Edit: Is it off topic to ask for a reference to what someone writes they've spent hundreds of hours on?! :-) >> I know of exactly zero cases of him claiming th

Edit: Is it off topic to ask for a reference to what someone writes they've spent hundreds of hours on?! :-) >> I know of exactly zero cases of him claiming that Israel "deserved" civilian casualties I did not write that, I claimed the standards were very different. (To be absolutely clear: I am not claiming Israel is perfect, I'm claiming the differences in volume of criticism is weird. Sure, keep higher standards for democracies -- but how many factors of thousands more criticism is serious?) >> Israel's frequent violation of the "laws of war", e.g. use of white phosphorous and extensive targeting of civilian areas, is a frequent topic. Uh, you complained about lacking references..? White phosphor is legal for smoke screens. Used by NATO too. [Edit: Link. Also note that there will be failed shells e.g. reaching the ground in any artillery barrage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Arm... ] It is legal according to the war laws to target civilian areas if the other side hide in them (a complex legal situation). This is my favorite reference on this subject, since it is critical of the US -- and shows what the standards are. The difference between the sides criticized heavily here (Israel) and the non criticized side is quite obvious: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-us-style http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u... Edit: Clarity and got a link to remove an "Afaik".