Gerald,

Human rights organisations report on HR violations as one would expect.
All countries and cities you referred to are at war with terrorism but none of them use 155 mm shells or military grade missiles on civilian populations except for Israel. I don’t recall Brits or Aussies shelling Lakemba to get a suspect.

In the month of April alone 64 palestinians were killed 11 being children (excluding today’s missile that lost its target and killed a woman).

Once upon a time I was in the military and I remember 155mm shells are the highest calibre fired from a tank (usually to demolish a building, an artillery site or a on ground bunker). Insisting on using these kinds of weapons in heavily populated civilian areas discredit your claims that civilian casualties are accidental.

fellow-Human, you have missed the point. All the evidence shows that the injuries were not from an Israeli 155mm shell but rather from a Palestinian mine. Do you accept this fact? Do you care? Or are you more intersted in blaming Israel for your own nefarious purposes?

Jeremy,

No need to feel hot under the collar. My point is clear and simple: Israel is not the only country with security challenges but they are unique in using military/ combat grade weapons to target suspects in civilian areas. It is not exactly a best practice if you want to avoid civilian casualty or collateral damage. Read today’s article on smh.com.au
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/death-toll-mounts-as-israeli-missiles-miss-targets-again/2006/06/22/1150845316239.html

Whether the incident you are talking about is true or not, the common practice in everyday news is the use of helicopter launched missiles and artillery to target individual suspects.

We can share opinions with honesty or live in denial and believe its all a conspiracy.

Professor Steinberg argues that human rights groups have the power to influence public opinion, which is partially true, but I hardly beleive their 'huge budgets' can influence public policy. First world govts. think nothing of ignoring HRW and Amnesty international, unlike halliburton on news corp. whose concerns are first and foremost.

Secondly, I beleive the special attention given to Israel stems from the fact that the conflict in that country has a ripple effect on international politics like no other conflict in the world, you're unlikely to Bin Laden constantly referring to the Tamil Tigers.

Fair enough Fellow-Human. But Hamas does not recognise Israel's right to exist, and Arafat refused a very good negotiated settlement. And why is Israel targeting militants? Have a look at this article, over 100 rockets fired into israel between 9 and 14 June. Would you put up with that if they were being fired into your town by people who refuse to accept your right to exist and whose stated aim is to kill you?

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=29608

Jeremy, Hamas does not recognise Israel's right to exist. Diddums. Has Israel ever recognised Palestine's right to exist? Arafat recognised Israel's right to exist and got sweet nada for his pains. Abbas, ditto. "Over 100 rockets fired into Israel." Whether under Arafat, Abbas, Hamas or Mother Theresa herself, no matter how many unilateral truces the Palestinians declare, the Israel occupation forces just go on and on like the Energizer Bunny with their liquidations of alleged 'militants' and anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity (June 9 - 8 killed/50 odd wounded; June 21 - 2 killed/13 wounded; June 22 - 2 killed/13 wounded), their brutal incursions, their arbitrary arrests, their monstrous wall, their illegal settlements, and their daily harrassment of the Palestinians. Who the hell is putting up with what here?