I was rather hoping the Guardian would have published the following letter today, in response to an article yesterday detailing a spat between Amnesty International and the Jewish Leadership Council. I wrote "The Jewish Leadership Council says it has no position on Israel's illegal settlements. So that's what's meant by leadership."
Is neutrality ever OK in the face of injustice? To lead is to take a position, and injustice demands a position. In this case fence sitting is equivalent to assent, which is a bit odd when the subject is one of the most contentious issues preventing a solution. Is that the idea?