...Mmmm. If Aboriginals of Australia were to gain executive power and force all settlers into concentration camps, then set about “Drone Bombing” them at will…and added an odd long range missile strike into New Zealand and a stray rocket or two into Indonesia,(read Lebanon and Syria)! would the world be silent? Probably I suspect!

...But it sure would make excellent documentary material for the BBC...however I suspect the ABC would be strangely silent in order to cover "honestly" the "left wing" assault!

Both SBS and the ABC covered the recent Israeli genocide in Gaza from a barely hidden 'pro-Israeli' point of view. As dead Palestinian children were pulled from the rubble of their homes, it was difficult to make the case that this was a 'War' between equals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I suppose, given that both media outlets are funded by the Government, they thought it best to mirror the attitude of the Government, that is to give a tick to whatever Israel does and whatever the U.S. does.

The constant mumblings and ramblings of the Government and the Opposition demonstrate clearly that neither of them have the foggiest clue as to what is going on in the world and why the Rogue Nations of America and Israel are the greatest dangers the world is faced with.

Will Australia sink with the American Titanic?

The United Nations findings when it proposed to partition Palestine were that the "claims to Palestine of the Arabs and the Jews, BOTH POSSESSING VALIDITY, are irreconcilable...(emphasis added). The land was not called Palestine because it was a State belonging to the Palestinian people which the Jews stole. It was the Romans who renamed Judea to Palestine way back in 135 AD in order to de-judaize it. At the time of the UN partition plan, the Jews were a substantial majority in those areas of Palestine partitioned by the UN for a Jewish State.
As we know the Jews accepted the partition plan and the Arabs rejected it. Land acquired by Israel after the partition plan was land captured in defensive wars. Israel was willing to trade the land captured for peace as it eventually did with the Egyptians and the Jordanians, however as we know the Palestinians have not been willing to offer peace in exchange for land. The Israelis and the Palestinians are not equals in this war - Hamas intentionally targets innocent civilians whereas when Israel inadvertently kills civilians it is in an effort to protect its own civilians by bringing down the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas that enables it to shoot more than 13,000 rockets into Southern Israel in the past 13 years. Let's not forget that Hamas uses civilian sites in Gaza as cover for military operations, staging rocket attacks from or near residential areas, using civilian homes homes, mosques, business premises, universities, government buildings, communications facilities and even hospitals as weapons storage, blending in with civilians, and making use of human shields. Hamas also abuses the special protection given by international law to sites such as hospitals and religious buildings, by using them for weapons storage and bases for staging attacks. Israel is the victim here - it does not have a partner for peace, only a terrorist organisation that openly seeks its destruction.

KerryG, you write that, "At the time of the UN partition plan, the Jews were a substantial majority in those areas of Palestine partitioned by the UN for a Jewish State."

Despite being about a third of the population of British-Mandated Palestine at the time, the UN allocated over 50% of the land to the Zionists.

You write, "As we know the Jews accepted the partition plan and the Arabs rejected it."

According to Avi Schlaim's book "Collusion Across The Jordan", the Zionist side only accepted the Partition Plan with the intention of getting the rest of Palestine later, which they did in 1967, and Mencachem Begin was scathingly critical of the Partition Plan because it did not give all of Palestine to the Jews.

You write, "Land acquired by Israel after the partition plan was land captured in defensive wars."

Firstly, it is illegal to acquire territory by war anyway. Secondly, the Zionists committed an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1947-1948 to steal their land. Thirdly, according to Norman G. Finkelstein's book "Image & Reality Of The Israel-Palestine Conflict" the Six Day War was not a defensive war on Israel's part. Israel was the aggressor.

[continued below.]

[continued from above.]

You write, "Israel was willing to trade the land captured for peace as it eventually did with the Egyptians and the Jordanians, however as we know the Palestinians have not been willing to offer peace in exchange for land."

If Israel has been willing to give up Palestinian and Syrian land for peace, then what are the Israeli settlements for? The Palestinians HAVE been willing to have peace in exchange for land. At the Oslo Accords, the PLO recognised Israeli sovereignty over all the land within the 1967 Green Line, thereby ceding about 78% of what had been British Mandated Palestine to Israel.

You write, "Hamas intentionally targets innocent civilians whereas when Israel inadvertently kills civilians it is in an effort to protect its own civilians by bringing down the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas".

Both Israel and Hamas are guilty of targeting civilians.

You write, "Israel is the victim here - it does not have a partner for peace, only a terrorist organisation that openly seeks its destruction."

Israel is the victim? Actually, the Palestinians are the victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing, occupation and persecution. Israelis have also been the victims of Palestinian violence, which is a direct response to the way Israel treats the Palestinians.

After Israel won the Six Day War it did not allow the Palestinians to exercise self-determination. Israel permitted no freedom of speech for the Palestinians. The Palestinian flag was banned too. Eventually the Palestinians rose up in the first Intifada, which Israel responded to with excessive violence.

Fatah has recognised Israel's right to exist, yet Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel has never recognised Palestine's right to exist. Also, I personally do not believe Israel should be a nation for Jews. Instead, I believe Israel should be a nation for Israelis.

I think this is what many Australians mean by "come here but leave your troubles at home".

In the USA 80% of Jews voted for Obama who does not back Netanyahu in an attack on Iran.Only 20% of Jews see Israel as being important to the survival of Jewish identity.

Only the Zionists with their nukes,control the West with their lust for power at all costs.

The point of Pilger's article is that the BBC is not even handed in its selection of News and exactly the same criticism should be applied to Australian media. I can't help wondering if SBS is now subsidised by the USA government. Items about USA inanity often take up more time than local news. and the rest of the world is deemed irrelevant. The opinions and segments of news reflect the USA line with no criticism, and we are left with the impression that Gazans have stolen Israeli land and are waging war on the poor suffering Israelis. No mention of the fact that Israel will not allow any reconstruction of buildings, will allow few medical supplies, have effectively prevented Gazans from fishing in their waters, have destroyed ancient vineyards, olive groves and other market gardens, stolen all their fresh water, have kept them locked in a concentration camp on minimal rations for over forty years. Have flouted over a hundred UN demands for change, kill roughly a hundred Gazan citizens for every Israeli soldier killed, and maim thousands more while reducing their homes to rubble that they are forbidden to rebuild...
Israel has no intention of making peace with their neighbours, Their 'holy book' promised they would occupy all the lands of the Middle East, and they are determined to fulfil that prophecy. Israel provokes a response and then brings in the big guns - in the same way as the USA has always made war. They are unholy bedfellows. The tragedy for us is that our PM in her acceptance speech said that she would unquestioningly do whatever was demanded of her by our great and glorious 'friends' the USA and Israel - because we share similar values! She wasn't speaking for me.

fungus:

“Despite being about a third of the population of British-Mandated Palestine… the UN allocated over 50% of the land to the Zionists”

Actually the original Palestine Mandate was far larger and included Trans Jordan. That land, about 75% of the total area of the original mandate, was already given to Palestinian Arabs by 1947. The area allocated to the Jews - 55% of the remainder, is around 15% of the original Mandate.

“Zionists committed an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1947-1948 to steal their land”

According to historian Benny Morris, "There was no Zionist 'plan' or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of 'ethnic cleansing'… the demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies—much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies."

It’s important to note that there are far more Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories today, than in 1947. A far better example is the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arab lands, where Jewish population has dropped by a factor of 100.

Israel wasn’t the aggressor in 1967. It was Egypt’s president Nasser, who closed the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, assembled massive armies on the Israeli borders, and expelled the UN peace keeping force (why do that if you’re not interested in war?)

“If Israel has been willing to give up Palestinian and Syrian land for peace, then what are the Israeli settlements for? The Palestinians HAVE been willing to have peace in exchange for land.”

Israeli settlements in Gaza were removed by Israel, sometimes forcibly. If the Palestinians are indeed willing to trade land for peace as you say, how come the return of the Gaza territory led to daily rockets instead of peace?

“Both Israel and Hamas are guilty of targeting civilians”

Wrong. Hamas target civilians. Israel targets terrorist installations deliberately set up next to civilians.

“After Israel won the Six Day War it did not allow the Palestinians to exercise self-determination.”

What did they have before Israel captured the territories? What level of self-determination did they exercise under Egypt and Jordan?

David G:

“…it was difficult to make the case that this was a 'War' between equals. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

This is not a war between equals. It’s a war between right and wrong. It’s a war between Hamas - a fanatic, terror regime, bent on the complete destruction of its neighbour, targeting civilians in daily terror attacks, and Israel, a democratic country, defending itself by targeting the terrorist regime and its infrastructure.

Actually the ABC often presents views that conflict with that of the government, as it is required to do. Here’s an extract from the ABC charter:

“The ABC Act guarantees its editorial independence... By law and convention, neither the Government nor Parliament seeks to intervene in editorial and program decisions”

The fact that the ABC published the article we are commenting on, as well as your own comment, proves that they do not necessarily “mirror the attitude of the Government”, as you say.

“the Rogue Nations of America and Israel are the greatest dangers the world is faced with.”

At the top of your list of Rogue Nations you don’t have North Korea or Iran, who are doing all they can to acquire nuclear weapons so they can intimidate and threaten their neighbours. Not Syria, where before taking a break to kill his own citizens, Assad was regularly subverting his Lebanese neighbours through his Hezbollah proxy. You don’t have Somalia, where things are totally out of control and international shipping is threatened daily. You certainly don’t include Hamas, where terror attacks are sent daily as rockets towards its neighbour. These states are dictatorships where elections have either been suspended indefinitely or are occasionally staged for political purposes. Their citizens have no say in the running of the country.
According to you, the top Rogue Nations do not include any of them. That honour is reserved for Israel and the US.
Where would you place Australia? Surely we must also be in your top 5 as we often support the top two Rogue Nations.

Can you detect a slight lack of credibility in your argument?

Fungus, the Jews were a majority in the areas partitioned by the UN for a Jewish State. In terms of land, the Jewish portion included the Negev desert which was deemed uninhabitable and uncultivable. If the Negev desert is excluded or discounted, the usable land allocated to the Arabs was larger than that allocated to the Jews. Furthermore, much of the land allocated to the Jews was originally swamp and desert land that had been irrigated and made fertile by Jewish labour and Investment.

It is irrelevant what Begin may have said of the Partition Plan, and it is irrelevant what some may believe the Zionist intentions were in accepting the Plan. The facts remain that the Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs rejected it. The fact is that had the Arabs accepted the plan, they would have had a large contiguous Palestinian State alongside a Jewish State.

You write that "it is illegal to acquire territory by war anyway". International law distinguishes between territory acquired in an aggressive conquest and territory acquired following a war of self-defence. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case: “Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”

Fungus, you state that the Six Day War was not a defensive war on Israel's part.
Although Israel fired the first shot against Egypt (although not against Jordan) virtually everyone acknowledges that Egypt, Syria and Jordan started the war. All along the 1948 armistice lines, Arab armies engaged in an enormous military build-up. Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai to leave. Shortly before the start of the war, Israel was confronted by an Arab force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were also contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts. Egypt then chose to further escalate hostilities. The narrow Straits of Tiran were closed by military force to Israeli shipping creating a naval blockade, preventing Israeli ships from reaching the port of Eilat – in violation of international law and an act of war

Fungus, Israel did not steal the land from the Palestinians nor commit ethnic cleansing. The land did not belong to the Palestinians, it belonged to the Ottoman Turks prior to WW1 and fell under British mandate when they lost World War 1. There has always been a continual Jewish presence in Israel, notwithstanding the Babylonian and Roman exile. As the very first point of my previous post says, the UN acknowledged when it proposed the partition plan that both the claims of the Jews and those of the Arabs to the land are valid and the partition plan was based on the principle of self-determination. Regarding your claims of ethnic cleansing, as soon as Israel declared its independance, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacked it with the help of the Palestinians, in an attempt to destroy the Jewish State and exterminate its population. The War of Independence was started by the Arabs and its express aim was genocidal - "to drive the Jews into the sea". Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. Neither wanted an independent Palestinian State. Nobody can blame Israel for the Egyptian and Jordanian decision to occupy the lands allocated to the Palestinians and for denying them the right of self determination. When the Arabs waged an aggressive war against the Israelis, the Israeli's allowed the Arabs to flee to Arab controlled areas, unlike the Arab armies who tried to kill Jewish civilians and did infact massacre many who tried to escape. It was the Arab policy to take prisoners during battles and these prisoners were generally put to death (for example in Kfar Etzion where no Jewish refugees were left). It is precisely because the Jewish Army did not deliberately kill civilians, unlike the Arab armies, that there is a refugee issue

Fungus, you make many statements that the the Palestinians have recognised Israel's right to exist and have been willing to exchange land for peace and the Israelis haven't. I'm not sure where your information comes from, but the facts remain:
The Jews accepted the Peel Partition plan in 1937, the Arabs rejected it, demanding all of Palestine be placed under Arab control and most of the Jewish population be transferred out. In 1947 the Jews accepted the Partition plan and the Arabs rejected it, choosing rather to go to war with the newly established Jewish State in an attempt to drive it into the Sea. In 2000 Barak offered Arafat all of the Gaza strip, 94-96% of the West Bank (in exchange for the 4-6% that Israel would retain for security purposes, Israel would cede 1-3% of its land to the Palestinians). In addition Barak offered complete control over East Jerusalem, as well as the entire Temple Mount, and offered a $30 billion compensation package for the refugees, while agreeing that some, (although not all) of the refugees could live in Israel. Arafat as we know rejected the proposal without even making a counter-offer and the Palestinians began the second intifada instead. Yes you can continue to blame the Jews and the Israelis for all the problems (The Hamas Charter also blames the Jews for the French and Russian revolutions, World Wars I and II and the creation of the Untied Nations) and the Palestinians can continue to play the victim card but the truth is that the Palestinian people are only victims of the Palestinian leadership, who since 1937, again in 1947 and repeatedly since then has rejected all offers to have a Palestinian state living alongside a Jewish State. This has been and remains the root cause of the conflict

Never kill a mosquito - it's not a conflict between equals!

Okay where do I start here?

To Avw:

Benny Morris says there was no ethnic cleansing. Ilan Pappe says there was. Also, in Norman G. Finkelstein's book "Image & Reality In The Israel-Palestine Conflict" there is a chapter in which Finkelstein dismantles Benny Morris's "born of war, not by design" theory as to how the Palestinian refugee problem arose.
Also, read this interview with Benny Morris. He states that Zionist terror groups committed massacres and rapes of Palestinian Arabs, but then goes on to state that they were perfectly justified in doing so, and that their only wrong was not finishing the job in expelling all of the Palestinian Arabs.

http://www.deiryassin.org/bennymorris.html

You write, "It’s important to note that there are far more Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories today, than in 1947. A far better example is the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arab lands, where Jewish population has dropped by a factor of 100."

A number of Palestinian refugees ended up in Gaza and the West Bank. Regarding the Jewish exodus from Arab countries, I have been interested in how that came about. I have actually seen conflicting reasons given. Some say they were driven out. Others say they left of their own accord. The Jews who fled Iraq were refugees. The Iraqi Jewish historian Naem Giladi has written that Zionist terrorist groups actually committed terrorist actions against Iraqi Jews in a false flag operation in order to get the Jews to flee to Israel.

You write, "Israel wasn’t the aggressor in 1967. It was Egypt’s president Nasser, who closed the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, assembled massive armies on the Israeli borders, and expelled the UN peace keeping force (why do that if you’re not interested in war?)"

Like I said, read Norman G. Finkelstein's book "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict". There is a chapter in which Finkelsteins shows that the Arab states were attempting to avoid war with Israel.

[continued below]

[continued from above]

You write, "Israeli settlements in Gaza were removed by Israel, sometimes forcibly. If the Palestinians are indeed willing to trade land for peace as you say, how come the return of the Gaza territory led to daily rockets instead of peace?"

According to Noam Chomsky's and Ilan Pappe's book "Gaza In Crisis", Israel only removed the settlements from Gaza because it was not seen to be worth the money and effort to hold on to them. And Israel has subjected Gaza to a crippling blockade, including by controlling its borders and sea access. Thus, the settlements were withdrawn, by the occupation continues.

You write that Israel does not target civilians. I cannot believe that for the third time this week I have to provide the following links on this website to show that the Israeli military does target civilians.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/09/wo...nce/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...a-israel-obama

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/05/20/i...order-protests

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/04/12/i...vilians-attack

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/04/05/g...els-war-record

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israe...ors-2012-11-19

http://www.cpj.org/2012/11/in-gaza-n...ts-injured.php

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ma...y-1305571.html

Also, try reading Norman G. Finkelstein's books "Beyond Chutzpah - On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism & The Abuse of History", "This Time We Went Too Far" and "Goldstone Recants". Also try reading Gideon Levy's book "The Punishment of Gaza".

Also, the fact that Gaza and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively prior to being occupied by Israel does not negate the fact that there Israel suppressed freedom of speech in those territories after it annexed them.

Avw, here is a link about Israel's control of Gaza.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/10/28/israel-disengagement-will-not-end-gaza-occupation

You write, "This is not a war between equals. It’s a war between right and wrong."

Really? :/ Your beliefs are really that simplistic? You seriously believe that the Palestinians have no case? And that Israel is not guilty of any wrongdoing? That it is just black and white - Israel good, the Palestinians bad? That is just embarrassing.

Now, onto KerryG.

KerryG, you write, "it is irrelevant what some may believe the Zionist intentions were in accepting the Plan. The facts remain that the Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs rejected it. The fact is that had the Arabs accepted the plan, they would have had a large contiguous Palestinian State alongside a Jewish State."

It is not just a case of "what some may believe". It is a fact that the Zionist side only accepted the Partition Plan as a stepping stone to getting the rest of Palestine later. Check out page 19 of Avi Schlaim's book "Collusion Across The Jordan". Also, I wonder if you think Australians should be satisfied if some group of foreigners decided to take a slab of Australia for themselves.

[continued below]

[continued from above]

You write, "International law distinguishes between territory acquired in an aggressive conquest and territory acquired following a war of self-defence."

It is illegal to acquire territory by war. Resolution 242 clearly states that Israel should withdraw from the territories it captured in the Six Day War.

You write, "Israel did not steal the land from the Palestinians nor commit ethnic cleansing. The land did not belong to the Palestinians, it belonged to the Ottoman Turks prior to WW1 and fell under British mandate when they lost World War 1."

Yes the Zionists did steal land from the Palestinians and commit ethnic cleansing. The Ottomon empire occupied Palestine, but the Palestinians still owned land. They had farms, towns and cities. Many of the refugees still possess the keys and the title deeds to the houses they used to own that were stolen from them.

You write, "Regarding your claims of ethnic cleansing, as soon as Israel declared its independance, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacked it with the help of the Palestinians, in an attempt to destroy the Jewish State and exterminate its population."

Ilan Pappe writes that there were actually two stages of Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - the first during the civil war in Palestine and the second in Israel's war for independence. Thus, the ethnic cleansing started before the foreign Arab countries attacked Israel, and continued after they did.

I will also post a few links from Jewish Australian commentator Michael Brull's previous blog. They address this topic extensively.

http://home2.iajv.org/node/133

http://home2.iajv.org/node/131

ome2.iajv.org/taxonomy/term/11/0?page=9

[continued below]

Looks to as though this crap ain't going to stop anytime soon. Man, even the Irish & the Serbs & Croations came to some agreements but the Palestinians ? No Siree !

Fungus, I'm with you 100%. Thanks for all the links.
Now, how to convince our USrael a..se-kissing PM that things are not kosher? The witch had to be arm twisted merely to allow our UN representative to abstain, and not to vote for Palestinian observer status! Yeah, Australia will have great input on the Security Council - as one more vote for the USA and Israel. It shames us all.

fungus:

Indeed where do I start.

Unlike Ilan Pappe, who has been discredited and shown to be a fraud, Benny Morris is disliked equally by both the left and the right, so his opinions are far more credible than an extremist like Pappe.
Norman Finkelstein is another example of the extreme left view. He even describes himself as "an old-fashioned communist," who "see(s) no value whatsoever in states." (Wikipedia). In short, other than fringe political analysts from the extreme left, no serious commentator supports the claims you raised.

“…Finkelstein shows that the Arab states were attempting to avoid war with Israel”

It was indeed the view of Communists in 1967 (and still is today, it seems) that Israel was the aggressor. No matter how you look at it though, you cannot reconcile this view with the aggressive steps taken by Egypt and the Arab World in the weeks and months leading up to the war. Rather than avoiding war, they encouraged it. How is outsing the UN peace keepers an attempt to avoid a war?

“…Israel only removed the settlements from Gaza because it was not seen to be worth the money and effort to hold on to them”

Ignoring the fact that you are relying on views of extremists and discredit commentators again, the side benefits to Israel (economic benefits) are irrelevant. The fact is that Israel did trade territory (Gaza settlements) for peace, but got no peace in return. Economical reasons have also been raised as the reason for Hamas’s belligerency - it is in their interest to keep the state of war firmly in place so that they can continue benefiting financially from the tunnel smugglers. The occupation is NOT continuing, as per the evidence I provided elsewhere (article in Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, as cited in http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4482.htm).

“I wonder if you think Australians should be satisfied if some group of foreigners decided to take a slab of Australia for themselves”

Your comparison is invalid – Australia is an established country whereas Palestine was a territory with no government, where 2 peoples struggled for self determination.

(cont...)

(cont...)

Regarding the links you provided to prove your point that Israel does indeed target civilians, since most of those links don’t actually work or point to a valid article I can’t really comment on them. As for the one link that does work, the decades old shelling of a refugee camp in southern Lebanon, it still does not show that Israel targets civilians deliberately:

"The [Hezbollah] guerrillas fired six Katyushas from near our position. The [Israeli] shells came in two minutes later.”

As you can see, the shells were in response to the Hezbollah rockets, not deliberately targeting civilians.

“…Zionist terrorist groups actually committed terrorist actions against Iraqi Jews … to get the Jews to flee to Israel”

There are plenty of conspiracy theories such as the one you are proposing here. Theories such as the one about the false moon landing produced in a Hollywood studio, the CIA/Mossad being responsible for the 9/11 bombing, and even a theory that Israel trains sharks to attack beach goers in Egypt. All these theories are just as credible as each other.

“Your beliefs are really that simplistic? You seriously believe that the Palestinians have no case? And that Israel is not guilty of any wrongdoing? That it is just black and white - Israel good, the Palestinians bad? That is just embarrassing.”

If you read my paragraph in full rather than take a sentence and use it so blatantly out of context you will see that I was specifically referring to the current Gaza conflict and the strategy of Hamas, not to Palestinians or Israelis in general. It should also be obvious from David G’s comment that I was referring to, he also commented on the current conflict.

How is Ilan Pappe discredited?

Norman G. Finkelstein is hardly an extremist. He supports the two-state solution and was criticised by Ali Abuminah for being too moderate.

And if you're going to criticise the messenger and not the message, then I suggest you take a good look at that interview with Benny Morris that I posted. He actually endorses ethnic cleansing, including massacres and rapes.

It turns out you are right that most of my links didn't work. So here they are, in full working order (hopefully):

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/meast/gaza-violence/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/05/20/israel-investigate-killings-during-border-protests

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/04/12/israelgaza-protect-civilians-attack

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/04/05/gaza-stain-remains-israels-war-record

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israelgaza-un-must-send-monitors-2012-11-19

http://www.cpj.org/2012/11/in-gaza-news-outlets-targeted-journalists-injured.php

Regarding the link that did work, yes a Hezbollah fighter fired some rockets from near the building. And Fisk criticises the fighter for doing so. But Fisk also questions whether the Israeli military's response was appropriate:

"So why did the Israelis kill all these refugee civilians - more than 70 at the latest count - and go on sending 25 shells into the survivors and the bodies around them for up to 10 minutes after the first round had landed?"

And in the same article, Fisk also talks about other civilians killed by the Israeli military in Lebanon:

"But Israel's slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive - 206 by last night - has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year-old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 - the youngest was a four- day-old baby - when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home.

"Shortly afterwards, three Israeli jets dropped bombs only 250 metres from a UN convoy on which I was travelling, blasting a house 30 feet into the air in front of my eyes. Travelling back to Beirut to file my report on the Qana massacre to the Independent last night, I found two Israeli gunboats firing at the civilian cars on the river bridge north of Sidon."

Here are some more links:

http://www.hamoked.org/TopicSearch.aspx?searchmode=cases&tid=sub_1

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/

http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/05/02/israeloccupied-territories-jenin-war-crimes-investigation-needed

Regarding your "right and wrong" statement, sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. However, I still think it is too simplistic to say that the recent Israel-Hamas fight was still "right and wrong".

I realised later that one of my links to Michael Brull's blog didn't work as some of the web address was accidentally elided. So here is that link in full:

http://home2.iajv.org/taxonomy/term/11/0?page=9

Here is some information about the Peel Commission (yes it's from a memorial website to the Palestinian victims of Zionist ethnic cleansing - an ethnic cleansing which KerryG and Avw claim never occurred):

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story695.html

And here is Norman G. Finkelstein on the Peel Commission:

"Finally, contrary to [what Alan] Dershowitz [claims in his book "The Case For Israel"], the Peel Commission did not envisage that Arabs would "remain as part of the Arab minority in the Jewish state." It explicitly recommended that, if most of the 225,000 Arabs currently living in the planned Jewish state didn't voluntarily leave, "in the last resort" their departure should be "compulsory".

Thus, the Peel Commission advocated ethnic cleansing.

Finkelstein's footnotes for this:

Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999", (New York, 1999), p. 138; "Palestine Royal Commission Report", (London, 1937, p. 391.

Here is Naeim Gilado on Zionist terrorism against Iraqi Jews:

http://nsl-archiv.com/Buecher/Fremde-Sprachen/Giladi,%20Naeim%20-%20Ben-Gurion%20Scandals%20-%20How%20the%20Hagannah%20and%20the%20Mossad%20eliminated%20Jews%20(EN,%202004,%20176%20S.,%20Text).pdf

http://inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html

KerryG, you write, "It is precisely because the Jewish Army did not deliberately kill civilians, unlike the Arab armies, that there is a refugee issue."

Actually, the Zionist militias DID kill civilians. Plenty of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

fungus:

“How is Ilan Pappe discredited?”

Ilan Pappe has been exposed as a fraud, distorting historical facts to suit his argument. Have a look here:

http://www.tnr.com/article/books/magazine/85344/ilan-pappe-sloppy-dishonest-historian?page=0,1&passthru=MWE4MzAwYzEwZTUxY2M3Y2VjZWEwODI4NTYyOTZlYmU#

You might not like Benny Morris’s character or his personal opinion, but his historical research is held in high regards.

“Norman G. Finkelstein is hardly an extremist”

Norman Finkelstein, by his own admission, is a communist. You might consider communism as mainstream society, but I suspect most people will not agree with you and view communism as extreme left. Wikipedia cites Communism as a good example of extreme left ideology.

As for the Israeli missile strike that caused a large number of civilian casualties, you originally provided this link as proof that Israel targets civilians. The article does not provide this proof – it clearly states that the Israeli missile was in response to the Hezbollah rockets. The most you can say, based on this, is that Israel does not take sufficient care to avoid hitting innocent civilians. You can (and should) equally (or even more forcefully) criticise Hezbollah (and Hamas) for firing their rockets from civilian areas, with the full knowledge that they place civilians at grave danger from return fire. It is clear they are using this tactic purely for propaganda purposes, with utter disregard for civilian lives.

Regarding the Peel Commission, yes, they did advocate the transfer of Arab population from the newly created Jewish state into the Arab state. The problem when reading this on the Palestinian website is that you only get half of the story. The Peel Commission advocated the transfer of BOTH Jewish AND Arab population to their respective states. This is NOT ethnic cleansing, this is a population exchange, as happened between Greece and Turkey, and later between India and Pakistan. There was no suggestion of any ethnic cleansing in those cases, and there shouldn’t be any here either.

I will look at the links you provided and comment on them when I have some free time.

Avw, on the one hand you say that Benny Morris' political views are irrelevant - no matter how repugnant - because he is a well-respected scholar. On the other hand, you instantly dismiss what Noam Chomsky and Finkelstein - both of whom are well-respected scholars - write because they have radical left-wing beliefs.
You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I do not consider Communism per se to be an extremist ideology. Authoritian Communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and the Khmer Rouge, is definitely extremist. But I do not consider it extremist for somebody to believe that the production of goods and services should be state-owned.

Robert Fisk's article I posted a link to lists a number of Israeli attacks on civilians in Lebanon, not just Qana. Indiscriminate attacks - whether by Hamas or Israel - is unconscionable. Hamas has done it with rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Israel has done it with white phosphorus bombs, bulldozers and cluster bombs.

Regarding the Peel Commission, I realised after doing some more Internet research, and prior to your reply, that the Peel Commission also recommended transfer of Jews from the new Palestinian Arab country. However, I still stand by my claim that the Peel Commission recommended ethnic cleansing, as it called for forced transfer as a last resort. Mutual ethnic cleansing would still be ethnic cleansing.

Finkelstein's claim about the Peel Commission was not from a pro-Palestinian website. It was from his book "Beyond Chutzpah - On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History". The book provides a comprehensive debunking of Alan Dershowitz's book "The Case For Israel". In the passage I quoted, Finkelstein was disproving a particular claim Dershowitz made in "The Case For Israel".

Regarding your argument that my example of foreigners taking a large of slab of Australia is irrelevant because Palestine was not an official country: I dispute your argument. Palestine was not an official country, but it did have a national flag, a national currency, and passports, and "Palestinian" was a full-fledged nationality. And Palestinians were living in long-established communities, such as villages and cities. And the Palestinians were clamouring for nationalist independence. But let's go with your argument that Palestine was not an official country. Okay, what if, just prior to South Sudan or Timor-Leste becoming independent, a group of foreigners decided to claim a large chunk of South Sudan or Timor-Leste for themselves?

About that article by Benny Morris that you posted a link to: I started to read it. I was going to examine it. But then I realised that if I were to do that, I would have to access a copy of Ilan Pappe's book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine". That would take a couple of weeks. Then I would have to read the book and find out exactly where the passages are that Morris cites. Then I would also have to access the sources that Morris claims Pappe misrepresents. I figured I will not bother doing this. So, we could just take Morris' word for it all. Or we could do what I just did: personally e-mail Pappe a link to Morris' article and recommend Pappe respond to it himself.

The difference between Benny Morris on the one hand, and Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein on the other, is that they disagree on whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinian Arabs was a planned, centralised operation by the Zionists. What they do not disagree on is that Zionist militias subjected the Palestinian Arabs to massacres, forced expulsions, and rapes, and confiscated their property.

Correction to one of my earlier posts in this thread:

I just re-read that interview with Benny Morris that I posted a link to. It has been a number of years since I read it. In the interview he claims that the rapes and massacres were unjustifiable, but that the forced expulsions were perfectly justified.