Is there any action Israel could take that would be acceptable to the BBC?

A commentator on the Biased-BBC blog posted this yesterday and I found it quite powerful:

"Sue:
All retaliatory steps taken by Israel are unfair!
Density is also the argument used to discredit all retaliatory action by Israel -the inevitability of civilian casualties dictates violence must be avoided at all costs.

(A poster over on Mel’s blog, Philip Horowitz, has some statistics on density in Gaza.)

Collective punishment is another argument used to discredit any retaliation by Israel whatsoever. Sanctions, checkpoints, ‘apartheid walls,’ and restrictions of any kind, no good because frustration leads ‘inevitably’ to radicalisation.

Collective punishment is also unfair to innocent voters who took advantage of their democratic rights, because they didn’t know what they were letting themselves in for, and anyhow they could understandably now plead innocent on grounds of insanity. So unfair again.

Blockades and restrictions of movement - further unacceptable cruelties.
The existence of Israel itself is an affront - leading to anger and wrath. So unfair.

The only course of action on Israel’s part that would procure guaranteed approval from the rest of the world is to give in, surrender, and check out. Much fairer, surely.

Subservient Jews are acceptable though. Anne Frank, Nina Lugovskaya and Rutka Laskier who died in Auschwitz. Now they’re the ones the BBC likes. Why can’t they all be like that?
Sue | 06.01.09 - 6:28 pm"