In an article for today's Daily Telegraph, British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, sought to flesh out an ethical framework for a new approach British Foreign Policy. Reminiscent of the controversial 1997 Blairite drive for a so called "ethical foreign policy" that was swiftly and unequivocally abandoned, Hague's vision contrasts somewhat with that of David Cameron, for whom trade and commerce appear to be at the core of any agenda. For Hague, the core emphasis is on the promotion of human rights as a value which helps define and drive British Foreign policy asserting that "We cannot have a foreign policy without a conscience. Foreign policy is domestic policy written in large", and while human rights are not the only issue that inform policy, they are indivisible from it.

Hague points out that there is no single country that has the power to transform the human rights situation worldwide; the poverty and innumerable abuses being suffered from Somalia, Burma and North Korea to Congo, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Nevertheless, he makes a highly commendable and noble public commitment to "the persistent and painstaking mobilisation of our resources and diplomacy to make progress on this core value of UK foreign policy. For the right foreign policy for Britain is one that includes ambition for what we can achieve for others as well as ourselves, that seeks to inspire others with our values and that is resolute in its support for those around the world who are striving to free themselves from poverty or political repression." A British initiative to bring the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the fore and help establish an international system based on true fairness, equality and justice would enhance global security and well-being and is to be welcomed, applauded and should of course be widely supported.

For more than six decades, unquestioning Western public support for Israel has been contingent upon the ability of pro-Israeli groups to dominate the media and spin even the most appalling of Israeli actions into something acceptable. Central to this need for advocates to defend Israel is the persistent question marks over its legitimacy, going back to 1917 and colonial Britain's endorsement of the Zionist project through the Balfour Declaration. Since 1967, Israel's oppressive military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem - characterised by serious breaches of international and humanitarian law, the siege of Gaza, its ethno-religious apartheid system of discrimination within its borders and its growing reputation as a rogue state - has magnified the legitimacy question. Despite the existence of an elaborate Israeli propaganda ("hasbara") machine and a long-term PR campaign to mask a grand strategy of settler-colonial expansionism, increasing access to the internet has meant that Zionist hegemony over the carefully edited narrative that dictates western perceptions of the Middle East conflict is being eroded. While many remain unaware of the full situation in all its ugly reality, with the help of the internet and the ever more extreme actions of Israel itself, the obfuscating explanations being pushed by the compliant media are scrutinised more objectively and rejected by the public.

Before writing his Comment is Free article (Before we talk to Hamas, the Guardian, 20 August), I wonder if Israel's Ambassador to the Court of St. James's (that's London to you and I) Ron Prosor looked at the CiF main webpage and noticed the quote from CP Scott in 1921: comment may be free, "... but facts are sacred". What a difference there would have been if he had taken note.

His main message was "No missiles means no blockade... It's that simple". Obviously not simple enough so let's try again – no occupation means no resistance to said occupation, ergo no missiles. When Palestinians feel secure from Israeli F16s and Apache gunships, resistance will end. Now that really is that simple.

Charges against four Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigners have been dropped in London because of the clearly illegal activities of an Israeli cosmetics firm against which the four had been demonstrating. The case threw up some unusual and possibly ground-breaking legal arguments.

Under international law, Israel's settlements on the occupied West Bank are illegal. The European Union, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice have all confirmed the illegality of the settlements, a position acknowledged by the majority of the world's nations. Given that well-established fact, it follows that companies which use illegally occupied land to produce and sell products of any kind are producing and selling illegal goods. It also follows that anyone buying such goods is helping to finance the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestinian land. This is the message that BDS campaigners have been trying to get across to the general public.