All cases are different cases, and that means that it's always possible to pick and choose some aspects of a situation to give a more favourable spin to the people you sympathise with.

Israel and Iraq are very different. So is Iraq and Afghanistan. What they have in common is that they don't have too much regard to "international law".

Of course that's hardly unusual, in practice - what's different about these countries is maybe that they are more open about it. When the British or the Americans go in for shoot-to-kill and assassination, for example, it's done in a hole-in-the corner way. The British wheel out judges to say that "no it didn't happen" - Israel brings out judges who say, "yes it happened, and so what?"

And maybe that's more honest. But in the case of some countries this kind of official state use of terrorist methods is seen as a reason to brand the countries involved as "pariah states" - but not in the case of Israel. And that is where the double standards come in.

Incidentally the bombing this thread is on about wasn't Resident Bush's first strike. Only two days after his inauguration, there was a cruise missile attack in southern Iraq that blew up a veterinary centre and killed a few civilians. But it didn't get the attention - maybe it was a good news day. And the British weren't involved that time.