Firstly you have denied it and I included your having done so as a quote.
There is filmed evidence of Israeli attacks on civilians and the destruction of their homes; this was included in the BBC documentary on the incursion into Gaza, persistantly on news footage - (unless the UK has a news blackout on the subject - which I very much doubt, as BBC's has been the fairest and most comprehensive of all reporting). I would again recommend the harrowing 'Occupation 101 - Voices of the Silenced Majority (winner of 8 film festival awards), a comprehensive account of the whole conflict. We got our copy at a public screening by some of the people who were due to set off on the Rachel Corry relief ship the following week. The evidence is only not available if you do not wish to find it.
"No country in the world regards wp smoke as a chemical weapon"
Look at the definition and dispute it if you can.
If you mean the US does not recognise it as a chemical weapon - they describe the killing of civilians as 'collateral damage' and torture as 'extreme rendition' - they tend to have a way with words when it suits them. Your argument is a facilile one and whatever side of the fence you happen to fall on, the description of the effects on phosphorus remain exactly the same. It is these that the arguments should be centred on, not the diversionary what name it is given. The use of phosphorus is prohibited in populated areas; Israel was aware of this to the extent that they denied its use until they were faced with contrary evidence and admittted it; it is only you apologists who continue to attempt to divert the attention from it.
"Why single out Israel alone?"
I seem to remember discussing its use in Fallujah further up this thread - anyway, the subject on hand is Israel's atrocities.
"I do not understand how they can be said to be defencive though"
They are the only opposition to Israeli agression - you have not suggested an alternative, therefore the only option on hand is surrender.
"If Hamas renounced violence and recognised Israel, conflict would cease and a negotiations begin. Also there would be no blockade."
As the main aim of Israel is the acquisition of territory, I very much doubt that. It is Palestinian opposition to agression that will bring Israel to the conference table, not surrender - life appears to be like that everywhere unfortunately (including Ireland btw).
Why is it you always attempt to minimise israeli war crimes?
In your last posting you said of Shatila and Sabra "Israeli forces should have acted to prevent them" giving the impression that their only crime was inaction; surely you knew the extent of their participation in them? You adopt a similar stance on chemical weapons.
And now you remain silent on the killing of hostages - argument by ignoring the awkward bits seems to be your favoured technique.
Jim Carroll