“Do you agree that Israel has the right to defend itself?” This question, so often and repeatedly put by journalists, is irritatingly banal. Invariably, it’s pitched as a kind of provocation, as if to infer that the person being quizzed has never considered the matter, or worse, is a closet antisemitic.

The seemingly obvious answer is yes. Yet answering in the affirmative should invite many caveats, otherwise the question is as vacuous as it is baiting. Context matters: a cliché, yes, but so often ignored in public discourse. To claim the right of self-defence without considering the wider historical picture is to position oneself as the hapless victim of aggression. Yet if an act of aggression – yes, ugly and brutal in its effects – is in part a response to decades-old occupation and oppression, then we need a more nuanced range of questions. We need a sense of history.

Why is this so hard to understand? Even Piers Morgan, among the most self-promoting of celebrity journalists, seems to comprehend that the catch-cry of self-defence may in fact shroud a much more complicated story. But there’s more: context demands that we consider the actions of nation states against the benchmarks of international law, human rights, UN conventions and resolutions, as well as common decency and humanity. Israel has trodden all over........

© Pearls and Irritations