One hates to be predictable, but when Oliver Harvey prophesied that "Davidson might well argue that this reply is displaying just the kind of blind ideology or polemic that he was referring to", he merely expressed an obvious future in the subjunctive mood.

There were several things in his article, written in response to mine, with which I am inclined to take issue: the misrepresentation of the casus belli for Iraq with regard to the Al Qaeda link, for example, or the branding of what seemed to me a fairly level-headed article by Elizabeth Wurtzel as a "tirade". But these are, at best, peripheral to the central question here, which he highlights in the above quotation.

By shrugging off the casus belli of this engagement – as he puts it, the "repellent attacks on Israeli civilians in southern Israel" – he in one fell swoop delegitimises Israel's right to defend herself with the nifty "but", following which he declares unacceptable the only recourse available to her. He casually and callously minimises the horror experienced by the Southern Israeli civilians (Israel has children too, by the way, just so you know) by dubbing Hamas "half-baked". Israel may not even respond proportionately – by aiming and firing thousands of inaccurate rockets at civilians, say – since this would be "stoop[ing] to Hamas' level".

What does he suggest, I wonder? I suppose it might be an idea to attempt to halt the import of rockets (as well as cash and fuel propping up Hamas) into Gaza… Oh no wait, that's the root of the problem in the first place. But Hamas are reasonable people: surely this could be sorted out over a few cups of tea… Then again, they do seem rather attached to the whole jihad thing, eschewing what they call in their charter "so-called peaceful solutions". Perhaps they could build a really, really tall wall…

But let us not be facetious. It is quite clear that Harvey is perfectly happy to let the Israelis continue to live in the shadow of daily rocket attacks. After all, what are bomb shelters for if not to shelter you from bombs?

And yet, despite his determination to polemicise on behalf of the Palestinians and contempt for balanced consideration, there are several points in the article where even his blinkered horse of an analysis glimpses the unruly vegetation encroaching upon the neat and narrow path it treads.

1) He refers to the "densely populated civilian area" of Gaza and is quite correct to do so, but fails to mention that (because the terrorist organisation in question, half-baked or otherwise, and in contrast to Israel, has no interest in protecting or preserving the lives of those on whose behalf it purports to fight) this is the very place where Hamas are to be found.

By the omission of this crucial point one might be left thinking that Israel is always looking for an excuse to aggravate the wholly innocent Palestinians, and to send into harm's way her young citizens, who are in turn itching to thrust their bayonets into the bellies of pregnant Gazans. Or even, as many seem to think, carrying out the most inefficient and unsubtle genocide in history.

I might mention at this point, in the context of motivation for the military intervention, that Harvey has already, in another article, dubbed the very suggestion of its being a case of Israel's defending itself as a "miserable argument"; I expect, though I haven't read it said explicitly in anything that he has written, that he would put Israel's failure to "act responsibly" down to the upcoming elections, scheduled for February 10. I moreover imagine that he has not followed this received wisdom to its logical conclusion, which leads me to my second example.

2) Israel is, despite Harvey's scoffing use of the phrase, a "liberal democratic nation". The government is therefore accountable to the people, who have been clamouring for action for quite some time. This is the same electorate, mind, who voted in Kadima in 2006 on an implicit platform of doing to the West Bank what had been done to Gaza the previous year. They now demand that the government protect them and their fellow citizens from ongoing terror (and bring back Gilad Shalit, whom Harvey may have forgotten but the Israelis have not). If anything, the Israeli "policy-makers" have been irresponsible in allowing these attacks to continue unabated for so long.

3) I would further highlight the call for a "dialogue that addresses and empathises with each other's concerns". On Hamas' side, it bears mentioning, this would include their demand that Israel immediately cease and desist from its annoying habit of existing.

4) His referring to the disputed territory as the "Holy Land" is probably just a stylistic affectation but should remind us that religious dogma plays a huge part in this, and such zeal is a particular challenge to combat.

5) Lastly, let us marvel at his puzzling faith in the "reality" of what he sees on his television screen. This, really, is my whole point: those images are not fabricated (though in some cases there may be some artifice involved, if my cynicism may be forgiven), but nor do they show the full picture, and therefore deny the viewer a comprehensive view of what Harvey and I agree is a deeply complex issue.

In the interests of full disclosure, I will say that I initially supported Operation Cast Lead before changing my mind about 3 days in. This is because of political considerations as well as my general discomfort at the execution of what I thought were just objectives. The point I am trying to make is that there really is more to the issue than "People are dying, the side with less people dead must be wrong". In this short space I hoped merely to give the side of the coin that Harvey would have you believe, and probably believes himself, is either negligible or non-existent.