"I do not want to be cast in the role of apologist, as this conflict disturbs me a lot."

Yes, I suppose being cast as an apologist, would be worse then anything imaginable.

"Especially the reports of the deaths of children in Lebanon."

Oh yeah, especially the children.

"And also, I will never go on record as supporting Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden."

Yes of course. Though no one could support Dresden any more than the London Blitz, a few deranged people like myself could find Hiroshima and Nagasaki supportable actions.

"However, this article is worth mentioning as further explanation to the Telegraph article you cited."

Well, yes, Krauthammer does make few good points but then again he severely lacks the wacko creds of a liberal:

"Krauthammer continues: "Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, and a very few others), the world--governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats--has completely lost its moral bearings. The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is "disproportionate" as in the universally decried "disproportionate Israeli response."

"The reason many people do not accept the parallels is that they simply will not allow "the Jews" the same leeway in war, as they will and do allow the rest of the world throughout history. That much at least is clear."

Oh, it's much worse than that. In terms of "leeway" Israel should be allowed the carpet bomb this entire region which launching missles at it's citizens. As it is they are surgerically and perhaps somewhat over cautiously attacking the enemy- the only fault I might have is they doing too little to kill these terrorist and those aiding them.

And their true enemy doesn't even reside in southern Lebanon, but rather is Syria and it's master Iran. Whereas Iran is too far away and only indirectly arming and using a few "miltary advisors" to assist these terrorists. And it would be a stretch to be bombing Iran in response, though I do think hitting leadership and miltary target in Syria is well within a reasonable "leeway".

But this whole leeway thing is really something more suited to a superpower, and is mostly related to America policy to aviod getting into nuclear exchange with the Soviets- and this whole premise is on shaky ground in it's wide and "liberal" use [both senses of word]. It is true that the US is capable of punishing Israel- as the US is quite capable of punishing most modern nations who have open trade. And plus the 2 billion in aid given by US and Israel using US weapon systems that need to be re-supply. Gives enomous leverage.

As a practical matter Israel is too dependent upon the US- we as the US couldn't "handle" this kind dependency upon a single nation- because that single nation would effectively be controlling our national security [we would be effectively be handing over our soveriegnty]. The US control over Israel has over the long run has not apparently been very good for Israel. The US has, in loose general sense, been torturing Isreal- treating Israel as whipping boy.

It's been quite disgraceful in general and even Bush doesn't give enough support to Israel [though Bush is under a lot public pressure for the mimimal support he has to date done].