Reason and passion on Israel

Also worthy of note is Carr's approach to the issue of settlements - his prime concern is their effect on a 'two-state' solution. The Palestinian state, he explains, is 'threatened by settlements like E1 (cutting off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank), which would end forever the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian territory.' This highlights what is often lacking in 24/7 news coverage - a clear appreciation of just what the policy entails.

Even the most cursory glance at a map confirms how carefully they are sited to preclude a Palestinian state defined by its own boundaries. The 135 or so settlements are linked by a network of roads controlled by Israel, meant for rapid deployment of forces should conflicts arise. The fragmentation is such that it is now a matter of choice whether we talk about Israeli settlements or Palestinian enclaves.

This is relevant to assessing Israel's fall-back position that peace talks are pointless because of PLO intransigence on the 'existence' of an Israeli state, a claim based largely on PLO rhetoric but refuted by the fact that Israel holds the cards - in its alliance with the US and Western nations, but also in its military strength and nuclear deterrent. On the other side, no Palestine state can exist unless most settlements are removed, as envisaged by President Olmert when wiser counsel prevailed.

Because Danby, like Bob Carr and the rest of the civilised world supports a two-state solution, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that his loyalty to Israel, although genuine, is misguided; he thinks he has a duty to support its leaders even when their policies undermine the long term interests of that nation and its people, not to mention world opinion and principles of international law.

None of this detracts from contributions he has made in other areas of foreign policy and public affairs; his support for the rights of Tibetans and Uyghurs, his concern that politicians should not label asylum seekers as 'illegal immigrants' and his long commitment to the spread of democratic institutions, bear ample witness to his qualities as a politician, and his ability to challenge his own government because of loyalty to the nation. He is also capable of intemperate attackson those who do not share his views, including Canberra defence expert Professor Hugh White and Sydney journalist Antony Loewenstein.

At the risk of seeming trite, the fact that Danby criticised Carr is far less important than the analysis needed to support it, which is nowhere to be found. The media, somewhere along the line, should have asked for evidence or reason for this criticism, resting as it does on a theory of ministerial duty which affects all citizens. This failure is responsible for a lazy if 'objective' pseudo-journalism in which the issues are left in the shadows - what counts is the fact and drama of confrontation.