Good news readers, in a stunning display of principle and conviction so characteristic of our government, David Cameron is currently “reviewing” arms deals between Britain and Israel to ensure they are “appropriate.”

It’s heartening to hear that our elected politicians are “reviewing” our support for a murderous regime. Such stirring words against an intolerable international threat haven’t been uttered since Churchill sat in the Cabinet.

The sight of a blown-up baby might shock you, or perhaps the charred frames of schoolchildren lying in a puzzle of bloodied bones, or even the shelling of a football game between four young Palestinian boys.  

Now, not for one minute do I doubt David Cameron’s abhorrence of baby murder. However, he’s hardly been shouting from the rooftops about it. When pressed on whether he thought the shelling of a Gaza school was a “criminal” act and “moral outrage” as the UN secretary-general Ban Ki Moon put it, he commended the UN for having “spoken very clearly … I think they are right to speak very clearly.” 

He certainly couldn’t say the same thing about his own view: “I’m not an international lawyer, so that’s up to international lawyers.”

Four weeks of war, more than a quarter of the Gazan population displaced, nearly 2,000 people killed, nearly 400 innocent children killed. You don’t need to be Michael Mansfield to see the illegality in that, Dave. 

At least Cameron has matched his lame words with lame actions, which shows a certain kind of perverted conviction. 

We shouldn’t particularly care of course whether Cameron simply says massacres are wrong. Indignation is not enough but it’s a good start. 

All the evidence seems to point to the government actually helping propagate violence in the region rather than diffusing the fighting between Israel and Palestine. 

The official word from the Prime Minister’s office on the continued trade in arms with Israel is a classic case of obfuscation. 

It is extraordinary that £42m of arms export licences have been granted to 130 British defence manufacturers since 2010 to sell military equipment to Israel. 

No 10’s response to criticism of its arms dealing is not the only case of the government refusing to make its position clear. 

Practicalities often undermine ideals in politics. This does not render the ideal worthless but simply more worthy of pursuing. 

Questions such as “Who fired first?,” “Who is the aggressor?,” “Who is the defender?” and “Who is right and who is wrong?” leave far too much moral wriggle room. Such questions do a disservice to our humanity. 

“Israel has a right to defend itself” has now overtaken “the big society” as the most spurious sound bite in history.  

We shouldn’t be looking for a verdict but instead a solution, especially when so many innocent lives are at stake.

Sayeeda Warsi resigned from government exactly because of its disingenuous Israel-Palestine policy. She criticised the “inconsistent approach to our foreign policy” and the “inconsistency about our application of our values.” 

The biggest lie by politicians has always been to say one thing and do another, but there is something deeply transgressive about our government’s silence on condemning Israel’s actions outright. 

It is not a political issue but a humanitarian one. 

Warsi’s first-hand account of government meetings on the conflict reveals her to be the only one with a backbone in that ivory tower. 

She told of a key meeting addressing the call for an arms embargo in which chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander “turned up and said nothing.” 

Alexander, a man so dull even Nick Clegg would despair in his company, seems happy to remain Beaker the muppet with a political mandate. 

Warsi wished she’d had “two or three Lib Dem voices giving support to me” in an ill-fated search for conviction amid their pathetic ranks.  

When Ed Miliband condemned Cameron for remaining silent on the Gaza crisis, the government accused him of trying to “play politics with such a serious issue.” 

But who is really playing politics here? There has been no direct criticism of Israel from any Conservative ministers and one can take a good guess as to the reasoning. 

Both Cameron and William Hague came under fire in 2006 when they criticised Israel for their ground invasion of southern Lebanon, which resulted in over 1,000 deaths. 

Their words at the time, that Israel had been “disproportionate” in its actions and risked “unnecessary loss of civilian life,” were even viewed as “downright dangerous” by one Tory donor. 

Cameron and his government are the ones “playing politics” over Gaza. They are unsure whether it is politically possible to criticise Israel’s military actions without alienating MPs, donors and voters who back Israel and its actions unreservedly. This is the source of their deafening silence. 

John Prescott highlighted another example of Cameron’s superficial moral concern a couple of days ago when the PM said Britain should send more troops for Nato exercises by the Russian border.

“This is less about confronting Putin and more about building alliances in eastern European countries to support his hopeless plan of EU treaty change.” 

Cameron is out of step not only with the public on Gaza, but also with compassion, morality and justice. As the Palestinian death count rises so should the condemnation of our government. 

Something has to be fundamentally wrong with our political system where responses to this bloodbath are shortcoming only through fear of reprimand. 

Cameron may be unwilling to step on any toes but he must remember this. 

The fate of civilians in Gaza won’t be decided by a soundbite. It will only be decided when the bombs stop falling.

Seamus Jennings is an A-level student.