I'm sure plenty of us are reading it.
The one thing that strikes me about the debate though is that it is all based on the premise that the attack on Gaza was in the nature of a war between states. And surely there is no other kind of war?
But Gaza isn't a separate state, it is for all intents and purposes part of lsrael, The Hamas government is not recognised by anyone as a legitimate government, certainly not by the Israeli state. So how can there have been a "war"? Effectively the Israeili government controls the population of Gaza by controlling its land, sea and air borders. So Israel is the government of Gaza.
It follows that the responsibility of the Israeli government is more extensive than it was in Lebanon, where it was at war with another state. Israel must be held responsible for the welfare of the population under its control. It has the primary responsibility for protecting the population against incidental death and injury that result from its attacks on those resisting the occupation. No less than it has responsibility for protecting Israeli citizens from death an injury during conflict.
Clearly the Israeli government ignored this responsibility to protect the population under its control. It is akin to the British government bombing the city of Leeds in response to the July 2005 London bombings. If that had happened, one would not be splitting hairs about whether the RAF had taken adequate care to distinguish legitimate military objectives, or to avoid excess civilian casualties. The whole idea would be ridiculous.
What happened in Gaza needs to be seen and judged from that perspective. I think this debate is getting a little off-track.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas