The Albanese government support (irrelevant as it is) for a ‘two state solution' is crackers when neither of the two sides wants it. Israel is not likely to offer it ever again, and the other side just wants to wipe Israel and the Jews off the map. Total victory for Israel is the only way it is going to end.

Albanese's too indoctrinated with academic logic. These people don't want a solution in accordance with global common sense logic.

Albo should spend more time thinking how to get things back on track here instead of creating an unsolvable economic & social mess here ! He'd gain more popularity if he just handed Govt over to the Coalition till they go bad again as per usual.

It will affect Australia when we're paying $3 a litre for petrol when Iran controls gulf shipping. I just read that Biden has sent Israel 50,000 tons of US munitions in the last year. Therefore many of the 50,000 who died including children did so with the connivance of the US. Finishing on a low note Joe.

If there is no solution I presume the region will continue to lose 50,000 a year indefinitely. Half a million a decade. Along with thousands of homes and businesses. I wonder if a Trump victory would see that US arms flow stop since Iran seems to adhere to proportional response.

I wonder if Albanese and Wong have consulted their Western Sydney friends and Muslims in Labor seats on the two state system. It should have nothing to do with Australia, but Albanese and Wong are abusing foreign policy for the benefit of Labor.

Albanese is ignoring Israel and anti-Semitism while sucking up to Muslims. He did nothing to stop the anti-Semitic Opera House disgrace. He tried to counter the call for action by blathering about “Islamophobia”, which wasn't apparent at the event in question.

"There is no obvious negotiated quick fix-for the Israel-Palestine problem"

Correct. Therefore there should be a non-negotiable fix.

The 1967 war was between Israel and its surrounding Arab countries.
It had nothing to do with the so-called "Palestinians" that happened to be in between.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is otherwise archaic and practically over:
all Arab countries now want peace with Israel (Iran is not Arab),
which they no longer wish to destroy.

The only ones still wanting war, are Netanyahu (for personal reason) + the West-Bank Jewish-Messianic settlers
and Iran + its Islamic satellites.
Neither will negotiate.

The world, most importantly including the Arab countries, should therefore unite and simply order Israel to unconditionally withdraw to its pre-1967 border (and back that order with strong international troops if necessary), no if's or but's, while simultaneously making it clear to the so-called "Palestinians" that if they still trouble and unprovokedly terrorise Israel again in future even after gaining their land, then they will become fair-game and nobody (but Iran) will again come to their aid or blame Israel for killing them all.

Whether the "Palestinians" subsequently create their own independent state(s) or otherwise unite with Arab countries that agree to take them, will then be entirely their own business. Should they so wish, a deep (some 100 metres deep) and wide tunnel will then be constructed to freely connect the West-Bank with Gaza and/or Syria/Iraq.

In response to ttbn's first comment: At last something I can agree with.

The Zionists are no longer maintaining the pretence of simply destroying Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon with unfortunate collateral damage to a few Palestinian civilians. The Zionists business model from the start has been one of "ethnic cleansing" and genocide of the Palestinian people. In true Nazi fashion the Zionists have unleashed an extermination program on all Palestinian men, women and children that Adolf Hitler would be proud of! Now they see fit to attack UN peace keepers in Lebanon in defiance of UNSC resolutions, whilst at the same time introducing mass starvation and disease by cutting off food and medical aid to millions of innocent people.

The World should now be asking Netanyahu, "Where are your gas chambers?"

Dear Paul,

Who are those mysterious "Zionists" you were referring to?

Netanyahu and his gang are anything but Zionists - instead they ruin everything Zionism ever built.

As for gas chambers, Netanyahu is not interested in any final solution - because what he wants is a slow, never-ending war that will keep him indefinitely out of prison.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Zionists are those far right nationalistic Jews hellbent on exterminating the Palestinian people. Not to be confused with ordinary Israeli people, who are also suffering because of this unjust war. You may not like the term "Zionist" but I use that in preference to "Israeli" as the Israeli people are not terrorist, no more than the ordinary Palestinian people are terrorists, but 42,000 Palestinians and 1200 Israelis have paid the ultimate price with their lives.

Hi Paul

Given the frequency of accusations of genocide in this conflict, “where are the gas chambers” is a pertinent question. But it is surely best addressed to those levelling the accusation. If Israel is indeed guilty of genocide, where are the gas chambers?

And the answer, of course, is that there are none. Israel has not imprisoned people in death camps and sent them to gas chambers. It has not systematically rounded up and machine-gunned men, women, and children as the Nazis did at Babi Yar.

Accusations of genocide against Israel are particularly grotesque, for several reasons.

First, if there is one party to the conflict that is committed unashamedly to genocide, it is Hamas. It wants to destroy Israel and kill its Jewish (and many other) citizens. Its violent, totalitarian, racist ideology has much in common with Nazism. Yet it is Israel that is branded “Nazi” by demonstrators.

Secondly, it draws moral equivalence between what Israel has done in Gaza and what Germany did in the holocaust. This simultaneously downplays the scale and horror of the holocaust, and implies that Israel is no better than Nazi Germany. For anyone with a passing acquaintance with history, the equivalence is monstrous.

But this serves a third purpose, to feed the ancient anti-Semitic trope that Jews’ claim to be victims of persecution are unwarranted. By this logic, they are in fact the bad guys. Depending on which period of history you pick they are the baby-eaters, the well-poisoners, the Christ-killers, or the usurers who control the banking system. This falsehood has the added bonus of de-legitimising Zionism, whose central tenet is that Jews need their own homeland to be safe.

The loss of life In Gaza is horrific. Israel has been accused of committing war crimes, and some of these accusations may prove true. But it is not intent on genocide – if it was, the death toll would be much, much higher.

Indeed, John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, says that "Israel has done more to prevent civilian casualties in war than any military in history”.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your nice and consistent response, only you use the term "Zionist" in an unconventional manner. The original Zionists were positive and inclusive people, most of them were actually socialists and anything but "far right nationalistic Jews". Zionism used to have only good connotations - I think you do the the real Zionists injustice by supporting the evil people in Israel's government's false claim to their title.

---

Dear Rhian,

Well said, you put it out beautifully!

Nevertheless, it should also be mentioned that while Israel as a whole is not genocidal and the IDF is as humane as any army can be, there are members of the Israeli government who are Nazis, who push the others in that direction and would have erected gas chambers if they could get away with it, whose primary motive is not Israel's security, but to cleanse the land of non-Jews in order to prevent Jews from mixing and marrying with them.

And then, there is a prime-minister of Israel, not genocidal himself, but who unashamedly partnered up with these Nazis in order to save his own skin and avoid prison.

Hi Rhian,

""Where are your gas chambers?"" is not a literal statement of fact, as there is no need for Zionist gas chambers, but it implies a Zionist plan of annihilation of the Palestinian people in an organised fashion. Genocide can be achieved in many ways over a long period of time. One could use starvation, disease, destruction of peoples environment. Then there are direct methods such as shooting, poisoning, over time one could introduce mass sterilisation as a control method, there are lots of ways to dispose of the unwanted. Turkey committed genocide against the Armenian people, and they didn't need to gas one victim, they simply marched them into the Syrian desert and left them to die "naturally".

"if there is one party to the conflict that is committed unashamedly to genocide, it is Hamas. It wants to destroy Israel." Agree, but it does not justify Zionist genocide at the same time.

Put it this way, which is the most dangerous snake, the Cobra, or the Rattle snake? The answer is simple; its the one that bites you. For Israelis its Hamas, for Palestinians its Zionists. You cannot murder 42,000 innocent people then claim you have no plan for their destruction.

"John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, says that "Israel has done more to prevent civilian casualties in war than any military in history”. Really, West Point you say, a well established training ground for murderers. Good on Johnny!

Dear Paul

Yes, I know that your gas chamber comment was not meant to be taken literally, but that was my point. Israel is not using gas chambers. Or mass sterilisations. Or any of the other means of committing genocide you described. Nor does the death toll in this conflict – horrific though it is – come anywhere close to the loss of human life in actual episodes of genocide, or even most convention wars in comparable conditions. And to suggest that Israel is using gas chambers, even if only for by analogy for rhetorical effect and not intended to be taken literally, is in rather poor taste given the millions of Jewish people who died in actual, non-metaphorical gas chambers.

If Israel really wanted to commit genocide, it could very easily kill far more people than it has.

It could perhaps do better at facilitating food convoys into Gaza. It could perhaps take more measures to minimize civilian casualties as it tries to incapacitate Hamas. It may even have committed war crimes if it didn’t try hard enough to do these things. But Spencer – who as you say, perhaps knows a thing or two about war – said, no other combatant has done more.

I don’t think Israel had a plan to kill 42,000 people. But after October 7, it had a plan to incapacitate Hamas. Given the high population density in Gaza and Hamas’s habit of using civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shields, a high death toll was inevitable.

If you disagree with Spencer’s point, can you name a combatant in any comparable recent war that did better?

Hi Rhian,

I don't believe there is a benchmark for genocide, asking for comparisons is of little value. We often resort to the, "lesser of two evils" argument to justify a certain action we condone. There are those in power in Israel, that given the opportunity would instigate a "total genocide" policy against the Palestinian people in an act of a final solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem. World opinion is putting a restraint on such a policy at the moment, but it may well come about. At best the Israelis have scant regard for the collateral damage their military action is inflicting on the innocent.

A question; What do you believe is the Israeli policy for the future of the Palestinian people? Obviously they want to neuter them militarily and politically, that's not in question. There is about 5 or 6 million Palestinians in the region, they require space. How in the future will Israel provide that space.

BTW; The Palestinian people are already the most displaced people in the world.

Spencer may well be knowledgeable on the subject, but he may also be biased.

Hi Paul

According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is “a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part”. So while there is no numeric threshold defining genocide, the number of people killed, and why, are vital pointers to the question of whether the crime of genocide is being committed. You yourself have argued that the number of casualties in Gaza is evidence of genocide.

These are the reasons I do not think it applies in Israel’s case.

If Israel wanted to destroy the people of Gaza, “in whole or in part”, it could do so.

It has often taken measures to protect civilians, for example warning them to leave areas it was about to strike, and establishing a “humanitarian corridor” for civilians to escape Northern Gaza (Hamas tried to stop them leaving).

It has taken other measures to protect civilians, for example agreeing to a ceasefire to roll out polio vaccinations for children.

Hundreds of trucks enter Gaza from Israel each month carrying food aid. The UN and relief agencies say it is not enough. But if Israel’s intent was genocide, it would be zero.

When it has attacked civilian infrastructure and population concentrations it has argued, and usually provided evidence, that they were being used by Hamas to shield military equipment and personnel.

As the conflict has progressed and Israel has taken control of large swathes of Gaza, the weekly death toll has slowed dramatically, and the proportion of women and children killed has dropped. That is consistent with Israel’s claim to be targeting Hamas, but the opposite of what you would expect if its intent were to commit genocide.

I ask again, can you name a war in which any side has done more to protect its enemies’ civilians?

Hi Rhian,

According to your UN quote, the actions of the Zionists in Gaza fits the definition of genocide. "(genocide) a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part”. The murder of 42,000 innocent people, the systematic destruction of homes, the destruction of infrastructure, the withholding of aid, attests to that being the case.

"If Israel wanted to destroy the people of Gaza, “in whole or in part (in part have achieved that)”, it could do so." Agree, the only thing holding them back is world opinion, particularly the humanitarian criticism from their big ally the US. The aid you mentioned is nothing more than a sop, the Nazi's actually fed people in Auschwitz, so does that indicate their intention was not genocidal, me thinks not. BTW all your argument is off the Israeli song sheet, just like the way the Nazi's showed a Swedish Delegation during WWII how well the Jews were being looked after in Auschwitz, they even made a film of it.

Your question; "can you name a combatant in any comparable recent war that did better (in regards to genocide?" That is a subjective question, which can only be answered subjectively as there is no means to quantify genocide. I could say the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, but it would be meaningless.

You have not answered my questions;

What do you believe is the Israeli policy for the future of the Palestinian people? Obviously they want to neuter them militarily and politically, that's not in question. There is about 5 or 6 million Palestinians in the region, they require space. How in the future will Israel provide that space?

'The questionable merit of Australia's official support for a two-state solution to the Palestine conflict'

- The questionable part about it is it's merely lip service.

Hi Paul

During WW2:

The German Blitz deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure in the UK, killing about 40,000 civilians and destroying 2 million homes.

In the siege of Leningrad, the Nazis blockaded, systematically starved and bombarded the city, resulting in “the greatest destruction and the largest loss of life ever known in a modern city”. About 1.5 million died.

In 1941 Stalin instituted a “scorched earth” policy, destroying schools and homes and killing thousands of civilians in Latvia.

The Allies bombed Dresden in 1945, destroying the city centre and killing up to 25,000 people in just two days. It is widely considered the city had no military significance to justify this attack.

And of course in 1945 the USA dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – neither of which was considered a significant military target – pretty much destroying both cities and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Some of these may be deemed war crimes. But none is considered genocide, even though all entailed deliberate targeting of civilians resulting in many deaths, because the deaths were instrumental – a means to an end, not an end it itself.

On your specific points:

If my argument is off the Israeli song sheet – or yours is off the Hamas song sheet – that of itself doesn’t make us right or wrong.

The Nazis fed people in Auschwitz – yes, but that’s because they wanted some of them to work before they died. Those who went straight to the gas chambers weren’t fed. At Leningrad, starvation was deliberate.

I didn’t ask you to quantify genocide, I asked if there were any cases in a comparable conflict you could think of in which a major combatant did more than Israel has done to protect is enemies’ civilian population.

Actually, the Franco-Prussian war – specifically the siege of Paris - was in some ways analogous to Gaza. The city was surrounded and bombarded and starved into submission. Unlike Israel, the Prussians refused to allow any food into the city until the defenders surrendered. Many people starved.

Hi Paul

Sorry, I'm finally getting round to answering your question.

I don’t know what plan Israel has for the Palestinian people. I suspect not many people do.

I imagine Israel for now will be focussed on a plan for the Israeli people, but that’s never going to work if it doesn’t provide a long-term solution to the plight of the Palestinians, too. Coming back to the article that began this thread, I support a two-state solution - as originally intended, with Palestine and Israel agreeing to recognise each other and co-exist peacefully. The article may be right that this is a long way off, with minimal support from either side at present, but things can change quickly in war. And I can’t think of any plausible better alternative.

If you had asked the question about Israel’s plans a few weeks ago, I’d have guessed it was to incapacitate Hamas, destroy its tunnels, weapons and infrastructure, free or negotiate the release of the hostages, and then return to something like the situation before October 2023, but with a changed administration in Gaza and even greater restrictions to try to prevent Hamas or its successor/s re-arming.

But since the targeted attacks on Hezbollah and its leaders and invasion of Lebanon, I’d guess it has a broader plan to more fundamentally shift the power balance in the Middle East. This is horribly risky, but it’s just possible it could lead to the best outcomes for the people not just of Israel but of Gaza, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and even Iran and Syria

Hi Rhian,

"I (Rhian) don’t know what plan Israel has for the Palestinian people. I suspect not many people do."

I suspect members of the Israel war cabinet, Netanyahu, and the dominate radical right in Israel have a definite "plan" for the future of the Palestinian people. If its not complete genocide, which is unlikely to be achieved, its some plan where by the Palestinians will become an integrated underclass (slavish class) within a super state of Israeli, only existing to serve the Israelis. There will be no Palestinian state as such, many will simply join the already huge number of Palestinian refugees in the Middle East.

As for "song sheets" I don't consider the daily news coverage, or the UN reports and statements, reports from relief agencies, nor the words of Biden and other Western leaders as being part of the Hamas song sheet. On the other hand there is little independent evidence to support the Israeli spin on events.

The two state solution, unfortunate it is now becoming nothing more than "pissing in the wind" as the dominant Zionists will not accept it, they want nothing less than total control through a one state of greater Israel.

Just on the genocide of European Jewry by the Nazi's, who were in power for 12 years, with at least 4 years of total control of Europe. In that time the Nazi's developed a well documented plan/method for extermination, but given all that, they were only able to murder about 66% of the total Jewish population. It shows that complete genocide is a difficult thing to achieve, well it was for the Nazi's, and I suspect it will be just as difficult for the Zionists.

Dear Paul,

Netanyahu has no plan.
He can only think one day ahead, how to survive.
He is running for his life, like a mouse
or like Sinwar escaping from tunnel to tunnel,
trying to navigate the impossible maze of internal Israeli politics,
doing every possible dirty in the book and out of the book
so he can remain prime-minister and avoid prison.

For that he needs the smoke-screen of war.
Against whom? Doesn't matter, just as long as there is a war.
Win or lose? Neither, just have the war going for as long as possible.
Of course he doesn't care how many "Palestinians" are killed
- he doesn't care how many Israelis are killed either!
But he always needs some of them to remain alive, and armed,
never to burn the candle too quickly.

Two state solution?
He doesn't care whether it is one or two or three of four;
He doesn't care whether any state remains, including Israel;
It is the third word he dreads, only the third, in any shape or form!

Hi Paul

It was you who first used the term “song sheet”. My comments, like yours, reflect fairly common views in the mainstream media, which include a wide variety of opinions on this matter, some supporting your view, some mine.

Neither Biden nor any other western leader has accused Israel of genocide, and Biden has explicitly said Israel is not, and been highly critical of those making the accusation. He has repeatedly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, while calling for restraint and working towards a ceasefire. So you are wrong to say Biden and western leaders support your position on genocide.

The United Nations has proven hopelessly biased and incompetent in this conflict, and it has a long and shameful history of blatant bias against Israel. Some of its personnel almost certainly participated in the October 7 atrocities. I do not regard it as a credible independent authority in this conflict.

The Nazis didn’t ever control all of Europe, and they didn’t decide on the “final solution” until 1941. Systematic genocide using gas chambers peaked between 1942 and 1944, by which time either the Allies were liberating camps or the Germans were blowing up gas chambers before the Allies could find them. And the process was difficult and complex - Jews had to be transported from all over occupied Europe to death camps. If Israel wanted to commit genocide in Gaza, the task would be far easier. The numbers involved are much smaller, and the population is conveniently concentrated.

Two-thirds of Europe’s Jews died in the Holocaust. Less then 2% of Gaza’s population has died in this conflict, according to the Gaza Health Ministry

Hi Rhian,

Been a good discussion between us on this terrible subject. I didn't mean anything nasty with the use of the words "song sheet", just a convenient way of putting things. The words of Hamas are not worth "a pint of piss" but the number of dead civilians (40,000 plus) is irrefutable. On UN involvement October 7th, seems there were a few low level personnel, a couple of labourers, UN employed Palestinians, a couple of many involved, but that doesn't indicate UN sanctioned involvement by anyone, certainly not high ranking officials, there was no UN plan of involvement.

"Neither Biden nor any other western leader has accused Israel of genocide" I didn't say they had, however they have been in some instance highly critical (something you don't see with Ukraine) of Israeli action.

The Nazi Holocaust is histories best example of a determined and organised attempt to eradicate a race of people on a massive scale. But as I said they achieved a figure of 66%. That only demonstrates how difficult it is to undertake a program of total genocide.

Hi Yuyutsu,

What you say about Netanyahu, he is a puppet under the control of the Zionist radical right in Israel. More dead Israelis simply helps him personally and politically. Did you see the Jewish settlers eyeing off (from 6 miles away) Gaze, they plan to create new settlements in Gaze when the future opportunity. One woman with an American accent when asked about the massive death toll of Palestinians, she thought it was all "very good"...more the better, so it seems.

Hi Paul

I didn’t take the “song sheet” comment as nasty, just pointed out that some of the authorities you cited are singing a very different tune to yours.

Otherwise, we wind up our conversation with some agreement.

The death toll is horrible, and I don’t dispute the number. I have seen arguments that it may be higher or lower, and I suspect the number will turn out to be higher – there may be many unaccounted for under the rubble of the early stages of the war.

I also agree that the UN participants in the 7 October attacks were relatively low-level employees acting without official sanction. It still points, though, to the organisation’s culture and ideological orientation (not many would-be genocidal rapists would go unnoticed in the staff of other organisations with such sensitive roles, even relatively junior employees), as does the fact that UNRWA schools and its Gaza HQ have been used as shields for Hamas facilities and personnel (though the UN claims it didn’t know they were there)