>You mean Hezbollah but not the United States, France, England, Israel,
>must follow international law on the bombing of civilian targets.
>Bombing civilian targets is at the core (etc.
I know all this. And I said that Israel's reaction was criminal. The point I wanted to make is that the conflict between Palestine and Israel is different than that between Hezbollah and Israel. That has some importance in a discussion of how to make what is happening comprehensible to people you are trying to influence through demonstrations. This is better stated in this part of a primer from Jewish Voice for Peace:
>On July 12, Hizbullah crossed the southern Lebanese border into
>Israel, and attacked an IDF post. They killed three soldiers and
>took two. It is crucial to point out that the conditions between
>Israel and the Palestinians, on the one hand, and Israel and Lebanon
>on the other are not the same, even though the similarity of the two
>actions against IDF outposts draws comparisons.
>
>The Palestinians are a people under occupation and they have the
>right to resist that occupation, even with force. One may argue over
>the advisability of their action, but it was permitted under
>international law. This is not the case with Hizbullah. Their act
>was a clear violation of international law, as was their subsequent
>attack on civilian targets within Israel.
>
>The Hizbullah attack also precipitated a major escalation in the
>already dangerous situation in the Middle East. It gave Israel the
>excuse it needed to launch a major attack on Lebanon. It has to be
>unequivocally stated that, having said that Hizbullah violated
>international law, Israel's immediate targeting of civilians and use
>of disproportionate and overwhelming force is a much greater crime.
>The critiques of Hezbollah I'm reading take some sort of prize in hypocrisy.
Glad to give you the opportunity to sling some arrows.