Notice that the New York Times inserted this paragraph about the report in an article about Khalid Mish`al's visit to Gaza: "On Friday, Human Rights Watch said the airstrike on the Dalu home was “a clear violation of the laws of war.” In a statement, it said its field investigation into the attack concluded that even if there had been a legitimate military target inside the house, the likelihood that the attack would have killed large numbers of civilians inside made it “unlawfully disproportionate.”" So Human Rights Watch has ruled that schools and hospitals can be legitimate targets for Israeli bombing if they contain "a legitimate military target" inside? Would Human Rights Watch ever state that Palestinians can attack "a legitimate military target" inside Israeli houses? Ever? It is not that Human Rights Watch's statements on Israel discredit all their work: they never ever even came close of possessing the slightest credibility. They don't even try: just compare their language in their reports on Syria with their language in this lousy report. So when Human Rights Watch says that it was "unlawfully disproportionate" they only mean that Israel killed more babies than necessary?