Perhaps he doesn't think they qualify as "missiles", not being very sophisticated? Just a thought.

Annan's condemnation of Israel on this matter stems from the blatant one-sidedness of the conflict. It is well to remember that Israel's actions, however you choose to assess them, are conducted with virtual impunity. As Washington's leading client state, Israel inherits the right to do as it chooses. A dramatic illustration of this right, quite relevant to Lebanon, was offered in the USA in 1996. On April 19, there was much anguished commentary on the car bombing at Oklahoma City a year earlier, when middle America "looked like Beirut", headlines lamented.

Beirut, of course, had looked like Beirut long before; for example just 10 years before, when the worst terrorist attack of the period was perpetrated in Beirut, a car bombing timed to cause maximum civilian casualties, virtually duplicated at Oklahoma city. The facts are well known, but unmentionalble. That act of terror was carried out by the CIA, a fact that suffices to remove the incident from history along with much else that suffers the same defect.

"The dead so far have included several children"

Today it was reported in the mass media that Israel's air strikes on parts of Lebanon, which are billed as being part of a 'rescue mission', but which are in fact intended to take a toll on the civillian population so as to force Hezbollah into submission to Israel's demands, have resulted in the deaths of 35 civillians so far, including at least 10 children.

Editor: do you have children? Can you imagine them being destroyed by explosives or falling rubble? I think you should, because having done so you might think twice about taking sides in such an obscene conflict. Here on Setting the World to Rights it seems that one can find all sorts of justifications for acts of war, as long as they are perpetrated by those with whom you agree ideologically.

Just picture this: YOUR children lying broken and bloody in the heap of rubble that was your home. Picture yourself holding one of them to you and screaming at the sky in anguish. Then come back at me with your justifications for acts of obscene and horrific violence.

I think Israel's "demands" are well known, and fairly straightforward: recognition of its right to exist and an end to terrorist attacks. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas are willing to accept either of these reasonable "demands." Neither are their sponsors in Iran and Syria. Anyone who thinks that there is any solution to the killing in the Middle East without recognizing Israel and ending terrorist attacks is sadly mistaken.

'Who else knows the real intention, apart from you?'

I certainly don't claim to 'know' the real intention. But it is no great mental stretch to infer that blowing up an airport and killing dozens of innocents was not an act that was intended to contribute to any kind of rescue mission. How could that act possibly result in the release of the kidnapped servicemen, except as a demonstration that as long as Hezbollah hold the hostages, Israel will use its superior military might to kill innocent Lebanese. If the Editor can positively demonstrate to me in what other way the tactics of the Israeli army in this 'mission' have contributed to the goal of securing release for the hostages, I will be extremely impressed.

'And these demands are what?'

The release of the hostages, of course.

I would also ask the Editor to explain why he thinks that, in the context of a 'rescue mission', such tactics as have been followed by the Israeli military are in any way excusable, given the civillian death-toll up to this point.

"...the matchless moral scrupulousness of the Israelis"

So the Israelis are an intrinsically morally scrupulous people? Unlike Arabs?

The current Israeli offensive in Lebanon, much like those of earlier years, has the intent of punishing the civilian population so that the government of Lebanon will be compelled to accept U.S. - Israeli demands. It is this "rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities" that has always motivated Israel's attacks on civilian populations, Israeli diplomat Abba Eban explained years ago.

What moral creed worth a gobbet of spit allows the killing of children as a regrettable effect of the enemy's locating himself amongst innocents?

Reader,

What are these terrible demands that Arabs in the region would be forced to accept? Recognition of Israel and an end to terrorist attacks? Aren't these prerequisites for any substantive negotiations aimed at achieving an overall settlement? Perhaps you believe that these are phony demands. If not, can't we agree that, short of Israel's surrender, the fighting won't end until these "demands" are met?

The Golan Heights, like much of Israel, are occupied territories. Given the number of UN resolutions calling on Israel to return to it's 1967 borders, I'm sure Mr Annan, no matter how senile he appears at times, is aware of what's going on.

Given the frequent illegal incursions of Israeli soldiers onto sovereign Lebanese soil, I think that the use of the word hostage is incorrect - try Prisoner of War. Or perhaps you would prefer illegal combatant?

The Israelis constantly boast of their 'surgical' or 'pin-point' precision in air attacks. If this is true, then there are far too many civillians being killed in the Lebanese bloodbath to make every one of them an accident.

True, Hizbollah are killing civilians in Israel, but their missiles are innacurate and the West, which has done no more than mildly disapprove of Israel's retaliatory onslaught, must surely expect higher standards of the Israeli armed forces than of the terrorists.

Why, for example, did the Israelis attack and destroy the headquarters of the Liban-Lait company in the Bekaa Valley, the largest milk factory in Lebanon? Why did they bomb out the factory of the main importer for Proctor and Gamble products in Lebanon, based in Bchmoun? Why did they destroy a paper box factory outside Beirut? And why did Israeli planes attack a convoy of new ambulances being brought into Lebanon from Syria yesterday, ambulances which were clearly marked as a releif aid convoy? Were all these 'terrorist' targets? What of the convoy of villagers from Marwaheen in Southern Lebanon, ordered to flee their village by Israeli troops, and subsequently attacked by an Israeli F-16 fighter-bomber, killing at least 20 people, many of them women and children, one of whom, a girl of about eight, was photographed lying dead in a pile of rubble (a picture which has been published in British newspapers today)? Were all these 'terrorist targets'?

How can you continue to defend these war crimes?

You seem to be implying with your question that Israelis are nasty bastards who want to hurt people.

If that is so, can you explain why they haven't done a hell of a lot more? Nothing is stopping them militarily. And you have said they already do bad things and the West hardly complains.

-- Elliot Temple
http://www.curi.us/blog/

Editor - a rather cowardly way to avoid answering difficult questions.

Oh well, here's what I think:

"Why, for example, did the Israelis attack and destroy the headquarters of the Liban-Lait company in the Bekaa Valley, the largest milk factory in Lebanon?"

Because they are targeting Lebanon in the most inexcusably indescriminate way. Why? Because that's exactly what Hizbollah are doing, and Israel is punishing the people of Lebanon for that crime.

"Why did they bomb out the factory of the main importer for Proctor and Gamble products in Lebanon, based in Bchmoun?"

See above.

"Why did they destroy a paper box factory outside Beirut?"

See above.

"And why did Israeli planes attack a convoy of new ambulances being brought into Lebanon from Syria yesterday, ambulances which were clearly marked as a releif aid convoy?"

See above.

"Were all these 'terrorist' targets?"

No.

"What of the convoy of villagers from Marwaheen in Southern Lebanon, ordered to flee their village by Israeli troops, and subsequently attacked by an Israeli F-16 fighter-bomber, killing at least 20 people, many of them women and children, one of whom, a girl of about eight, was photographed lying dead in a pile of rubble (a picture which has been published in British newspapers today)? Were all these 'terrorist targets'?"

No, they were not terrorist targets, and their being targeted demonstrates a deplorably lack of conscience and care on the part of the Israeli military.

Now give me your answers.

As to the 'nasty bastards' comment: why is it that when one criticises Israel's actions in any way one is instantly accused of hating the Israelis, and of tarring all Israelis with the same crude brush? I am doing no such thing. Just because Israel is Israel does not exempt it from criticism when its military causes the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of innocent people.

If you do not answer my questions and comments fully, I will assume that you have no answers.