Ok, I'm obsessed with trying to follow the war. Or rather the different opinions on the war. Most of what I'm reading is supportive of Israel (reflecting my own bias, I suppose).
First some roundups:
Christopher Blosser (Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club) has a huge roundup ... mostly pro-Israeili (a little ironic, given the Vatican's stance :)).
He also provides links to huge round-ups: Blogs of War -- media coverage of the conflict and Truth Laid Bare -- Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli blogs opining on the war (which are, more or less, quite predictable in their views. The Lebanese are horrified at the attack, though some loath Hezbollah. The Palestianians hate Israel. Israelis generally feel justified in their response).
I missed this op-ed in the WSJ by Lebanese-American academic, Foaud Ajami: this is Nasrallah's doing.
The New Republic is completely pro-Israel: Just Cause (by Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief). There's also an article making parallels with India. Hezbollah attacks Israel and Israel goes after them. Terrorists, almost certainly based in (supported by?) Pakistan attack Bombay and India does nothing. Of course there are huge differences, one being the Bomb. (If Lebanon were a nuclear state, Israel wouldn't be doing this. If Lebanon were a nuclear state, either Hezbollah wouldn't exist, or, would have the bomb!)
Amy started a post inviting comments on Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki's speech to Congress and the Lebanon war. Nothing really there about Iraq but lots of good commentary on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon and some serious attempts to engage Catholic teaching. One comment that I found particularly informative was Tom Haessler's (July 27, 3:08 pm) on the narrowing of the criteria for the use of force in recent Magisterial pronouncements, going back to Pacem in Terris.
Zenit has an interview with Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo (who was one of the observers of the Holy See in the Rome conference), expressing his disappointment at the outcome, but trying to highlight the positive aspects of the meeting. Bottom line: "An immediate suspension of hostilities is possible, and, therefore, necessary." I'm not sure I really follow the Archbishop's reasoning. Israel should cease hostilities so that Hezbollah, which has no interest in peace, can resume them? How does one get Hezbollah to stop what its doing, or get Syria or Iran to stop their murderous advance of agression? Is there ever a situation where suspension of hostilities is "not possible?" (More in the comboxes at Amy's on Lajolo's statement)
The situation seems intractable ... here's an Open Letter to Israel from a Palestinian blogger (or maybe an American living in Palestine?) -- the narrative of victimhood is so different from that on the other side.
Finally -- here's a picture that's being called the Lebanese Pietà (Pictures from NYT, via this post at Amy's. Load it. Then weep. And pray.