would not give a casual reader that impression, rather they would get the impression that Israel acted with casual disregard for the lives of others.

The difference between intentional killing and killing with casual disregard for the lives of 'others' is not very relevant here. For any users of force, both are viciously immoral. Presumably, then, you do agree with us that the headline gives the reader the impression that Israel is viciously immoral.

Do you think that the use of cluster bombs was justified?

Yes. Cluster bombs were used only in cases of military and moral necessity - for instance, where Hezbollah missile crews were literally in the act of firing volleys of missiles into Israeli cities and, because of the location and terrain, other means of attack would not have stopped them. The other means of attack, which were attempted where they could work, included, as Elliot pointed out above, ones that risked the lives of Israeli soldiers. Had Israel had callous disregard for the the lives of others, they would not have done that, and they would have used far more destructive weapons and thereby saved the lives of many Israelis.

That fact that, in this way and in many others, Israel's actual tactical decisions routinely include compromising important military objectives, and risking Israeli lives, in order to spare enemy civilians, is simply incompatible with the accusation you have made, and which you rightly attribute to The Times as well. (Incidentally, in Israel's case, 'military objectives' are themselves confined exclusively to those that are necessary to prevent the murder of Israelis.)

Perhaps you are opposed to the use of cluster bombs in principle. Perhaps you have profound moral objections to all explosive weapons, or to any military tactics that might harm civilians, or whatever: we can't tell. If so, we disagree, and so do the military planners of virtually every nation that fights wars. But even if you were right about that, that would still in no way justify imputing to them such vile states of mind as having casual disregard for the lives of others. Far less does it justify imputing such states of mind to a whole nation, as you do.