You have Emma's and Foolstroop's answer to your question Keith - more or less same as mine, and virtually everyone else's on this thread with the exception of a couple of rabid right wingers like yourself.
"The massacres were truly deplorable. Israeli forces should have acted to prevent them"
The Israelis participated in the massacres by providing the weapons and driving the actual perpetrators to the camps and then allowed the killers in - their role was an active, not a passive one - they shouldn't just have prevented them, they should not have participated in them, and should have punished the guilty people and not elected the one chiefly responsible Prime Minister.
"I do not deny attacks on civillians...."
Make up your mind Keith - you said or you didn't say "you are wrong to say that civillians were targeted." earlier; what's it to be?
"No unequivocal war crimes by Israel."
Then they should have no problem in participating in any enquiries along with the UN team, rather than insisting on holding their own (and finding themselves not guilty (once again). The history of this conflict is a long list of war crimes committed against civilians.
"I do not know of any chemical attacks on townships."
I assume you are continuing to re-define 'chemical weapons - been there, done that - read the thread - you and Brucie are the only ones denying that the weapons used are chemical - and you have a list of their effects on human beings.
"The guilt is shared. Hamas chose to make civillian...."
Been there also - even if this were true, and not used as an excuse to terrorise non-combatants - NO CIVILISED SOCIETY PARTICIPATES IN OR ALLOWS THE KILLING OR THE ENDANGERING OF THE LIVES OF HOSTAGES.
As bad as the rockets may be - and they're a pinprick compared to the military might of the Israeli weaponry used on civilians throughout this conflict, they are the only defence the Palestinians have to Israeli agression - what opposition would you propose in their place, or do you suggest that they surrender outright - and lay themselves open to further destruction of their homes, hospitals and schools, become refugees, move into camps, and are treated to repeats of past massacres?
You are, in effect, demanding the surrender of the Palestinians to Israeli demands. They could not rely on International protection as the most powerful countries, notebly the US have refused to act on their behalf, will continue to do so while they are under the thumb of Israeli supporters, and tend to be very free with their veto in the UN whenever action is proposed which runs contrary to their interests. They cannot go to the UN as the Israelis have refused to participate even in an enquiry on human rights abuses (they can afford to - they hold the nuclear threat).
As I said - you are demanding their outright surrender to a terrorist state - have I got that right?
A small thing - not trying to score points, just a persistant irritant - 'civilians' only has one 'l'
Jim Carroll