Of course Israel’s defence is absolutely NOT “morally equivalent” to the unprovoked Hezbollah terrorist attack on their soil, and Hezbollah’s cowardly use of civilian shields. But what else can be expected from one of these meddling NGO’s?

The tired old chant about ‘disproportionate’ force totally ignores the realities of armed conflict and self-defence. Armed conflict is dreadful; innocents will be killed. But anyone who does not believe that one’s own country and people are more important than the enemy’s is living in la la land. If Israel has to reduce Lebanon to rubble to defend itself, so be it.

Israel’s enemies have pledged to do just that to Israel.

Don’t worry, Kenny. Nobody’s trying to change your mind. Keep up with the brainless one-liners.

Even if they agree with your comments, Phil Bramley? When you’ve been around this site for a while, you will see why it is unwise to give your full name, although I must say that you are being rather hypocritical – nobody could possibly trace ‘Phil Bramely’, which might or might not be your real name.

Carl: I don’t think Israeli weaponry is good enough to pinpoint an ambulance. They zapped a drilling rig on a truck thinking it was a missile launcher. Think first, Carl.

Thank you for fronting up, Sarah Mandel. The contributions have been rather one-sided on this issue.

Huh. An article on media bias relating to the arab-israeli conflict, put out by someone affiliated with:

"NGO Monitor is a project with the stated aim of monitoring non-governmental organizations operating in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. It is a program of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and was formerly a joint project with B'nai Brith International.[1].

NGO Monitor describes its goal as "end[ing] the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas."

- Amnesty International Australia.

..... That's kind of funny. I guess it must be because this is a joke. But then again, NGO Monitor has criticised Amnesty as well. I guess those left wing crazies should know better than to critise the side with the ear of the Americans right? NGO Monitor (what a delightfully neutral sounding name) is there to push the jew wheelbarrow.

I was following the article quite seriously until the last paragraph which read "Until it relinquishes its extremist political program with respect to Israel, and recognises the difference between terrorists and sovereign democratic states" when I discarded it.

Palestinians want a separate state... if they get one, will they then be allowed to attack? After all, Israel was founded after a certain hotel bombing by zionists, which killed plenty of civilians - they got a country out of it, and thus, are now to be elevated on a pedestal.

You're critising the left wing media outlets stranded in a storm from the right. You forget good old rupert murdoch and bush are much keener on Israel than the arabs. There's your bias.

Both sides here are guilty of killing civilians. I can't blame either side for trying to subvert the media to their way of thinking, only despise them for it.

2bob

You're selectively quoting Articles of the Geneva Convention in an attempt to legitimise Israel's action.

Take other Articles that you are ignoring in your quest to justify Israel's illegal invasion of Lebanon.

These ones:

Article 10
Article 12

Article 48
Article 50 Section 3
Article 51 Sections 2, 4(a) (b) (c), 5 (a) (b) and 8
Article 52 Sections 1, 2, and 3

Article 53(a)
Article 57 Sections 1, 2 (a)(i) (ii) (iii)
and Particularily Section 5, which cartagorically states

'No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects'

And finally parts of Article 85

'Repression of breaches of this Protocol
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
(b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2(a)(iii);
(d) making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack;
4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:
(a) the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention ;
(e) depriving a person protected by the Conventions or referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article of the rights of fair and regular trial.'

Now consider whether Article 85, section 5 should be applied.

'Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes.'

Hezbollah isn't a signatory and that does not excuse their warmongering or contravention of basic Articles however neither does it justify Israeli breaches of that Convention.

Israel gets criticized more simply because it touts itself as having superior motives to those of Lebanon. From any perspective the warring parties are as inhumane as each other.

Missiles fired into Israel from Lebanon are not warranted, but the author failed to explain why Israel is bombing television stations and U.N. employees among its 'precision bombing'.

If Israel's rhetoric matched its actions the author might find the audience a little more understanding.

Thanks Leigh for pointing that out...however I can assure you that I am he and he is me! If my post needs authentication then I am happy to provide details.

Again I would reiterate that not all is as it seems in respect of the present conflict in Lebanon and simply basing one's opinion on a 5 minute (that long?) TV sound bite (see the article on the 7.30 report between Downer and O'Brien) is inviting a difference of opinion on forums such as this. You would have to have lived and worked in that region to get a feel of what is going on and even then it's hard to judge.

Marilyn Shephard

You simplify the arguement as follows - "The Islamofacists hide among the civilians so we will kill all the civilians." No one is talking about killing all the civilians. If the Islamofacists hide amongst the civilians how can Israel stop them without hurting some of the surounding innocent population?

What do you expect Israel to do? Hezbollah has sohisticated Cruise missiles supplied by the powerful oil rich Islamicist lobby. If they do not remove these missiles somehow they will be fired at them. Do you expect the Israelis to standby and do nothing?

In today´s Age the UNITED Nations aid chief Jan Egeland was reported as launched a scathing attack on Hezbollah, branding the Shiite militants cowards for boasting that Lebanese civilians were enduring the Israeli bombardments.

"Some believe I spoke only about excessive use of force by Israel there (in Beirut)," he said in Cyprus after arriving from Lebanon en route to Israel.

And Marilyn what do you think these Hezbollah fanatics would do after destroying Israel? Their goal is world Islamic conquest according to their own perverse interpretations.

Do you want to wear a Burkah? Or risk execution if your husband´s family accuses you of adultery? This is not exageration it happened in Afhanistan.