That article draws attention to something interesting (and name-checks the great
bitterlemons.org). It isn't just that people don't level war crimes charges at other, more brutal regimes that surprises me, but that they can understand, can think about the structures, perspectives, conflicts, contexts, etc, from both sides in almost every other case except the Israel-Palestine conflict. As soon as Israel enters the debate, all rational thought ceases.
Consider Iran, a regional power with strategic alliances with Syria, HAMAS, Hezbollah, PIJ, Iraqi groups and others. What we must remember is that Iran is not a unitary and un-conflicted subject, that, within the regime power struggles and political-institutional structures determine policy outcomes, and that Iran's power projection and strategic culture is an extension of its regional and historical context. Yes, it's belligerent, it's undemocratic, but we can understand it as a boundedly rational agent. We don't agree with its actions, but we can subject it to dispassionate analysis.
Or consider the recent operations against the LTTE. Who is the bad guy in this story? Perhaps no one even cares. But merely to draw attention Israel's aims, desires, fears, security concerns, is a kind of betrayal of the Palestinians. As As'ad AbuKhalil says, "for them, anything and everything". Israel can't have legitimate complaints, rather, they are trying to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories and everything else must be seen in light of that fact. The stories about the t-shirts that snipers were getting printed are presented as revealing and confirming what we already knew about Israel and the IDF. They aren't meant to be understood in isolation, as particular incidents. We are invited to draw inferences and to generalise.