Two-and-a-half weeks after two Israeli soldiers were killed by Palestinian militants linked to the ruling Hamas party, Israeli forces are pushing further into Gaza in search of a third soldier kidnapped that same day. In trying to force the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, Israel has tried cutting off power, The Christian Science Monitor says that the Israeli army faces a juggling act: "It wants to make life intolerable enough for someone in the Palestinian leadership to yield, but not so intolerable that international censure will come down on Israel for sparking a humanitarian disaster in Gaza."

Now, that international censure has arrived. Human rights groups and even some Israeli commentators are saying that Israel's response constitutes "collective punishment" against Palestinians, which some could consider a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

The Daily Star of Lebanon reports that the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, South African John Dugard (who is already a controversial figure to many Israelis) told a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council that the Israeli actions are unacceptable.

"It is clear Israel is in violation of the most fundamental norms of humanitarian law and human rights law," Dugard said in an address to a special session of the UN Human Rights Council. He accused the so-called "Quartet" of Mideast mediators of doing nothing to rein in Israel.

Last Friday, Amnesty International released a statement in which it said, "Deliberate attacks by Israeli forces against civilian property and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip violate international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes." The human rights group said Israeli bombardment of "the Gaza Strip's only electricity power station, water networks, bridges, roads and other infrastructure is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited" (article 33) as is the destruction of private or public property, "except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations" (Article 53). The Convention requires all states party to it to search for and ensure the prosecution of perpetrators of the war crime of "causing extensive destruction ... not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." "Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects" is also a war crime under Article 8 (b) (ii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more. Subscribe via RSS Feed:   What is this?

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law; president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild; and the US representative to the American Association of Jurists, writes on the liberal news site AlterNet that it is not just international groups, but also Israeli peace groups who are upset with the military's actions in Gaza. She also writes that the US is deliberately ignoring what Israel is doing, which is especially important in light of the US Supreme Court ruling last week in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which found that the Geneva Conventions are "indisputably part of the customary international law."

If the United States really wished to act on its human rights rhetoric, it should apply political and economic pressure that Israel could not resist. Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, military hardware sold by the United States can only be used for defensive purposes or to maintain internal security. Israel has used F-16 fighter jets, Apache and Cobra attack helicopters, 15mm howitzers, M-16 automatic rifles, M50 machine guns, and many other weapons and ammunition supplied by the United States. Retired US Army Gen. James J. David, in a letter to Colin Powell in January 2002, wrote: "If you're going to deny the Palestinians weapons to defend themselves, then you must stop all military and economic aid to Israel."

On Monday, Switzerland also said that Israel had been violating international law, and called for the release of Hamas leaders. But Israel's ambassador to Bern said the criticism was unjustified. He noted that that Israel was supplying Gaza's people with electricity, water, fresh food, and medicine even though the ruling Palestinian group Hamas is sworn to the Jewish state's destruction.

"They have criticized us even though we are showing restraint," Aviv Shir-On told The Associated Press. "We are disappointed that the Swiss government did not issue such statements when Israel's civilian population was constantly under attack from the Gaza Strip."

While one of the few Western nations to openly criticize Israel's actions, Switzerland abstained Thursday on a UN Human Right Council resolution condemning Israel's actions. Switzerland said that "armed Palestinian groups should be called to account" and should have been included in the resolution.

But not even all Arab commentators believe that Israel is to blame for what has been happening in Gaza. The London-based ash-Sharq al-Awsat writes in a commentary (reported on by United Press International) that "those who ask where the Arab regimes are in helping the Palestinians in their crisis should ask themselves who consulted with the Arab governments when they kidnapped an Israeli soldier."

"Did the Palestinian government seek the opinion or advise of the Arab leaders about their operations for them to seek their help?" the Saudi-owned daily asked. It criticized Hamas for not taking into consideration any other views from Arab leaders, saying the repercussions of the abduction of the Israeli soldier "are exactly what the Arab government reject and exactly what the Israeli government wants to justify" in its "uneven" military campaign against the Palestinians. The paper, distributed in many Arab capitals, said that no Arab or any other country can do anything except condemn because not a single Arab country wants to be pulled into a "losing battle." It opined that no one has the right to ask Arab governments for help when they were not consulted, accusing the Hamas government of "turning its back to Arab decisions and advice." It said that those who pulled the Palestinians into this fierce battle are alone to be blamed and to ask themselves whether the kidnapping of the soldier was worth all the damage inflicted on the Palestinians.

Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; professor at Touro Law Center; and editor of the website EYE on the UN, writes in The Jerusalem Post that the charges of human rights violations are just more of "that same old bash-Israel agenda." This is particularly true of the reconstituted UN Human Rights Council, she writes, which showed itself to be no different from its predecessor, the discredited UN Human Rights Commission, in the first two weeks of its existence.

But it wasn't genocide in Sudan that interested the Human Rights Council. Nor was it a billion Chinese without civil and political rights. Not 13 million women in Saudi Arabia whose lives depend on hiding from sight in public places and never being caught behind the wheel of an automobile. Not the dire human rights conditions of 23 million people in North Korea. Not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's incitement to genocide or his country's legal system, which includes crucifixion, stoning and amputation.

No, there was only one country singled out by the UN Human Rights Council, and that was Israel. ... The Council placed criticism of Israel permanently on the agenda of all future sessions. It gave only the special investigator on Israel what amounted to a permanent mandate. On its final day, the Council passed just one resolution condemning human rights violations by any of the 192 UN members, and directed it at Israel. When it was all over, the Council decided to hold its first special (emergency) session within the next few days - on Israel.

But not all Israeli writers felt that Israel was blameless and only acting to protect itself. Commentator Gideon Levy wrote last week in Ha'aretz that when a state undertakes the kind of actions that Israel has in Gaza, "it is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization."

Everything must be done to win [kidnapped Israeli soldier] Gilad Shalit's release. What we are doing now in Gaza has nothing to do with freeing him. It is a widescale act of vengeance, the kind that the IDF and Shin Bet have wanted to conduct for some time, mostly motivated by the deep frustration that the army commanders feel about their impotence against the Qassams and the daring Palestinian guerilla raid. There's a huge gap between the army unleashing its frustration and a clever and legitimate operation to free the kidnapped soldier.

Reuters reports that the captors of Cpl Gilad Shalit say he is healthy, and that he will not be harmed. But they also said he would not be released until Israel agrees to release 1,000 jailed Palestinians, including top leaders of militant factions.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Corporal Shalit's position is an unusual one in that he is "not a prisoner of war and is therefore not entitled to the full protection that international law affords POWs, according to Hebrew University international-law expert Yuval Shani."

Prof. Shani says that Shalit would still be protected by several provisions in the Geneva Conventions dealing with non-international armed conflict.

Shani said he thought the reason for the distinction between the two types of captured fighters was that states were better organized and could more easily implement the court's directive. But guerrilla groups or other forces could not provide such a high standard of conditions for POW as states could, and therefore the demands made of such groups were left more general and vague.

By the same token, however, Israel was also not obliged to treat captured Palestinian terrorists as POWs, continued Shani, because the Geneva Accords regarding POWs only apply when two states fight each other. He added that Israel indeed did not observe all of the provisions of international law when it captured and held terrorists.

• Palestinian families pay high price as Israel warns of marathon stand-off (Daily Telegraph)
• Don't blame Hamas (USA Today)
• The enemy within (Jewish Media Resources)
• Bush's foreign friends fading fast (Associated Press)
• Beyond 'trust us' (Washington Post)

Feedback appreciated. E-mail Tom Regan.