It is not surprising that most comment on the war in Gaza is very emotional.  For many reasons, many if not most people will find it hard to be objective because of something in their upbringing or faith.  They will have a bias – or, if you prefer, a prejudice.  But, and this isn’t surprising either, very few of them will admit it.  That is not part of their upbringing or faith.

What is surprising is how often each side gets criticised for not talking about the weakness of the case of their side.  You see it all the time.  We saw it in response to what I thought was a very sensible address by Louise Adler.  She got criticised for not saying more for Isreal or more against Hamas.  And you very rarely see the diagnostician take their own medicine.

Imagine this at the footy with Storm v Eels or Carlton v Collinwood.  ‘OK, Comrade, you can say what you like about my lot, as long as you acknowledge that your lot are bludgers, urgers, hit-men, and downright fairies.’  And get ready for a very big dental bill.

It is one thing to say that the ABC, or anyone in journalism, should be ‘balanced’.   The position of the passing commentator is different.  And even the ABC would have a problem giving equal time to a serial liar and fantasist who trades on division in the community – like Donald Trump.

Even the law of defamation allows that we are likely to hold views strongly and express them on a partisan basis.  You do not lose your defence of fair comment because you show some prejudice.  In th name of Heaven, how many of us are free of prejudice?  This part of our law of defamation does not require you to jump the hurdle of reasonableness.

As matters stand, so much correspondence in the press about Gaza comes down to what eight-year-olds did behind the shelter shed at Glen Iris State School in 1953: ‘You started it’.  Or – ‘You were worse than me.’

That is neither surprising nor uplifting.