Keith you have admitted to not reading my posts as, because I attempt to answer your continual repetitive questioning of evidence in some depth, you clain they are too long except to pick out the 'salient points'

Well here is one 'salient point' you seem to have omitted from my last post

The Goldstone commision accused Israeli forces of using Palestinian human shields during its invasion of Gaza, a breach of the Geneva conventions that prohibit intentionally putting civilian lives at risk; this practice has also been used (and filmed) in Nablus in the West Bank after the Israeli court specifically banned the tactic.


There is also the question of who is a 'combatant' who is a 'civilian'

An article in the Guardian 5 Jan 2009 reported -

"...when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.

The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".

But Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm."

Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London, says he is not aware of any Western democracy having taken so broad a definition.

"Once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved… it becomes an open-ended definition, which undermines the very object and purpose of the rules that are intended to be applied."

PROTOCOL 1 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS - QUOTED BY ISRAEL, ALTHOUGH NOT SIGNED BY IT - SAYS THAT FOR A SITE TO BE A LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET IT MUST "MAKE AN EFFECTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO MILITARY ACTION" AND ITS DESTRUCTION OR NEUTRALISATION MUST ALSO OFFER "A DEFINITE MILITARY ADVANTAGE".

Israel says it has bombed mosques because they are used to store weapons, releasing video of the air strikes which it says shows secondary explosions as its proof.

But it gives no evidence for its claims that laboratories at the Islamic University, which it bombed heavily, were used for weapons research

....on its targeting of the education, interior and foreign ministries and the parliament building, Israel simply argues they are part of the Hamas infrastructure – and there is no difference between its political and military wings."

The Israel-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, charged Hamas with methodically building its military infrastructure in the heart of population centers - againt this depends on the definition of 'military infrastructure'

The first wave of bombings, targeted police stations across Gaza, one strike killed at least 40 trainees on parade.
The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, said it appears those killed were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order.

A money changers office was deliberately injuring a boy living on the floor above based on the claim that the money changers were involved in "the transfer of funds for terrorist activities".

Operation Cast Lead left between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians dead (most of them civilian) - and 13 Israelis killed (3 of these by an 'errant IDF tank shell')

THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY. DEMANDS THAT THE MILITARY GAIN OF A PARTICULAR OPERATION BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE LIKELY OR ACTUAL CIVILIAN LOSSES INCURRED IN CARRYING IT OUT.

The difference in civilian casualties in the Gaza war is stark compared with 18 Israelis from rocket fire since 2001.

"Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets.

But while B'Tselem's Ms Montell describes the rocket fire as a "blatant war crime", she adds: "I certainly would not expect my government to act according to the standard Hamas has set for itself - we demand a higher standard." - source as above


p.s.
"No country in the world regards wp smoke as a chemical weapon."

Please don't start this personal 'smokescreen' again Keith - time after time after time you have been advised that WP is internationally defined as an 'incendiary WEAPON' and by the US as a 'chemical weapon' when it wished to demonstrate the use of such weapons by Saddam