Are you suggesting that Amnesty International called Hizbullah "heroic freedom fighters"? Presumably not, since they didn't do this.

What, then, does this posting mean? That you think an AI condemnation for war crimes implicitly delegitimises its target? Surely not, since they also accused Israel of war crimes, and only nine days ago you revealed that AI "redefine 'war crime' so it comes to mean 'anything Israel does'". Will you now be withdrawing this assessment?

I think Stephen is getting muddled. It was he who labelled Hamas as freedom fighters in this 2003 Sunday Telegraph article.

Oh come on, Lobster Blogster. Is that level of distortion the best you can manage? Do you really expect that anyone who actually reads the piece you cite won't see that you are - deliberately, I am sure - distorting my words.
What I wrote is this:
"The received wisdom is that, although its tactics may be repellent, Hamas is a group of freedom fighters battling against the Israelis for their rights".
I then spend the rest of the article showing why that received wisdom is wrong.
And in any case, the AI report is about Hezbollah, not Hamas.

Lobster Blogger

I think that it is you who are muddled.

Or perhaps the irony of the expression 'freedom fighters' in the context of Stephen's article, escaped you.

"Are you suggesting that Amnesty International called Hizbullah "heroic freedom fighters"?"

Such a charge is implicit in Amnesty's continual condemnation of Israel and almost total failure to hold Israel's terrorist enemies to account. Stung by recent criticism, Amnesty decided to give this sop to its critics and issue a report stating the absolutely obvious about Hezbollah.

How can we possibly explain these attempts at the deligitimisation of Israel not just by Amnesty but by almost the entire gentile world outside of the United States and Canada. Some answers:

1) The fact that there exists within the soul of quite possibly the great mass of European gentiles and their cousins around the world a peasant screaming for the blood of the Jew (if their culture is rotten, it stands to reaons that the recipients of that culture will also be just as rotten). The European gentile can only accept the Jew as victim. The Jew who fights back offends the sensibilities of the European gentile to the very core.

2) Realising that their culture will forever be stained with the blood of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, these charges against the Jewish State provide the ideal "get out of jail free card" as Melanie Phillips so brilliantly put it for the gentiles of Europe.

3) The influence not just of the the Islamofascists but also their cheering section at such media organisations as the BBC, Guardian and Independent.

4) The influence of the socialists who have become the leading anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist bodies in Europe. (Having driven many millions into desperate poverty around the world with their utterly mad economic ideology and now taking up the cause of Jew-hatred so vigorously, socialists have proved they are every bit the equal of the National Socialist in the evil stakes).

"Is that level of distortion the best you can manage?"

"Distortion"? You mean "deliberate lie."

Such tactics no doubt learned at his mother's knee.

More heat than light is being generated (as usual).

I gave a source for my assertion Stephen, but what was yours?

I honestly can't figure out, Joshua, whether you are a played-to-the-hilt satirical character, or a complete loon.

To answer your only paragraph relevant to the point at issue, there is nothing “implicit” in a condemnation of Israel that says their enemies are “heroic freedom fighters”. For instance, AI criticised Israel for widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure. That criticism has absolutely no bearing on the character of Hizbollah, just as criticism of the bombing of Dresden does not implicitly rehabilitate the Nazis (fortunately for you, since you described it as “mass murder”). The point is elementary.

The rest is just your usual fantastical raving. If you are serious – and this is very much in doubt – do you actually think this racist hyperbole will win anyone over? Even if what you say is true (it patently isn't), how can you expect anybody to believe it when you supply no evidence to accompany your cataract of rhetoric?

For instance, and for the nth time, will you please provide some evidence that the BBC covered up the Holocaust? It can't be a difficult request to fulfill, given your certainty on the matter, yet you have produced nothing.