Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

There’s propaganda and then there is logic. Hezbollah fires rockets and Israel fires back. Logic suggests, as this story shows that there is a very good chance that rockets were not fired from Qana. Then again, after the Israelis pulverise the place it will be impossible to prove anything. Except the evidence from those who were there. Israelis may not believe them because they are Arab but the rest of the world will.

Qana had been a shelter because no rockets were being fired from there, survivors said. "When Hezbollah fires their rockets, everyone runs away because they know an Israeli bombardment will come soon," Abdel said. "That is why everyone stayed in the shelter and nearby homes, because we all thought we'd be all right since there were no Hezbollah fighters in Qana." Lebanese Red Cross workers in the nearby coastal city of Tyre told IPS that there was no basis for Israeli claims that Hezbollah had launched rockets from Qana.

"We found no evidence of Hezbollah fighters in Qana," Kassem Shaulan, a 28-year-old medic and training manager for the Red Cross in Tyre told IPS at their headquarters. "When we rescue people or recover bodies from villages, we usually see rocket launchers or Hezbollah fighters if they are there, but in Qana I can say that the village was 100 percent clear of either of those."

Another Red Cross worker, 32-year-old Mohammad Zatar, told IPS that "we can tell when Hezbollah has been firing rockets from certain areas, because all of the people run away, on foot if they have to."

And then there is the Israeli penchant for warning civilians to leave and then bombing them as Robert Fisk reports:

And who can blame them for their flight? For the second time in eight days, the Israelis committed a war crime yesterday. They ordered the villagers of Taire, near the border, to leave their homes and then — as their convoy of cars and minibuses obediently trailed northwards — the Israeli air force fired a missile into the rear minibus, killing three refugees and seriously wounding 13 other civilians. The rocket that killed them is believed to have been a Hellfire missile made by Lockheed Martin in Florida.

Nine days ago, the Israeli army ordered the inhabitants of a neighbouring village, Marwaheen, to leave their homes and then fired rockets into one of their evacuation trucks, blasting the women and children inside to their deaths. And this is the same Israeli air force which was praised last week by one of Israel’s greatest defenders — Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz — because it ‘takes extraordinary steps to minimise civilian casualties.’

But, as has been said before, this time there will be no hiding the war crimes as the Israelis have been able to do in Palestine and as the US has been able to do in Iraq. These are all clearly documented. Not only that, they are filmed and the Israelis will not be able to prevent reports coming out of Lebanon as they continue their rampage.

Perhaps it is time for the truth to be told. Perhaps that is one gift which can come from this terrible suffering. We are now seeing in Australia (sadly not the US) news reports showing the bodies of small lifeless children; showing elderly, disoriented Lebanese being carried out of the rubble of their homes desperate for water. We are seeing the pulverised civilian infrastructure. We are seeing the truth, not just of war, but of this particularly immoral war in a way that we have not seen such truth since Vietnam.

For all those who support war as a problem solving mechanism this is what you wish for and this is what you inflict on others. For all those who can sit and watch, unmoved, the tears coursing down those heavily lined faces; the small broken bodies being laid out in long rows; the blackened skin and bloodied flesh of men, women and children, and the dust and pulverized rubble of homes ... there are many more who cannot.

When you support this destruction for any reason or anyone you support it for everyone. The Israelis may have gotten off lightly by comparison but this is their future if they continue to work their murderous way through anyone who opposes them. I find it deeply moving, powerfully shocking, and thoroughly upsetting to see these images but full credit to the news services for showing them. It is because they are so terrible that I do not want Israelis to suffer in the same way, nor Americans, nor Syrians, nor Iranians nor anyone.

War is barbarism pure and simple and those who support it as a problem solving mechanism support barbarism pure and simple.

Roslyn Ross: "C Parsons, as has been said before Hamas does not have the power to destroy Israel. In addition, the Hamas charter is something which came into being before Hamas was democratically elected."

But the Hamas charter still expressly advocates racial genocide against the Jews, the imposition of an Islamic state on Israel, and to the extent that it is in Hamas's power, it will struggle to destroy Israel.

Its allies in Iran and in the Arabic-speaking world do indeed have the power to destroy Israel, and some of them regularly and openly declare their intention of eventualy doing so.

To the extent that we support Hamas, Hizbolla and other such racist nihilist movements, we support not merely their practices on the ground but especially their stated objectives.

That Hamas was democratically elected is merely one more sobering reflection on the degraded nature of the political and cultural leadership in the  region.

I draw your attention once again to the finding of the Pew social attitudes surveys below, and the striking levels of racist animosity characteristic of the Muslim world, in particular the near unanimous levels of anti-Jewish sentiment revealed in them.

I put the blame for those squarely at the feet of the governments and the political and cultural leadership of the region, and also on those in the West encouraging and otherwise offering moral and political support.

If I might make an analogy from history, the NAZI Party was democratically elected to power, and at the time it too did not have the power to destroy the Jews either.

But then it didn't have the range of political allies that Hamas enjoys, either. That came later.

There is no doubt. Another Holocaust is coming. In the final analysis, those who supported the nihilist-racist agenda will be accountable.

C Parsons, you write:

Jane Lahey, let's see what Green Left Weekly says again. Oh, yeah...

It is undoubtedly not a coincidence that the Iraqi armed resistance movement targeted [Sergio Viera] de Mello only a week after the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1500 "welcoming" Bremer's IGC stooges.

Contrary to the corporate media's almost unanimous claims that de Mello was a "man of peace" who was only administering "humanitarian aid" to Iraqis, in reality he was a cog in the oppressive machine of the US occupation of Iraq.

Yup, not a hint of approval of Sergio Viera de Mello's murder there.

No, there isn’t. This extract only seeks to give an analysis, albeit a very strident one, of why Mr de Mello may have been singled out as a target for attack. Nowhere in the extract, or in the GLW article itself, is there any condoning of the bombing of the UN mission that killed him and 23 others.

Criticising a murder victim does not equate with condoning his/her murder. You have taken your own subjective perception – clouded by a well documented loathing (if WD is any guide) of the so-called Left – and tried to pass it off as fact. In doing so, you have misrepresented not only the article but also the writer and Green Left Weekly.

In another post you supply a link to one of the dozens of recent articles on Hugo Chavez’s visit to Iran, in which the two leaders pledged all kinds of mutual support. You then write:

Now, have I mentioned my theory about the Left and its part in the rehabilitation of antiSemitism as a political rhetoric?

Here we go again. If there is a link to an article that says (not ‘hints at’ or plays ‘its part’) that the Venezuelan leader went, or said he went, to Iran to ‘rehabilitate anti-Semitism’, I’d be pleased to obtain it. If not, then I’m obliged to point out that you are again using a link to make a misrepresentation of the so-called Left – and an extremely sloppy one at that.

Mike, yes, I do care what happens in Sudan. I also care about what is happening in Tibet, Chechnya, West Papua, Zimbabwe, Congo, Iraq and countless other places where the most terrible injustices are taking place. This thread happens to be about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If something is posted on Sudan then it can be discussed in more detail.

C Parsons,, as has been said before Hamas does not have the power to destroy Israel. In addition, the Hamas charter is something which came into being before Hamas was democratically elected. There were signs that their position was changing which is when Israel launched yet more attacks against Gaza and refused to talk with them.

As to Israeli policy which denies the legitimacy of Palestinians in the same way that the Hamas charter denies the legitimacy of Israelis, it is clear to see in the Government's refusal to allow a Palestinian State.

Putting together a series of links revealing such policies would be pointless for two reasons; a) you dismiss all my links and, b) it is not a crucial issue. I realise you are fixated on this but as many have said, not only is one's man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter but one era's terrorist is the next era's statesman. Israel turned its terrorists into politicians and Hamas will do the same. It has been halted in its course but it is the way of things.

You said, and is Hamas then not in a state of technical (indeed open de jure) war with Israel until it changes its policies? And why should not Israelis fight it to the death?

If you were going to apply the words of States as a reality exactly the same as actions then there would be many more wars.

Israel, like all nations, would clearly fight to the death to remain free but anyone who fights to the death to make another country change its policy is stupid. Even more so because Israel is under no threat whatsoever. Deal with the reality, not the maybes. That is Israel's mistake and yours.

Hamas, whatever it said, whatever it might say, whatever it might not say, whatever it does, can never be a threat to Israel. Them's the facts.

Now, Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine, its continued colonisation and its refusal to negotiate with the democratically elected government, that is a threat to Israel. So too is Israel's invasion and destruction of Lebanon and the war crimes already committed on that bloody front. They are threats to Israel.

As to my 'black and white view' as you put it, here we go again with an issue of principle and the subtle differentiation required in arguing principle.

I am black and white only in terms of the principles at play.

Israel is an occupier. I know that. You know that. As a matter of principle that is wrong. Israel is a brutal occupier. We all know that. As a matter of principle that is wrong. Israel has used the occupation to continue to colonise land which does not belong to it. As a matter of principle that is wrong. Ergo. Israel in that instance is clearly in the wrong.

The Palestinians are occupied, they are the victim. They are colonised, they are the victim. They are brutalised, they are the victim. As a matter of principle they are the victim.

And then, beyond the basic principles of human rights and justice we can get into the murkier areas of what people do either to right wrongs or maintain wrongs.

Basic principles apply here. In principle anyone living under occupation has a right to fight to free themselves. One can argue about methods used but not the right to fight.

In principle anyone holding others under occupation has an obligation to free them and no right to use any means, peaceful or violent, to keep them under occupation and to colonise them.

they are fairly basic principles. Easily understood and generally held, as a matter of principle by most people.

The interesting thing is why so many Israeli supporters betray these principles in regard to Israel's actions.

The only thing which guarantees conflict is Israel's refusal to accept that as the occupier and coloniser and now in Lebanon, the invader and destroyer, it is the aggressor. As a matter of principle it is an aggressor.

You said that it is also tantamount to a valorisation of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Quadea and Hizbolla triumphalist nihilist Islamicist point of view.

No, it is not. You exaggerate as usual. It is a defence of basic principles of justice and law.

Roslyn Ross, thank you for your reply.

I'd like to address a couple of points you raise;

Roslyn Ross: "The radical views of both sides, and I see no difference between  Islamic wishes to kill, remove or destroy all Jews and Jewish wishes to kill, remove or destroy all Muslims."

I refer once again to Articles 7 and 11 of Hamas's Constitution, calling on Muslims to kill Jews on site and declaring Hamas's intention to destroy Israel, and replace its with an Islamic state.

Hamas is the actual government of the Palestinian Authority.

Can you show me any comparable policy statement by Israel with respect to any Arab or Muslim state or Muslim people?

Any whatsoever?

Roslyn Ross: "The other reality is that at some point Hamas will change its charter and the Israelis will also change their policies."

At what point will Hamas change its policies, say the one calling Moslems to kill Jews on sight?

Or that to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic state?

And is Hamas then not in a state of technical (indeed open de jure) war with Israel until it changes its policies? And why should not Israelis fight it to the death?

Roslyn Ross: "Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians are the oppressed. Israel is the occupier and the Palestinians are the occupied. Israel is the aggressor and the Palestinians and now Lebanese are the suffering. Israel is the colonizer and the Palestinians are colonized."

My response to this statement of yours alone should provide sufficient answer to your other questions:

Such diametrical, uncompromising 'black-and-white' characterisations of the political complexities and history of Israel and Palestine not only gurantees conflict between the two sides, but ensures it can never be resolved.

That you view the conflict is such a Manichean way ensures there can never be a middle ground. Do you see?

It is also tantamount to a valorization of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Quadea and Hizbolla triumphalist nihilist Islamicist point of view.

You say that you are a pacifist, but adherence to that type of triumphalist nihilist point of view, an outlook not completely out of keeping with unreconstructed Hegelian-Marxian dialectical monist thinking by the way, is why you continually keep unding up advocating the kinds of things you have done in the The Middle East's Military Delusions thread where you openly endorse the trading of prisoner hostages as bargaining chips, an actual War Crime under a UN Convention.

Can you see the problem there?

That type of thinking is also why over and over Marxists and their off-shoots find themselves on the sidelines of the Middle East conflict cheering on the Islamists and Ba'ath Fascists, then retiring to their nearest wine bar to congratulate themselves on being such good feminist, socialist, pacifists.

Hence, yesterday's announcement by pseudo-Marxist Hugo Chavez about his and Iranian psychopath President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's "shared values".

The rehabilitation of political anti-Semitism as a "respectable" rhetoric in the West will be socialism's only enduring legacy into the 21st Century.

Mark Ross: "According to C Parson's logic, it seems that 87% of Lebanese are avid readers of Groin Lesion Weekly and are following the logical determinism of their lefty pinko stance by embracing Hizbollah."

Talking of which, those amused by Green Left Weekly's ceaseless adulation of Hugo Chavez now have even more treats in store.

"Anti-US leaders Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad met in Teheran on Saturday, pledging mutual support for one another, state media reported."

"Chavez's two-day visit came as Iran faces renewed international criticism for its nuclear program and as a backer of Hezbollah guerrillas, engaged in fighting with Israel since they captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12. "....

"Following talks, Chavez pledged that his country would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition", state television reported.

"Ahmedinejad said he saw in Chavez a kindred spirit. "I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chavez," Ahmedinejad was quoted as saying by state-run television."

Now, have I mentioned my theory about the Left and its part in the rehabilitation of antiSemitism as a political rhetoric.

As reported by Fox (and a hundred others, Mel Gibson Apologizes for DUI, 'Despicable' Statements:

...I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested," he said in a statement issued by his publicist. "I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse." ...

The priapic Murdoch organ is a little coy about Gibson's actual words, that are being plastered all over the web.

Perhaps it was these, as revealed in the Independent's Gibson 'abused officer' after drink-drive arrest:

... The TMZ.com celebrity news website said that Gibson, 50, was abusive, and told one officer: "I'm going to fuck you. You're going to regret you ever did this to me." ...

In Oz, where drunkenness is cover for all manner of abuse and psychopathy, the SMH leads off with Mel Gibson admits alcohol problem:

... Gibson, 50, admitted he had said "things to" the arresting sheriff deputy "which are despicable" and had admitted to drinking before he was pulled over. ...

There's more, though, a lot more. From New York Times Mel Gibson Apologizes for Tirade After Arrest:

... But Mr. Gibson, in a statement, stopped short of addressing claims that he made virulently anti-Semitic remarks to an arresting officer, as described on a Web site that posted several pages of the sheriff’s report. The sheriff’s report, carried on TMZ.com, a Web site owned by Time Warner, said Mr. Gibson had demanded to know if the officer, James Mee, was a Jew. During an obscenity-laced tirade, according to the report, Mr. Gibson also said “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” ...

Oh, the Passion unleashed! Must be a mistake, though, since Our Leader assured us we are not racist.

Will be interesting to watch how Australia's media deal with this one, and whether any of our glory-seeking politicians will come to Gibson's defence.

Jane Lahey.  "Our resident Webdiary sinistrophobes, C.Parsons, Mike Wall, Geoff Pahoff et al, are having a lovely time chewing the bones of a Green Left Weekly article which C. Parsons claims to have "praised" the bombing of a UN compound three years ago in which 23 UN staff were killed.  The only problem is.. the Green Left Weekly article did no such thing.

Let's see what Green Left Weekly says again.  Oh, yeah..

"It is undoubtedly not a coincidence that the Iraqi armed resistance movement targeted [Sergio Viera] de Mello only a week after the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1500 "welcoming" Bremer's IGC stooges"

Contrary to the corporate media's almost unanimous claims that de Mello was a "man of peace" who was only administering "humanitarian aid" to Iraqis, in reality he was a cog in the oppressive machin of the US occupation of Iraq"

Yup, not a hint of approval of Sergio Viera de Mello's murder there. 

 Okay.  So, let's see what Mark Ross thought of it:

"In response to my link to a report about the Israeli bombing of an United Nations observation post you took a trip down memory lane and linked to a three year old article by Green Left Weekly.  That article was written by an unknown lunatic and posted on a site run by social and political fringe dwellers."

-Mark Ross on July 27, 2006- 8:08 pm

Well, Mark, are you going to just take Jane Lahey's accusation that you are a lying "sinistrophobe'?

Mark Ross: "According to C Parson's logic, it seems that 87% of Lebanese are avid readers of Groin Lesion Weekly and are following the logical determinism of their lefty pinko stance by embracing Hizbollah."

You're confused, Mark.  Really confused.

I said the Left, including such cold war relics as Green Left Weekly, fell compelled to support far-right Islamicist movements like Hamas because they are both hostile to pluralist, liberal, secular western society.

My precise words were:

"For the Left to not support Hamas is now tantamount to admitting that there is no single, historically (naturally or divinely) predetermined outcome for the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter)."

Hamas enjoys the support of the Palestinian people for their own reasons, perhaps not unrelated to Hamas's expressed aim of exterminating Israel and the overwhelming cultural hostility of Muslims towards Jews generally.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project recently  reported:

"In every Muslim country surveyed, overwhelming or near unanimous majorities expressed negative views toward Jews."

If you would care to dispute any of those suggestions, please do. But don't waste time inventing some logicaly falacious 'straw man' arfgument on my behalf.

Roslyn Ross: "C. Parsons:  I am happy to respond to your post if you re-post removing insults and name-calling. If not then as I have said before, it will be ignored. You cannot make an argument by seeking to defame those who hold different opinions. It makes only you look foolish if not dishonest."

That's great, Roslyn. Well, here are  the questions again;

As a "pacifist", how do you reconcile your expectation that Arabs (and other Muslims), and Israelis (and other Jews) should achieve mutual respect so long as Hamas's  constitution expressly calls on its followers to murder Jews - not just Israelis - wherever they find them - as outlined in Article 7 of the Hamas constitution?

Article 7 of the Hamas constitution says:

" The time(16) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad(17), which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)(18)."

Also, I point out again that Article 11 of the Hamas Constitution expressly calls on Mulsims to make "Palestine" an Islamic state (Islamic waqf)? when cross-posting a report as potentially derogatory as your Iranian Government News Agency claim, that Israeli forces used "chemical weapons on civilians", it might have been more respectful to all involved had you indicated that the source of this account was in fact the Iranian government's official propaganda arm?

Do you see these objectives as problems, given your pacifist credentials, expressions of support for Hamas and calls for "mutual understanding" between Israelis and Arabs?

Also, do you agree that?

Thanks Roslyn. Looking forwad to your comments.

For those who might be tempted to believe that Israeli resolve to see this horrible thing through to its conclusion, I suggest you go here.

Nothing like a good old-fashioned Sunday sing-along.

"Our resident Webiar sinistrophobes, C. Parsons, Mike Wall, Geoff Pahoff et all, are having a lovely time chewing the bones of a Green Left Weekly article which C. Parsons claims to have "praised " the bombing of a UN compound there three years ago n which 23 UN staff were killed."

Actually jane lahey I have never mentioned this article.  There is a very good reason for that.  I have never bothered to read it.  Until now.  What was that you were saying about honest and ethics?

But you got my attention just now. So I took the plunge down the link you helpfully provided to have a looksee for myself at what all the fuss is about.

And what did I find?

The very first paragraph:

Warmakers? Iraqi patriots [Zarqawi]  attacking the mission in the course of their escalationg guerilla war against occupation?  A reason for the attack given.  The tribute for the murdered UN Chief from Washington, London and Canberra.

I'm sorry Jane but that does not read much like the introduction of jus any old political analysis of a war crime to me.  Or even an act of terrorism.

I pressed on.  Maybe I was overlooking something about the tone of this article.  Perhaps it was a parody or something. 

De Mello has been widely credited with persuading Bremer and his masters in Washington to set up the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) in order to provide an Iraqi front for the US-British Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

Ahuh.  De Wells was doing the job the UN put him there to do.  Well that would drive any Iraqi patriot to murder twenty or thirty non-combatants I suppose.

What else have we got here? 

It is undoubtedly not a coincidence that the Iraqi armed resistance movement targeted de Mello only a week after the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1500 “welcoming” Bremer's IGC stooges.

Contrary to the corporate media's almost unanimous claims that de Mello was a “man of peace” who was only administering “humanitarian aid” to Iraqis, in reality he was a cog in the oppressive machine of the US occupation of Iraq.

Undoubtedly.

Now that's what I call "political analysis". I tell you what jane. If you ever decide to link to an article which might be just a little teeny bit slanted towards the absolutely barking mad raving lunatic wing of the ...ahem.. "anti-war" movement would you mind giving at least about 48 hours notice?  

The gushing tributes made by the warmakers in Washington, London and Canberra for the United Nations “special representative” in Iraq, Sergio Viera de Mello, provided an answer as to why Iraqi patriots would target the UN mission and its chief in their escalating guerrilla war against the US-led occupation of their country.

Richard: Sorry about the delay on publishing  this post Geoff, I didn't have time to fix some layout matters this afternoon. 

Our resident Webdiary sinistrophobes, C. Parsons, Mike Lyvers, Geoff Pahoff et al, are having a lovely time chewing the bones of a Green Left Weekly article which C.Parsons claims to have ‘praised’ the bombing of a UN compound three years ago in which 23 UN staff were killed.

The only problem is … the Green Left Weekly article did no such thing. There was absolutely nothing in the article that praised, or even okayed, the UN bombing. The article was purely an analysis of why one of the victims the United Nations special representative in Iraq, Sergio Viera de Mello, might have been singled out as a target for attack. It was just like any political analysis of any war crime, anywhere. Although there was no love lost between the writer and Mr de Mello, the article did not condone the UN bombing in any way, shape or form.

C. Parsons. If you must reduce every world conflict to the perennial struggle between the Good and the Left, then please do it with a bit more ethics and honesty.

Richard:  Jane could you please match your font size?. I'm still retyping, let this through because it's important, and I don't have time today.

According to C Parsons's logic, it seems that 87% of Lebanese are avid readers of Groin Lesion Weekly and are following the logical determinism of their lefty pinko stance by embracing Hizbollah.

Poor Lebanese! It's not that they choose to be dupes for the terrorists, but, honestly, a civilian population can only put up with so much John Pilger before they turn feral.

Roslyn Ross:  "Being referred to as 'in some sense evil,' a 'robotic instrument' and 'pinko' is, in my book, name-calling and insulting and a method of personalising in order to defame the writer."

...except that I expressly said you are not those things, didn't I, Roslyn?

See my comment at Lunatics & Fringe Dwellers of the Left. I expreslydenythat you are anything like that, don't I?

Now, having got that out of the way, and returning to the actual topic at hand, could I respecfully ask you this;

As a "pacifist", how do you reconcile your expectation that Arabs (and other Muslims), and Israelis (and other Jews) are to achieve mutual respect, as you demand, so long as Hamas which through its constitution expressly calls on its followers to murder Jews - not just Israelis - wherever they find them - as outlined in Article 7 of the Hamas constitution?

And how can you maintain your support as a "pacifist" for Hamas, Hizbolla and the Iraqi "resistance", which are avowedly racist armed militias?

How is it possible?

Is it any wonder that Roslyn Ross (and now apparently Richard Tonkin as well) resort to whinging about "insults, abuse and namecalling" and making ludicrous allegations of defamation and dishonesty whenever she finds herself in a logic trap of her own making? To be accused of abuse and namecalling by her all you have to do is quote back to her her own words.

Roslyn Ross might be good at quoting the official propaganda arm of the Iranian regime as an authority, declining to name her source, and then complaining about her "Arab sources" not being taken seriously when she is caught red handed. But to then allege "dishonesty" on the part of someone who exposed this is more than just a little rich. It is frankly ...well ... dishonest, to say the least. Again. "Name calling"? The hypocrisy of this is almost painful.

Well here's one Arab source that you will not find Roslyn Ross quoting in a hundred years. Lebanon's Daily Star  quoting a speech by Nasrallah a few years ago(well after Israel's withdrawal from its security zone in southern Lebanon):

Nasrallah alleges "Christian Zionist" plot *

"Their aim is to redraw the worlds political map"

Special to The Daily Star

Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday that Arabs were not "red Indians" and will not be liquidated or driven into exile by Israel and the United States.

Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah said that "Christian Zionists" were gaining strength and had a powerful impact on US foreign policy.

Nasrallah alleged that oil companies and weapons firms that have financed the "Christian Zionists," the Arabic term for the right-wing Christian supporters of Israel, were in alliance in the United States.
"Their aim is to redraw the world's political map," he said. "It is said that several US presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists."

Nasrallah said their aim was to return the Jews to Israel and rebuild their temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
However, Nasrallah added, "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

Nasrallah said their aim was to return the Jews to Israel and rebuild their temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
However, Nasrallah added, "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

[Just in case you missed it]

Nasrallah also spoke about US hegemony in the region, asserting that Washington had reached a new level of insanity and arrogance.

Although the United States is powerful, it has its weaknesses, he said.

Nasrallah also said that he was not threatened by a country that called itself "great," and where its national security is threatened by one or two individuals, in apparent reference to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"The US empire, which is slithering over our region, is incapable of arresting a single sniper in its capital," he said sarcastically, referring to the unsolved rash of killings in the Washington DC area.

Echoing Samuel Huntington's book, The Clash of Civilizations, Nasrallah said that there was a US and Israeli war against Arabs and Muslims.

He described this war as psychological.

"The endgame of this battle will be harmful to Israel though," he said.

He said that during his recent trip to the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon claimed that Hizbullah had missiles with a range of 300 kilometers.

"Instead of putting pressure on us, this scared the (Israeli) people, who feared that we would be able to hit them anywhere in (occupied Palestine) and not only in northern Israel," Nasrallah said.

He said there was no relationship between the holding of the Francophone summit, which ended this weekend, and the fact that Israel did not attack the Wazzani water pumps.

The only reason Israel did not attack was fear of the "Islamic resistance's retaliation."

Nasrallah said that the suicide attack in Israel on Monday "was a clear statement that this nation will continue its resistance."

And some think that my description of this guy and others like him, such as the viciously racist Hamas, as fascists is over the top. I believe this description is mild. But more to the point, what does this make Roslyn Ross and people like her who has said again and again that these organisations are "justified" and described them as everything from "freedom fighters" to "just like the French Resistance fighting the Nazis"?

"The international media can and will investigate this war crime and appalling human rights abuses. This time the truth will out. At this point in time Israel can claim anything it likes but history will be able to judge it on the evidence and this time it will be found clearly wanting. My only hope is that those responsible end up in the Hague facing war crimes charges."

-- Roslyn Ross

Geoff:     I believe in justice. I support enquiries into charges of war crimes and human rights abuses and I stand by the result. Unlike you I do not dismiss such enquiries as 'show trials', the Israeli  and its supporters view of any enquiry into Israeli behaviour, but respect the capacity of international law and the international courts to assess the truth of such charges.

My view is that if there is nothing to hide then why not participate. It's easy enough to cry 'bias' but that derives either from paranoia or a fear of the truth being revealed, or maybe both. The innocent do not fear such things. If Israel can be proved innocent of war crimes in Lebanon then it will be. It would not allow justice to be done over Jenin so one can only presume there was something to hide. It will not be able to hide anything in Lebanon.

What I support is the truth. If the truth is that Israel did not use chemical weapons then that is good. I find it hard to believe they could be stupid or arrogant enough to do so as it is.

-- Roslyn Ross (Again. The next day)

I do not believe you are capable of seeing the conflict between these two statements and the internal inconsistency within the second comment, Roslyn Ross. The amount of doublethink that drips from your posts would have Orwell spinning in his grave. So I am posting these for the benefit of others.

Jenin? Remind me. Wasn't that the incident when some of the international media and the "left" virulently accused Israel of a "massacre" , complete with the ugliest and most sordid details, based entirely on "Palestinian sources"? Which were fully investigated by the United Nations, Red Cross, and human rights bodies which unanimously and completely exonerated Israel of these accusations?

Come on Roslyn Ross. As someone "who supports the truth" surely you will have no difficulty in confirming this. Or at least post your "sources" for any contrary view you may have. You know. Like when your "interest in the truth" led you to link  your sources for your allegation that "hundreds of Palestinian children had been delberately shot, neatly through the head, by Israeli soldiers who used them for target practice". None of which supported your crude allegation which you have not withdrawn.

Mark:  Just to clarify the spin Geoff put on the use of photos on WD, I commented, not complained, that I thought they were a waste of space unless particularly relevant to the post. A picture is worth a thousand words and if relevant are valuable. But I do think they should be used sparingly.

Rubbish Roslyn Ross. You complained and sought to have the images banned. Because the images conflicted with your notion of "truth". You did not like them because they demonstrated you were wrong.

Would you care to nominate an image I posted that was not "particularly relevant" to the post or the thread? Just one will do.

I think we can all see what kind of "truth" you support, Roslyn Ross.

[* via Will Howard in the anteroom] 

C. Parsons, I am happy to respond to your post if you re-post removing insults and name-calling. If not then as I have said before, it will be ignored. You cannot make an argument by seeking to defame those who hold different opinions. It makes only you look foolish if not dishonest.

Jenny,  it is not uncommon for people, usually of a certain age, as in 70+ who, because they experienced the reality of the Second World War, find it difficult to forgive Germans and Japanese, but, conscience and reason demand that this position be questioned.

You are, in essence, singling out a nationality, or even race, and judging them to be different to other human beings….. judging them to be morally inferior. There is no logic to such a position nor no evidence to support it. The capacity for human beings to commit the worst of atrocities is clearly recorded and it covers the entire spectrum of history, humanity and includes every race, every religion, every nationality and every society. The Germans may have been particularly well organized in their killing machines for those they considered to be inferior, jews, gypsies, homosexuals or troublesome as in political dissenters, but the human rights abuses, war crimes and atrocities they carried out have been equaled by many others, albeit in different form. The results however was the same. 

Death is death. Death in a gas chamber is death, death under the rubble of your home is death, particularly in the case of those in Iraq and Lebanon who die slowly, trapped and in fear and pain because the invaders, will not allow medical assistance to reach them; death is death when you are raped and shot in the head in Iraq, disemboweled and left to bleed to death in the African dust; death is death when a three year old has both arms chopped off by African rebels not much older; death is death when white phosphorus falls from the sky and melts into your skin; death is death at My Lai and the countless other atrocities committed in Vietnam where entire villages were slaughtered without mercy; death is death for children shot through the head in Palestine; death is death for those tortured in American, Israeli, Chinese, Russian, Arab and any other gaols throughout the world….. there is not one race or nation on this planet with clean hands.

The Americans were not the only ones to commit atrocities in Vietnam. Australian soldiers were also debased in this immoral war. The mercenaries marauding their way around Iraq like murderous thugs may have been licensed by the US and its allies but they come from many nations.

The capacity of human beings to inflict suffering and death upon others is an innate human quality, particular to no nation or race. To suggest other is bigotry and racism. To remain unable to forgive those who for whatever reasons, have done terrible things, is to condemn yourself, not them.

James, thank you for the link. Mr Berg is a rare man, probably more so in the US which has a tendency to vengeance is mine saith the' Lord' or the president. He is also a great one because his capacity to forgive the worst of things is a powerful and precious healing for others. If only there were more like him.

As I have said more than once, generally ignored, but I will repeat it, I believe that one can condemn the act but not the individual. We are all human beings doing our best in a difficult world. We are all wounded to some degree and many are severely damaged. None of us have any idea of what life is like for others unless we are able to ‘walk a mile in their shoes.’

One of the difficulties of any discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the inability of some people to make that distinction. Everything is personalized. Any criticism of Israel, no matter how valid and substantiated, is dismissed as anti-semitism or as prejudice with a variety of defamatory and insulting names accorded those who dare to seek for truth or to speak it.

The Middle East is a classic example (so is Africa actually) of why the primitive values of the past, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, might is right and the end justifies the means, are so destructive. In more than half a century Israel has achieved nothing except more insecurity, more enemies and a gradual and corrosive debasement of its culture and society.

There are basic principles, upon which the modern world was once founded, although much less so today, which ensured humanity some hope of peace, justice and security. They are principles of law, democracy, human rights and compassion. It is the capacity for compassion which allows Nick Berg’s father to forgive those who killed his son so brutally. Someone once said, when we lose compassion we lose conscience and I think the evidence of that is staring us in the face today.

It is compassion which allows us to forgive and move on. It is compassion which allows us to see the humanity and the nobility in each and every human being, no matter how deeply buried, no matter how damaged, no matter how denied…… it is compassion which nurtures conscience which demands that we act only for justice, decency, and plain old fashioned kindness.

It is compassion which lets us see with both eyes, not one, and which can comprehend that within those we call good is the capacity for evil and those we call evil is the capacity for good. People do both good and evil things. There is no human being on this planet who does only evil, nor one who does only good. It is humanly impossible not to express both qualities..... what it comes down to is the balance and the degree.

It is in compassion that we find the capacity to truly love …..a love without condition, a love which reaches out even to those who are all that we would never wish to be. It’s also a love which tells the truth no matter how painful or shocking that truth may be. Love is not ‘never having to say you are sorry,’ that’s a selfish attitude from a self-obsessed society …… love is finding compassion for those who hurt us, or those we fear might hurt us.

It always comes back to fear. Behind aggression is always fear. And sadly, for the moment, while Love may be the most powerful force in this world, it is Fear which is the most powerful force at work in the world. We need to change that. Even one person changing the way they live has an impact. We can always change ourselves even if we cannot change the world. But in the doing, the world changes too. It’s a beginning.  

Inability to forgive keeps us trapped in the past and takes a heavy toll upon us emotionally, psychologically and physically. In essence the inability to forgive says more about us than the actions of those we cannot forgive.

Mark Ross: "In response to my link to a report about the Israeli bombing of an United Nations observation post you took a trip down memory lane and linked to a three year old article by Green Left Weekly. That article was written by an unknown lunatic and posted on a site run by social and political fringe dwellers. I wonder why you sought to bring that up."

Mark, thank you for your comments and expression of support.

The "unknown lunatic" you are referring to is Doug Lorimar of Green Left Weekly, and Green Left Weekly is itself fulsomely endorsed (and regularly contributed to) by John Pilger and other Left luminaries in this country.

It touts itself as the official journal of the Socialist Alliance (an odd thought no doubt for its Cuban backers).

That Green Left Weekly would praise the bombing of a UN mission, and gloss over the murder of 23 UN civilian staff, while simultaneously condemning the Israeli attack on a UN observation post as year later, reflects a tendency I have frequently addressed on this blog. 

Namely, the political Left has no choice but to side with Islamist terrorist organisation like Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Quaeda in their struggle with western pluralist secular society. No matter what they do.

And it is not because they are lunatics.

In the same way as Roslyn Ross must both repeatedly insist on her status as a "pacifist", and claim she is primarily concerned with promoting understanding and mutual respect between "Arabs" and "Jews", the logic of her monist, teleological and psuedo-Marxian outlook continually compels her to side with others equally hostile to pluralist secular (and especially western) society.

Even Hamas and the profoundly racist clique running Iran these days.

She cannot help it, and I'm not "blaming" her here.

It's the logic of her position.

Because of the logic of her stance weird things hapen -  she finds herself surreptitiously insinuating official Iranian government propaganda into this thread as "news" for example.

She finds herself attempting to deny that Hamas is racist (though in its constitution it expressly calls on its followers to murder Jews - not just Israelis - wherever they find them - see Article 7 below).

She finds herself expressing her support for Hamas, Hizbolla and the Iraqi "resistance" while distancing herself from their "methods" - as if armed militias could be somehow distinguished from their use of armed violence.

John Pilger has infamously publicly endorsed the Iraqi "resistance" claiming "we have no choice" despite their deliberately killing civilians in droves (he did this in Green Left Weekly, by the way).

Scores of other pinkos are on record saying much the same.

Roslyn denies that Hamas intends the annihilation of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic republic, even though its written constitution expressly states that as its principal objective.

She and people like her cannot help themselves, not because they are in some sense evil people (Roslyn and those like her continually pronounce on the elevated morality of their cause after all), nor because she is some mere robotic instrument of the Iranian government or Hamas or the al-Aqsr Martyrs Brigade as much as she defends them.

She is compelled to defend the likes of Hamas because to not defend them prompts any dialogue about Israel and its future to the possibility of pluralism and diversity in the region.

(And that's just Israel - an area about the size of a large outback cattle station, mind you, sitting on the juncture of two sprawling continents.)

To not support Hamas is now tantamount to admitting that there is no single, historically (naturally or divinely) predetermined outcome for the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter).

To admitting history doesn't march in some "politically progressive" (ie anti-Western) course. An idea repellent to Islamist and psuedo-Marxist alike.

That the aims of Hamas and the region's Jewish and Gentile populations are probably permanently mutually exclusive and until the Arabs get used to the idea that Israel will not just go away of its own accord, then genocide is inevitable one way or another.

Hence, Iran's nuclear ambitions are "its right", a "matter of national pride for them", "self defense" and the West "is in no posotion to criticise them".

But if anyone so much as mentions Israel's nuclear stockpile, it's because the "Zionazis" are "terrorising" the world's 800 million Muslims.

The widespread acceptance of the idea that "history" does have a "purpose", and is going in some special direction, is why the Islamist nihilist agenda has such strong appeal amongst the avowedly, and overwhelmingly racist patriarchal tribalist cultures of the Middle Eastern region.

Similarly, the "lunatics" and "fringe dwellers" (as you call them) down at Green Left Weekly (actually a Marxist Communist publication as it was formerly proud but is now ashamed to admit) feel that "history" does have a "purpose", and is going in some special direction, etc.

This is why they too must support the Sunni militias in Iraq, must applaud Moqtadr al Sadr (when they thought he might lead an uprising at any rate), must defend the actions of Islamist psychopaths like the halfwits running Hamas, must defend the looney North Korean slave state, rabbit on about the "achievements" of Cuba, and so on.

Because if they don't, they end up tacitly defending pluralism and some form or other of western-style secular liberalism, pretty well by default.

The pinkos have never chosen that option, no matter what sort of alternative bed-fellows its forces them to associate with. Witness the entire history of Marxism, for example, over the last 100 years.

Anyway, Mark, that's why I mentioned the contradictory Green Left Weekly line on why it's okay to bomb a UN compound sometimes but not others.

And that's why Roslyn defends Hamas. Thanks for asking.

I must humbly apologise.  It was not the Israeli FM, the daughter of the terrorist leader, the one who recently commemorated the murder of so many in her dad's terrorist attack against the King David Hotel. 

It was not she who said Kofi Annan should say sorry for alledging the UN hit was deliberate-despite repeated warnings and reapeated shellings and attacking the rescuers after the hit and the use of laser guided (point the light on the target) missiles...no, it wasn't she, sorry.

Everything else about her is the same. Why have such as representatives?

It was the Israeli ambassador to the US who  has been taking some hubric drug that pumps him bigger than a bloated corpse in the hot Lebanese sun and smelling about the same:

".....Israel's Ambassador to Washington Danny Ayalon said Wednesday that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan should apologize to Israel for saying that dropping a bomb on a UN post in south Lebanon was a deliberate act. Speaking to CNN, Ayalon said Annan's comments are "scandalous," and demanded he apologize.

(Yitzhak Benhorin, Washington)  Ynetnews

I wonder about his antecendents and education sphere. ... hmm. Scandalous, yes indeed.

Roslyn, you might find this interesting. The father of Nick Berg describes himself as a pacifist. He gives a wonderful account of himself in this interview with a Barbie-doll American news presenter who cannot understand that her inflammatory rhetoric may well increase ratings but is foreign and distasteful to a man who values compassion, peace and understanding; but does not value revenge.

Will Howard, thanks for expanding the issue and filling in some of the background.

The Middle East problem can be solved if we want to. Where there's a will, there's a way. The us vs them approach must be ignored and someone must focus on the happiness of both sides. No more calling the other side evildoers etc. Both sides think they are right, but they can be right by focussing on the happiness of both sides.

Greg Moylan, I have a response for you on the "Is all fair in love and war?" thread.

Roslyn Ross: "C. Parsons:  Are you suggesting that all Arab sites are to be dismissed as propaganda?"

Certainly not, and in any case Iran is not an Arabic country. It is Persian.

What I am suggesting, however, is if you cross-post a report as potentially derogatory as your Iranian government news agency claim, that Israeli forces used "chemical weapons on civilians", it might have been more respectful to all involved had you indicated that the source of this account was in fact the Iranian government's official propaganda arm.

You know? Remember them?

As in "the Holocaust is a myth" and "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an historical document"?

That Iranian "news" source?

I mean, if I posted a claim stating, for example, that the Hezbollah occupation force in southern Lebanon "murdered Jewish and Lebanese Christian babies", and otherwse failed to note that the source for this outlandish claim was, for example, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League office in Pennsylvania, people would be entitled to criticise both my moral and inetellectual integrity, wouldn't you think?

Roslyn Ross: "I do not have a fixed view on Israel's use of chemical weapons. That has yet to be proven although the  evidence is mounting and there was new evidence today that hospitals are seeing bodies in states not seen through decades of civil war."

You actually state "I do not have a fixed view on Israel's use of chemical weapons", thus stating a priori that it is indeed a fact, even though you concede you have no evidence at all other than someone claiming to having seen "bodies in states not seen through decades of civil war." Oh, and the Iranian government's word.

Even if you don't see the problem with your logic there, others will.

Just on another point I've raised a couple of times with you now, but which you seem to have overlooked again, namely your status as a "pacifist" and your claims that Hamas doesn't intend to destroy Israel

Could I refer you once again to Articles 7 and11 of the Hamas Constitution? You know?

Where they exhort people to kill Jews ("The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them)")?

And to make "Palestine" an Islamic state (Islamic waqf)?

Do you see these as a problem, given your pacifist credentials and calls for "mutual understanding" between Israelis and Arabs?

"Killing innocent civilians is NOT an act of self-defense. Destroying a sovereign nation is NOT a measured response."

A petition has been set up to Save the Lebanese Civilians.

Timothy Garton Ash has a solid argument here, give or take particular emphasis. And I would say it is not just Europeans who have a responsibility for resolving the Middle East conflict but all Western nations …. Those who have had any power to do anything, to fight for justice and human rights.

Israel is the cuckoo in the Middle East nest, the 'changeling' birthed in guilt and it is only by understanding why Israel was created, and then how it was created, that we can do anything about the wrongs which have been birthed  alongside it.

As I have said many times before, I and many others who are critical of Israeli policy and actions, do accept Israel’s right to exist on original borders. Where the world has failed Israelis and Palestinians in particular, but the whole Middle East in general, is in allowing Israel to become and remain an occupier, colonizer and regional aggressor.

There were reasons why Israel was created and while I do not consider them to be justification for the dispossession of the Palestinian people we have to know and understand those reasons in order to understand Israeli and Jewish psyche and the eyes blinded by old guilts in the world at large. We do have to go back to the beginning to understand Zionism and then, in turn, to understand why the Palestinians fought and why they continue to fight and why their supporters and allies in the region fight.

It will not be possible to put everything to right. Palestinians will not get all of their country back and Israelis will not get to keep all of Palestine that they want, but each side deserves peace and a viable, secure State.  Israelis and Palestinians alike will have to move beyond victimhood and accept responsibility for who they are and what they might become. Israelis and Jews have to grow beyond their belief in inevitable persecution and now too, so must Palestinians in particular and Arabs and Muslims  in general.

None of this can happen without the support of the international community. The US is incapable of being an honest broker for a variety of reasons and that means if the peoples of the Middle East are to have any hope of a future, let alone peace, then human beings of conscience need to do what they can, however small, to fight for justice.

The first step in that fight for justice is to tell the truth. That’s what friends do. Those who do not tell Israel the truth are no friend. Those who do not tell the Palestinians the truth are no friend either. Ditto all other nations in the Middle East. At this point in time we need to deal with the injustices we can so clearly see, the terrible plight of the Palestinians and Lebanese and the corrosive impact that the occupation and colonization policy has on Israelis, cognizant always that there is a reason for everything that people do ….. usually based in fear, ignorance and denial, but a reason all the same.

Just as there are reasons for Palestinian violence and aggression so there are reasons for Israeli violence and aggression. Perhaps the terrible destruction wreaked upon the hapless Lebanese can be a wake-up call for everyone. Already Israelis are having to face the reality that this is no 6 day war and they are not facing weak-kneed Arabs who, in the face of Israeli superiority, will run away leaving their shoes behind..

An Israeli myth has been destroyed already….. the belief that they are superior to Arabs and will always win quickly and easily.  There are many myths, on both sides, which need to be destroyed or debunked in order for peace to find a place and the best way to do that is to speak the truth, openly, honestly, clearly and with compassion. 

C. Parsons, are you suggesting that all Arab sites are to be dismissed as propaganda? Does this mean all Israeli, US and anything owned by Rupert Murdoch can also be dismissed as propaganda? Or could we be grownup and read material from a variety of sources and make up our own minds?

The chemical weapons story, Bombings Hit Children Hardest, from Truthout and Interpress  services.

Excerpt.  Beirut- About 55 percent of all casualities at the Beirut Government University Hospital are children of 15 years of age or less, hospital records show.

"This is worse than during the Lebanese civil war," Bilal Masri, assistant director of the hospital, on of Beirut's largest, told IPS Monday.

Masri said hospitals in Sidon and other southern cities are overwhelmed with patients, who are being treated in the corridors and lobbies.

According to Masri many of the injured there are suffering from the impact of incendiary white phosphorous.  The Lebanese ministry of interior has officially said that the Israeli military has used this weapon.

And from Nine MSN  the story again.That’s Channel Nine, hardly Arab propaganda 

Excerpt: Lebanon is investigating reports from doctors that Israel has used weapons in its 15-day-old bombardment of southern Lebanon that have caused wounds they have never seen before."We are sending off samples tomorrow, but we have no confirmation yet that illegal weapons have been used," Health Minister Mohammed Khalife said.

The story is also runing with Reuters and The Scotsman and numerous other non-Arab publications.

There is always room in the eye of God, if one believes in such things, for justic.  You post Islamic fanatics who are easily balanced with Jewish and Christian fanatics.  I post for justice.

Most Jews are not fanatics and most Muslims are not fanatics.  But you may continue to live in that world if you choose.  It is just not a world that will get you far.

 

Mark Ross quoting Kofi Annan: "This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire."

There's no question, this is an outrage, whether intentional or otherwise.

And the justifiable outrage at the bombing of the UN post reminded me of this excellent article in Green Left Weekly;

"The gushing tributes made by the warmakers in Washington, London and Canberra for the United Nations “special representative” in Iraq, Sergio Viera de Mello, provided an answer as to why Iraqi patriots would target the UN mission and its chief in their escalating guerrilla war against the US-led occupation of their country.

De Mello, along with 23 others, was killed when a truck bomb exploded directly under his office in Baghdad on August 19"....

...Contrary to the corporate media's almost unanimous claims that de Mello was a “man of peace” who was only administering "humanitarian aid” to Iraqis, in reality he was a cog in the oppressive machine of the US occupation of Iraq."

There, bombing the UN deliberately is okay. As long as it is in a good cause.

But please avoid doing it accidentally.

Roslyn Ross: "Eight bodies of victims killed by the use of chemical weapons have been found in Lebanon, a group of Belgian doctors of Lebanese-origin told a press conference in Brussels today."

I must apologise to Roslyn and other webdiarists regarding that item. The link I provided to Roslyn's cross-post at the official Iranian government news agency is only working occasionally.

But the story has since been made available here at ArabicNews.Com and a variety of neo-Nazi, socialist and pacifist sites.

Enjoy.

Roslyn Ross: "Eight bodies of victims killed by the use of chemical weapons have been found in Lebanon, a group of Belgian doctors of Lebanese-origin told a press conference in Brussels today."

Thanks for that, Roslyn. But you forgot the link to that item.

Readers wanting to know more will find the entire report here at the official Iranian Government News Agency. Always a valuable resource.

Roslyn Ross: "There is another approach to the problems of the Middle East though.  It is simply to repond to Arab and Israeli rights simultaneously, as equal pehenomena in the eyes of God, the law and their common humanity."

That's a very noble sentiment, Roslyn. But how does that square with Hamas's declared aim of destroying Israel, and its exhorting its followers to kill Jews, as outlined in Articles 11 and 7 of its constitution?

Article 11 says:

" No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day or Resurrection."

I mentioned this earlier (see C Parsons on July 25, 2006 - 10:29am.)

- and Article 7 of the Hamas constitution says:

" The time(16) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad(17), which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)(18)."

Not much room for equal rights in the eyes of God there is there Roslyn?

The following children have been killed by Israeli military actions in Gaza since 26 June 2006:

1. Anwar Isma'el Atallah, 12 years old

2. Saleh Sleman Al Jemasi, 16 years old

3. Ruwan Fareed Hajjaj, 5 years old

4. Khalid Nidal Abed Al Karim Wahbeh, 1 year old

5. Mahfouth Farid Nasseer, 15 years old

6. Ahmad Ghaleb Abu Amshah, 16 years old

7. Ahmed Fathi Odah Shabat, 16 years old

8. Waleed Mahmoud Al Zinati, 12 years old

9. Salah Adeen Hammad Abu Maktuma, 17 years old

10. Ibrahim Ali Khatoush, 15 years old

11. Mahmoud Muhammad Al Asar, 15 years old

12. Ibrahim Ali Al Nabaheen, 15 years old

13. Ahmad Abdil Mina'm Abu Hajaj, 16 years old

14. Nasrallah Nabil Abu Selmieh, 5 years old

15. Aya Nabil Abu Selmieh, 7 years old

16. Iman Nabil Abu Selmieh, 11 years old

17. Yahya Nabil Abu Selmieh, 9 years old

18. Huda Nabil Abu Selmieh, 13 years old

19. Basma Nabil Abu Selmieh, 15 years old

20. Sumaia Nabil Abu Selmieh, 16 years old

21. Raji Omar Deif Alla, 16 years old

22. Muhanna Sa'ed Mesleh, 16 years old

23. Ahmad Rawhee Abdo, 13 years old

24. Ali Kamil Al Najar, 13 years old

25. Fadwa Faisel al 'Urouqi, 13 years old

26. Mohammad Awad Muhra, 17 years old

27. Khitam Muhammad Tayeh, 11 years old

28. Nadee Habib Al Ataar, 11 years old

29. Saleh Ibrahim Nasser, 13 years old

30. Bashir Abdullah Awad Abu Thaher, 12 years old

31. Sabrine Naser Habib, 3 years old

 One kid terrorist for everyday of the seige.

Peace man.

The international media can and will investigate this war crime and appalling human rights abuses. This time the truth will out. At this point in time Israel can claim anything it likes but history will be able to judge it on the evidence and this time it will be found clearly wanting. My only hope is that those responsible end up in the Hague facing war crimes charges.

Well let's hope that in the interests of any remaining scrap of justice, you are not on the jury, Roslyn Ross.

Why do bother arguing for a trial? What? A show trial? Isn't this a little hypocritical given that as far as you are concerned the verdict is already in and therefore considering any "evidence" is a waste of time? Or is this another display of you knowledge of international law and legal process?

Besides, what ever happened to that well known "legal maxim" you trot out whenever the subject of Hezbollah and Hamas atrocites is raised? You know the one. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Does this well established legal principle of yours only apply to certain people? Jews and Christians do not qualify?

I won't get into the 'there are no Palestinians' argument. It is propaganda and as insulting to Palestinians as it is to Jews to question the holocaust. It has also been clearly demonstrated on WD on other threads that there were and are Palestinians. It is Israel's refusal to acknowledge this truth which has brought such carnage.

With the greatest of respect Roslyn Ross but I cannot accept that you are in any way qualified to know what is "insulting to Palestinians". And you would have to among the least qualified people I have ever encountered to know what is insulting to Jews.

Those who live by the gun, or the missile, or the bomb die by the gun, the missile and bomb. An ‘eye for an eye’ and a ‘tooth for a tooth’ didn’t get anyone very far in Biblical times but in this day and age it is so much more dangerous.

I actually agree with this. But then again I have never been a proponent of those very stupid and offensive "proportionate response" arguments.