This is precisely why totalitarian regimes — and elements within democratic states — regard the system as worthy of relentless criticism. It is a soft target. Blunt, and often offensive, expression of a contrary view will not prompt brutal retaliation: merely heart-searching and discussion as to how conditions may be improved.

That great liberal John Stuart Mill put it this way: “It is the liberal democratic societies that are most vulnerable to the charge of illiberality’’. They certainly are, and they should wear criticism as a badge of honour.

IT’S telling that of a number of letters regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Letters, 10/3), only one was concerned with blame. More notably, it’s a pro-Israeli letter that conflates any criticism of Israel with direct and universal blame.

This is the type of attitude that too often exemplifies the partisan response. This is not about apportioning blame, and it is most certainly not about saying that one side, above the other, should be singled out for special condemnation.

This is about a realistic appraisal of a protracted conflict in which both sides have suffered and both sides have committed terrible acts. It is about recognising those elements of the conflict that must be addressed in order for a workable peace to be possible.

Sadly, ego still drives too many views on both sides of this debate, which inevitably drags a common sense approach back into the mire of tribal simplicity.

THANK you, John Lyons for your insightful reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Boots on the ground will win over armchair experts any day. You have added a human point of view to the Palestinian plight and have never felt fear to tell it as it is even if it goes against the powerful Israeli lobby.

Your only problem is you forgot to begin your article with “50 years ago, after six million Jews died in the Holocaust, Israel yesterday sent the army to arrest Palestinian children at 2.00am’’.

WHAT is disturbing about the content, John Lyons consistently chooses to use in his Israel-based articles is the lack of context (“Distant ‘experts’ choose to ignore Israeli realities’’, 8-9/3).

British military commander Richard Kemp best summed it up when he adapted Edmund Burke’s quote: “In this war of words, all that is necessary for this evil conspiracy of delegitimisation to triumph is for good men to say nothing.’’

Although Lyons seems to say a lot, what he chooses to exclude not say speaks volumes, and therein lies the rub.

Canadian PM Stephen Harper recently said: “But what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to defend itself while systematically ignoring or excusing the violence and oppression all around it? This is the face of the new anti-Semitism.”

So, perhaps Lyons is right, and the priest at Greg Sheridan’s church may not have seen the Four Corners program nor read his numerous articles in The Australian.

john LYONS did not rebut the criticism directed against his allegations. His response in the form of an attack directed against the Jewish community leaders and Israel was made to deflect from previous criticism of his comments. Lyons should reflect on his methodology.