so Laura Booth (sister of Cherie Blair) tells us that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is "on the scale of Darfur", she also received an "honourary Palestinian passport" from Ismail Haniya. Without getting into the patent nonsense of her comment (and I'm not going to even try to justify Israel here, that's not my point), it still amazes me how much hatred against Israel certain parts of the liberal left hold towards Israel. How much hatred must you feel, to see an impoverished society in which there are power-cuts and fuel rationing brought on by an Israeli blockade and be convinced that the situation is comparable to African killing fields in which 100's of thousands of civilians have been deliberatagely displaced and 10's if not 100's of thousands of others been murdered? How much hatred must you feel when you feel a snug kinship with the leader of an organization that disagrees with you on almost everything you hold dear (civil rights, human rights, womens' rights, workers' rights, political rights, education of children etc.), and which embraces the very leadership of the country which has caused and is continuing the terrible abuses in the same Darfur with which you compare Gaza , for the simple reason that on one single point you agree with him - his visceral hatred of Israel? Israel is a nation which basically adheres to almost all of the most basic principles of the liberal left, and yet is reviled, ostensibly because of its treatment of the Palestinians. Maybe I could buy this, if the liberal left treated all human rights abuses equally (China, Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Hizbolla, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lybia, Venezeula, etc.) or at least showed the same level of compassionate excusing to Israel (it's a conflict that requires difficult choices, extremists on both sides make moving forward difficult etc.) that it shows to the Palestinians (how can they be expected to respect traditional rights, when they are afforded none), but the treatment is so one-sided, so distorted, so deeply unfair, that there has to be some other reason. I find it so hard to believe that the roots are in anti-semitism, but maybe just maybe that's what it is. Maybe there is another process at work here, but I just don't know what it is. So far, anti-semitism would appear to be the only candidate and that seems almost comical. Maybe that's why the arguments against Israel are so complex and convaluted - maybe it's the only way to dissumulate what is really quite an embarrassing motivation.

and one other thing - So Desmond Tutu tells the UN HRC that Israel's shelling of Beit Hanun back in 2006 in which 2006 civilians were killed may have constituted a war crime. Awful as this was, it cannot be that the mere fact that a lot of civilians are killed in an attack in itself constitutes a war crime (and i'm not getting into legal definitions). If we really take the view that armies must do everything to keep civilan casualties to a minimum, then those who subscribe to this rule will ultimately lose every war. Yes civilian casualties should be avoided, but the considerations must be measured and not absolute and where they are not the result of reckless or wilful disregard, this cannot be a war crime. War crimes must be limited to the very worst of acts. If they are not, the concept is cheapened and the worst regimes in the world will ultimately prevail.

dfldsfjksd