Melanie Phillips in The Spectator: pastes a series of stories relating to Hamas policy of using Gazans as human shields - which is probably true - and concludes "The fact that such demonstrable truths are not being acknowledged but wickedly ignored and Israel accused instead of behaving like Nazis demonstrates that a large section of Britain’s ruling class has simply repudiated reason itself."
Melanie is right, and everyone else has repudiated reason. This is what happens when one takes sides in an irrational conflict.
What is reason? It is a means of moving from facts to judgments without making mistakes. Because others may disagree with you does not mean that they have left reason behind (although they may have done); it may just mean that they are making different judgments.
The fact is that the war is an intolerable source of injury to the Gazan community, and also, in due course, to the Israeli community, as the hatred that Israeli bombs bears fruit in the next wave of revenge attacks. The fact is that it takes two to tango: the war is a situation resulting from mutual paranoia of the leaderships of both communities. The fact is that war is bad for everyone, and the sooner we repudiate militarism and divert the energy and resources presently committed to destruction into constructive work on ecological infrastructure, the better.
Melanie will see this line as irrational. I do not question her state of mind; I just think she is reasoning from the false premise that Israel's response to Hamas' provocations is (a) proportional and (b) going to produce a lasting peace.