Annan said Hezbollah's actions in launching rockets into Israel and abducting Israeli soldiers "hold an entire nation hostage" and set back prospects for Middle East peace.But when it comes to Hamas:
..."While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, and Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned," he told the Security Council.
"I am gravely concerned about Gaza. I call for an immediate cessation of indiscriminate and disproportionate violence and the reopening of closed crossing points, without which Gaza will continue to be sucked in a downward spiral of suffering and chaos, and the region further inflamed."So Annan's message is:
..."Israelis continue to ensure Qassam rocket attacks, though fortunately without casualties in the past month." [emphasis added]
o The rockets fired at Israel are at least partially Israel's fault
o Israel is not suffering casualties...so what's the big deal
Why the difference between Annan's approach to Hizbollah and Hamas?
o The difference in weapons used
o The difference in damage done
o And maybe this:
One of Saudi Arabia's leading Wahhabi sheiks, Abdullah bin Jabreen has issued a strongly worded religious edict, or fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah, the Shiite militias lobbing missiles into northern Israel.Would the condemnation of some Arab countries of Hizbollah as opposed to Hamas be part of Annan's calculated reaction?