Michael Pascoe writes:

What a fascinating precedent Australia
has set by going along with Israel’s
recent foreign policy initiatives, regardless of the risks posed to Australian
lives or a fragile democracy.

Given the lack of any Australian protest
against Israel, it’s obviously OK by Canberra for country A to attack country B if militants opposed to A are
based in B. Never mind any lack of proportionality, never mind if the militants
are in a minority in B, never mind the civilian death toll.

Thus we really couldn’t complain if Indonesia
started shelling Port Moresby. There are anti-Indonesian forces based in PNG, so fire away.

Similarly, in the good old days when the
United States was training, arming and paying the Contras to kill and destroy
in Nicaragua, we would not have been in any position to protest if Nicaragua
had managed to, say, fly a passenger plane into a New York office tower.

Perfectly acceptable collateral damage.

One little question though on a slightly
related topic, will Israel pay for the damage it has caused in Beirut? War hasn’t been declared on Lebanon,
so one might imagine Israel is in some way responsible for wrecking the airstrip, among other
things.

Perhaps some of Crikey’s international
lawyer subscribers can offer advice. It would make an interesting civil action,
if you could find a suitable jurisdiction.