A different and likely correct opinion on the War Crimes judgements flying about.
The man literally wrote the book on modern MOUT and actually engaged in it. On one hand it's hard to disagree with him. On the other hand I do.
He's assuming everything Israel is saying they've done is true. He's assuming all they actually have intelligence indicating what they claim they did.
And yet that's exactly the position the US was in when Bush was about to be indicted. I also think he's misframing "necessity" because there's no mention of it in Hague, Geneva or Rome. There's the legal maxim of "quod est necessarium est licitum", but following the ICRC link in his essay I still read the same as I always have: the counter to necessity is proportionality (and self-defense). If it's as simple as saying "Oh it was necessary for our objective", then nothing is a war crime.
And that's where we disagree. He's saying, "But then everything would be a war crime," and I'm saying, "But then nothing would be a war crime," and that's the difficult thing with proportionality. As alluded to in his dissertation and references, "it's trying to strike a balance" which is difficult when putting war against civilian lives.
I also think he's in a tough spot because everyone knows who he is. He's got enough experience to know he can't just trust everything Israel says just life he can't trust everything anyone else in the region is saying. It's probably more wise to give Israel the benefit of the doubt for now because that's easy to retract. Whereas no one knows me. I don't have to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. So he's assuming Israel has the intelligence they claim they do and that their operations were carried out the way they claimed that they were and that they have the evidence that they claim that have. I'm not giving them that benefit of the doubt because civilians are dying and I'm not trusting by nature.
If evidence comes out showing that there were people shooting or the windows of hospitals they bombed, I'll admit I was wrong. But I don't feel bad about it. Erring on the side of caution when it comes to thousands of dead civilians is a "mistake" I can live with.