After a senior Fairfax exec attacked Ted Lapkin for taking exception to Leunig's cartoon, I wrote to the SMH that anyone who criticised Leunig should be praised for their discernment. Sadly, the SMH chose not to publish my dissenting voice.

If you take Leunig's recent Ariel Sharon cartoon as an example. (The one where a comatose Sharon has enough life to be able to lift a finger to order the death of an old Palestinian man):

The point surely is that men as powerful as Sharon would order such acts with the wink of an eye, the nod of a head or the turning of a 'blind eye'. The 'thumbs down' was used to order the deaths of gladiators, was it not?

Leunig quite legitimately portrays Sharon as quite capable of such an act. All those who have been so critical of the Islamic response to the Danish cartoons, and say they believe in free speech, seem less vocal when it is the 'West' which is being ridiculed.

Just listen to the deafening silence from the right when this Government brought in the recent so called Sedition laws.

Israel has a lot to answer for. So do the Palestinian terrorists. But just because violence is conducted by a State Government, does not make it legitimate. Even more reason in fact why it should be the subject of scrutiny and ridicule.

People of Leunig's immense creativity and humanity are rare in Australia, and of course the right wing elites will do their best to destroy him.

Anti-Zionism is just the new-age slogan to Anti-Jews or "The disbelievers"

Islam's Hatred of the Jews (and Christians) started with Mohammad 14 centuries ago.

Some quotes from Mo's terrorist manual:

2:6-7 "As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom."

2:286, 3:147 "Give us victory over the disbelieving folk."

3:28 "Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers."

3:32 "Allah loveth not the disbelievers."

3:56 "As for those who disbelieve I shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world and the Hereafter; and they will have no helpers."

3:85 "Whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter."

4:91 "Take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant."

4:101 "The disbelievers are an open enemy to you."

4:144 "Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?"

5:51 "Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. ... He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them."

8:39 "Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah."

9:5 "Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush."

9:29 "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah."

9:73 "Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end."

Leunig is a depressed-looking, whingeing middle aged man badly needing a haircut. Not unlike many left wing malcontents who think their views on everything are the right ones. He gets all whiney and victimish when criticised or accused.

He is entitled to be pro or anti anything he pleases, but he is not someone we need to concern oursleves with. The day we look to cartoonists for anything but a laugh will be a sad one.

This is hardly a surprising article echoing from the mainstream voice. Agreed, Leunig’s cartoons are often extreme and radical, but that’s entirely the angle. He is making a political point, and instead of whining about its extremity and ‘anti-Zionism’ perhaps the state of Israel can sit up and take notes. If 100 innocent civilians die, it doesn’t matter how it happened. The end result is what matters, and for that reason there is little difference between the tactics of both sides in this conflict.

Oh an as for ‘abusing of the Holocaust for political gain’, seems a tad hypocritical to me. Perhaps a quick read of Norman Finkelstein’s book ‘The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso, New York, 2000’ would offer some insight on the topic…

The headline of the Philip Mendes article "The strange dalliance between Michael Leunig and Iranian Holocaust deniers" is not supported by the article - it is totally misleading to talk of any "daliance". What connection has Leunig with Iran?

Does Leunig wish to deny history or to use his cartoons to attack Jewish people OR does he merely want to point out that more recent history needs more balance than it gets in the mainstream media.

While Mendes is entitled to the moderate [but in my view wrong] views expressed in his article, his attack on Leunig's mentioning the Holocaust as an ironic backdrop to current Israeli oppression of Palestinians is unreasonable. It may offend some who see the symbols of the Holocaust as sacred and off-limits for all but reverant mention, but it is not invalid to mention the irony of a nation that finds itself committing human rights violations in its own defence against the historical background of the circumstances of the formation of their nation.

If the media was more ethical and even-handed, it would report EVERY violation of human rights, including those perpetrated by Palestinians AND Israellies. Leunig provides a small contribution to a more balanced media.

Britains most decorated war correspondent, Robert Fisk, has produced a book "The Great War for Civilisation" which puts western media to shame on these issues for what they have ignored. In March Fisk is lecturing in Sydney [6th & 10th] and Canberra [9th] and at the Adelaide Writers Festival [8th & 9th].

Doctor Mendes, I think you have missed the point...

"Instructively, the Iranians chose to mock Jews rather than the Danes who had perpetrated the original offence."

"... they could have published cartoons mocking Moses or Jewish religious practices."

Raising the issue of the Holocaust when discussing free speech need not have anything to do with anti-semitism. It refers instead to the laws that still exist in many European countries preventing free expression of opinions about the Holocaust.

Mocking Danes, Moses, or Jewish religious practises would in no way test freedom of speech in the West, because these topics already enjoy complete freedom.

Although I have no problem acknowledging the Holocaust, I can't help but see some double standards as Europe condemns Islamic censorship while retaining such laws.

Bob James, good point.

There seem to be several places in this article where Mendes seems to think he has shown that Leunig's condemnation for Israel constitutes support for Palestinian violence. I don't see it.

And why must the Holocaust/modern-Israel comparison trivialise the Holocaust? If incorrect, it is equally likely to be a sensationalisation of modern Israeli policy.

I don't think I agree with Leunig either, but (as Bob James mentions) at least it lessens the contrived consensus that Israel are always "the good guys".

It's never good guys versus bad guys. It's one set of bastards vs another.

Claiming that one side's slaughter of civilians is justified is simply offensive. Does that make me an anti-Semite or an Islamophobe?

As far as I can gather, the opposition of the far left to Israel is mainly derived from their ferocious anti-americanism, and hence opposition to a country that principally depends on american support. In this world there is such a thing as guilt by association, and I wouldn't think it very wise for the far left to get too cozy with the muslim extremists. Like it or not, Australia has been targeted early on by the extremists, (remember Bali 2002), and this targeting has little to do with the Iraq war. It is also obvious that the Australian electorate is not going to tolerate the existence of a fifth column of extremists within the country. The recent anti-terrorist legislation was beyond the power of the Commonwealth Parliament alone to enact, and therefore had to be passed by all the states as well, a procedure that has only occurred three or four times since federation, and which represents overwhelming bipartisan political endorsement of the new laws.

As far as Israel is concerned, the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" would apply above all else, and most Australians would consider Israel to be an ally, and Palestine to be an enemy.

I don't understand why leftist hypocrites can't see how flimsy the positions they take are. That they'll publish an image of the "Piss Christ" and claim Christians are medieval if they protest, yet won't publish Mohammed cartoons out of respect.

Respect? Nothing other than their cowardly fear, at least admit it!

I personally have no problem with any cartoons being published, of Jews, or Christians. I don't believe anything should be off-limits, but such a standard must be applied equally.

Has anybody ever seen a float of Muslims in the Mardi Gra? Say of Lesbians in burqa's, on leashes held by gays dressed as clerics? Why not? Has Fred Nile ever said we should massacre gays as some Australian Islamic clerics have? (anyone interested I will provide links to a meeting Keysar Trad was at, among others)

I just can't stand the hypocrisy, cowardly nature of the editors. And only a week after Muslims worldwide showed their true nature, that many are barbarians who will kill over a cartoon, SBS published pics of Abu Graib photo's, which WILL enflame anger.

Besides the photos, apart from 1, being nothing bad, they were just of dead bodies, big deal - it's not as if the US killed them in cold blood, yet this is torture? Undies on heads, faeces rubbed on their faces? Come on, this is ugly yes, but torture is those underground cells they've recently found in Iraq where Sunni's are tortured with acid that peels skin, hung from the roof until wrists dislocate. Yet not a word from the Muslim world.

Do they even care about torture? No. They only care when it's a non-Muslim doing it.

I really don't understand some of the people here...

FREE speech is exactly that.... free. It can be one persons opinion, it can be a group of people's opinions and so on and so on.

So Leunig's cartoons are his opinions as to how he sees the world. Why then does he have to be labelled leftist. Surely you can have an opinion without being right, left, middle, fascist, communist etc.

To those who bag his cartoons you don't understand the simplest concept of free speech. I am quite happy to listen to your opinion and you are free to hold it and speak it... but so is Leunig.

Cartoonist are usually controversial... It is what they do... Is every cartoonist a lefty?

As I have said many times if it offends you don't look at it... Simple really... It's the same argument as turning off the TV when you don't like a show...

But if you deny someone's right to free speech then you shouldn't be a hypocrit... deny your own as well and shut your mouth or in this case stop typing!

so what ben? sbs shouldnt have shown the photos out of respect for the americans? or because they were not that bad, or not done 'in cold blood'?

just one paragraph ago you were attacking the 'hypocracy of the left' for not publishing the cartoons (strange since the more right leaning papers in this country declined to publish them too), and for showing 'respect' to muslim sensabilities. so you defend the 'right' to publish cartoons critical of all religions. but attack the 'right' (or duty) of a news broadcaster to publish photos of torture and (potentialy) murder?

not only that but you appear to criticise sbs on the basis that publishing the photos will futher inflame anger in the muslim world at the same time as reveling in the confirmation of your prejudices in 'barbaric' nature of the response to the cartoons.

the double standards and hypocracy are all yours.

as far as i can remember sbs have censored neither their vision of the abuse in abu grade, nor the riots and deaths in islamic countries following the disemination of the cartoons. and nor should they.

Why, all of the sudden is Leunig not proud of his work? What is wrong with his work being published in an Iranian newspaper...he did draw this cartoon did'nt he?

Leunig should stand tall and proud of his work, where-ever it is published.

Cause and Effect.

His work is viewed as a type of art, therefore his cartoons are somewhat timeless.

His cartoons are always at others expense, this guy has a distinct pattern of low self esteem orientated humour, directed at his chosen peoples/religions.

You dont smear yourself in honey then run at a beehive, he must be aware of the possible backlash of his cartoons, yet this is probably what drives him, giving him that taste of importance he so desperately yearns for.

You go deliberately picking fights and stirring up the pot you must face the consequences. Free speech is one thing, tastless shots to antagonise a particular group is another. We have a right to free speech, but those on the recieving end have a right to slander, defamation and if the shoe does not fit, ANGER at this pork chop. By printing it, it says you approve of this brand of humour.

I hope this bloke has a well guarded facility, i would not like to be him.

Cartoonists should stick to Tin Tin and sitting in their rooms with no mates, not blatant poor humour knocking others.

"Why, all of the sudden is Leunig not proud of his work? What is wrong with his work being published in an Iranian newspaper...he did draw this cartoon did'nt he?

"Leunig should stand tall and proud of his work, where-ever it is published."

I'm sure Leunig does stand tall and proud, even if he does need a haircut, but art is interpreted in the context in which it is shown. For example, Russian Jewish painter Marc Chagall's fine 1908 painting, Red Nude Sitting Up, http://www.artsoho.net/img/chagalls01.jpg would be admired in an Australian art gallery, but would not go down at all well in a public exhibition in Teheran, where women expose their head hair - much less their pubic hair - only in private.

Leunig is probably concerned that his cartoon connotes something quite else in an Iranian newspaper than it would have in an Australian one - something that he did not wish to express at all.

After all, it was not he who sent it to the Iranian paper. It was the mob at Chaser, http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/02/15-1506-7237.html

Abbott and Costello Meet the 12th Imam.

"Health Minister Tony Abbott has warned against ostracising or “shouting down” hardline Muslims, saying it would be a mistake to dismiss those advocating sharia law as “un-Australian”. In contrast to federal treasurer Peter Costello’s attack on “mushy, misguided multiculturalism”.

Why don't we start with you Tony. I think the local inman wants to marry your 9 year old daughter! Cheers!

Mr. Howard, please bring this knucklehead to heel... Mr. Abbott is really down under, down dhimmi under the Islamic jack boot.

1) There is no such "dalliance".
2) Leunig "gained international notoriety and infamy"? I don't think so.
3) The active state-terrorism of "Israeli pilots drop[ping] bombs on Palestinian civilians" (and flying home for dinner and a pat on the back) is always worse, morally and in scale, than the reactive terrorism of those who strike back. The thinking behind such reactive terrorism, however futile, counterproductive and immoral, reduces essentially to 'If we do nothing, we suffer. If we resist, we suffer. But so do they.' Palestinian violence is a reaction to their dispossession and oppression. Israeli violence comes from a refusal to acknowledge Israel's responsibility for that dispossession and oppression.
4)"A second cartoon...suggested that the Israelis had driven the Palestinians off their land [correct in 1948 and continuing in 2006], systematically oppressed them [correct: 1948-2006], and slandered those who defend them [correct: Dr Phil's claim that Leunig is dallying with Iranian Holocaust deniers and accusing him of "anti-Jewish racism", for example.]
5)Leunig is guilty of "pro-Palestinian bias"? Or perhaps he's just an instinctive supporter of the ill-treated and downtrodden. Dr Phil, of course, couldn't be accused of 'pro-Israel bias' now, could he?
6)"Leunig simplistically constructs [realistically recognises] the Middle East conflict as the powerful State of Israel [armed to the teeth, nuclearised and with the unconditional backing of Imperial America] oppressing the defenceless [essentially true] and innocent Palestinians [historically correct]."
7)Leunig "suggests that Israel is inficting genocide upon the Palestinians"? If he is, then he's in good company: Article 11 of the 1948 Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide as (a)killing members of a group (b)causing serious bodily harm to members of the group (c)deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
8)Leunig "has abused the holocaust for political gain". This is rank hypocrisy. Dr Phil, dare yourself to read Norman G Finkelstein's 'The Holocaust Industry; Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering'.

strewth
"The active state-terrorism of "Israeli pilots drop[ping] bombs on Palestinian civilians" (and flying home for dinner and a pat on the back) is always worse, morally and in scale, than the reactive terrorism of those who strike back. The thinking behind such reactive terrorism, however futile, counterproductive and immoral, reduces essentially to 'If we do nothing, we suffer. If we resist, we suffer. But so do they.' Palestinian violence is a reaction to their dispossession and oppression. Israeli violence comes from a refusal to acknowledge Israel's responsibility for that dispossession and oppression."

is there no difference between targeting militants and missing, as compared with targeting civilians and hitting?

4)"A second cartoon...suggested that the Israelis had driven the Palestinians off their land [correct in 1948 and continuing in 2006], systematically oppressed them [correct: 1948-2006], and slandered those who defend them

Israel has much more right to the land it occupies than non-aboriginal australians do to australia. It was australian and other brittish troops, I believe, who rescued the arabs and palestinians from the ottomon empire at thier own request. Then using laws used consistently by all states throughout history it became theirs to do with as they would. As a recognition of the constant anti-semitism in europe the brittish offered a tiny part of that land to the Jewish diaspora so they no longer needed to live in oppressive societies in europe. and after all the Jewish people had occupied that land for over two thousand years, whereas the palestinians have only been there for just under 1500 years.

Just so you ignorant lefties know, there has not been continuous war ever since. Or oppression ever since. These have slowly scaled up to the present state. When you lefties all go and live in england, giving all you own to aboriginals before you leave, australians may be able to take you seriously!

Strewth – good post. I already referred to Norman’s book earlier on this thread, and am still waiting for response..

Fide – Indigenous people’s do have a right to their land – agreed. But to use this as some sort of counter-argument against Israeli imperialism and genocide is absolutely ridiculous. Injustice is injustice, it isn’t less so just because it has occurred before. And to impute that anyone who is remotely critical of Israeli policy is a ‘lefty’ and not taken seriously by what you call ‘Australians’ is also consistently bone-headed. I would like to think impartiality and tolerence is a feature of all Australians, rather than a reason to be critical of ones own countrymen.

So really, you make no point. Regardless of how long either side has been there, the fact is that the Jew’s were allocated a specific postion of land, have since open transceded original boundaries, and attempted to take as much land as possible. Just in case you didn’t notice, they are the aggressor, they are the ones with the capacity to withdraw to original boundaries. They are the ones who aim misslies at refugee camps and villages and then see no hypocrisy when criticising Palestinian suicide bombers targeting of civilians.

So really, it appears you are the ignorant one here, as far as I can tell…..

jkenno, did you miss this point in Fida Mae's post:

"is there no difference between targeting militants and missing, as compared with targeting civilians and hitting?"

Who exactly is ignorant?

fide mae,
1) "Targeting militants"? Do you mean 'merely alleging that a Palestinian civilian is engaging in armed resistance to Israel's illegal occupation of his land and executing him"? Sorry, fide, that's premeditated murder, a war crime under international law. If you think that's OK then you can hardly blame what you call Palestinian terrorists from assuming that just because an Israeli civilian is going to end up a member of that trigger-happy gang aka the Israeli Occupation Forces he is therefore fair game.
2) "Israel has much more right to the land it occupies than non-aboriginal australians do to australia." Why?
3) "australian and other brittish troops...rescued the arabs and palestinians from the ottoman empire at their own request." If so, it's a wonder they haven't asked "australian and other brittish troops" to rescue them from the Israeli empire.
4) "Then using laws used consistently by all states throughout history..." Do you mean the law of the jungle? If so, why cavil with "militants...targeting civilians"?
5) "constant anti-semitism in europe": Are you suggesting that Europeans are innately anti-Semitic? "the Jewish diaspora": European Jewry were in exile? They weren't Europeans? "the brittish offered them a tiny part of that land": What gave "the brittish" the right to give away someone else's land? And didn't they add a proviso to their generous offer of 1917: "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
6) "ignorant lefties"? The pot calls the kettle - my Liberal Party branch will be amused.
7) Are you unaware that before Australian law indigenous and non-indigenous Australians are equal before the law and live in an open, pluralistic and secular state, while the majority of Palestine's indigenous Palestinian Arab population rot in refugee camps outside Palestine's borders, and the rest either live under Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories or as 2nd class citizens under a form of apartheid in a Jewish state?

Philip Mendes looks like he is conducting a smear operation against Leunig, by attempting to link him to the Iranian newspaper when Leunig had no link with anything to do with Iran.
Dr Mendes would surely know that cartoonists, along with painters, writers and academics, often produce work that they decide not to publish for one reason or another. Leunig chose not to publish and can hardly be blamed if someone obtained his cartoon illegally and published it without his knowledge.
Despite this, Dr Mendes writes, "This cartoon can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to diminish and trivialise the extent of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust by comparing Jews with Nazis. It was particularly hurtful to Holocaust survivors." In this case there was obviously no attempt at all by Leunig to publish the cartoon and Dr Mendes should clearly apologise for this unjust allegation.
But Dr Mendes raises the much more serious issue of diminishing and trivialising the Holocaust. Can he not see that this is being done most effectively by the Zionists (I use that word to distinguish between those Israelis who approve of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and those who do not)? If it is acceptable for the Zionists to commit genocide against the Palestinians, what does that tell the world about the genocide of the Holocaust? If the genocide of the Holocaust was a crime against humanity, which it surely was, it is logically inconsistent to claim that genocide against the Palestinians is somehow acceptable. (Strewth gave the definition of genocide in an earlier post.)
The real problem for supporters of Zionism is that they can employ no argument about injustice etc that the Palestinians cannot also employ. The Palestinians, on the other hand, can rightfully ask, "The persecution of the Jews has ceased. Why are we, after more than 50 years, still being persecuted?"

Zarath (1 March) is completely wrong. She claims that Leunig did not want his cartoon comparing Israel to the Nazis to be published. In fact it was the then Editor of The Age Michael Gawenda who refused to publish the cartoon on the grounds that it was racist. The cartoon was subsequently featured on Media Watch with Leunig’s apparent approval. Leunig is still complaining that the Age refused to publish it.

Both Zarath and Strewth (28 February) accuse Israel of genocide. This claim has no factual or historical basis, and simply reflects their partisan view on the conflict. The reality is that partisans of both sides see their side as pure and innocent, and the other side as evil. The Palestinians believe the creation of Israel was in itself an “original sin”, and that all subsequent events can be attributed to that perfidy. Unqualified supporters of Israel equally see the Palestinian/Arab attack in an attempt to prevent Israel’s creation in 1948 as the source of all subsequent violence. This polarisation is reflected in the somewhat ironic title of historian Benny Morris’s seminal work on the conflict, Righteous Victims.

A more balanced view would note that this conflict dates back almost six decades, and that both sides have committed terrible acts of violence.

Many long-time supporters of a two-state solution such as myself believe that there was a genuine chance for peace during the Camp David negotiations of July 2000. We also note that the subsequent Palestinian Intifada destroyed the only Israeli Government that has ever offered the Palestinians an independent state. This is why some of us have become more critical of Palestinian strategies and motives over the past five or so years. It is a pity that some supporters of the Palestinians can’t understand why this might be a fair judgement.

Philip Mendes

'radical phil' - whilst I do not doubt you are well intentioned, your post offers little. The point here is that the mainstream media (and really society at large,) continually paints a one-sided picture of this conflict. Thus, the vast majority of the posts here have seeked to point out the hypocrisy of the Israeli/Zionist criticisms of the Palestinians. It seems straightforward because it plainly is. See previous posts.

To blame the Palestinians solely is nothing but to echo popular, misguided opinion on the subject. Simply, those “long-time supporters of a two-state solution” recognise that the Israeli’s have had ample opportunity at settlement since original annexation. This is not to excuse the Palestinians of their actions, but can we at least apply the same theory to both sides??

True, its not about finger pointing. But if people want to point fingers, they should be squarley aimed at both sides. In my opinion, the fact that Israel is such a powerful, well-resourced and well-supported state makes their conduct much more unforgivable

Dr Mendes claims I and others have no basis in fact of accusing Israel of genocide. An earlier post authoritatively defined genocide. If Dr Mendes wishes to substanitate his claim he must show that Israel has done none of those things. I think the evidence is so overwhelming that he cannot deny these actions. Of course the Palestinians have also done some of those things, but on a much lesser scale and any claim of "moral equivalence" runs into the difficulty that it is the Palestinians who have been invaded. As George Washington said, occupied people have a right to rise up against their invaders.
It seems I might be wrong about Leunig having no intention of publishing one of the cartoons. I can well understand that Zionists do not like being compared with Nazis but censoring a cartoon in a society which supposedly values free speech and raises an issue very pertinent to that society is not a progressive move. I have not seen the cartoon but from what I have heard, including from Dr Mendes, the cartoon was not racist but criticised the behaviour of two groups, in this case Nazis and Zionists, for their inhumane treatment of other people. To criticise inhumanity is not racism.
And I am sorry, Dr Mendes, but any attempt to equate the Palestinians' belief that "the creation of Israel was in itself an 'original sin', and that all subsequent events can be attributed to that perfidy" with supporters of Israel believing "the Palestinian/Arab attack [was] an attempt to prevent Israel’s creation in 1948 as the source of all subsequent violence" is no more than a sophisticated attempt to use language to twist the course of history beyond recognition. Just as it is to claim that the 2000 Camp David deal offered the Palestinians any acceptable measure of freedom.
The Zionists still have no argument the Palestinians cannot also use.

Two responses to jkenno: 1) Whilst you accuse the media of pro-Israel bias from your particular perspective, in contrast the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews believe the media is overwhelmingly biased towards the Palestinians. Personally, I believe most of the Australian media is pretty balanced, although some journalists such as Ed O’loughlin of The Age clearly favour the Palestinians, whilst some others such as Greg Sheridan favour Israel.
2) As for offering criticisms of both sides, I spent almost 20 years criticizing Israeli settlements and the settlers movement. I still detest both. But in the last five years it has become clear that Palestinian strategies are also key barriers to peace: the use of violence and terror against Israeli civilians as a first rather than last resort, the demand for absolute justice rather than conflict resolution based on compromise from both sides as reflected in the recent election of the racist Hamas movement to power, and demands for a return of 1948 refugees not to the Palestinian territories but to Green Line Israel. Let’s hear some genuine Palestinian peace activists criticizing these actions just as the Israeli peace movement campaigns against the settlements.

To Zarath, I would say that comparing Israel to Nazis, and in the same breath accusing Israel of genocide is absurd. Last time I checked there were no concentration camps or gas chambers in Ramallah or Nablus, and the Israelis had not put to death six million Palestinian civilians. Two many Palestinians and Israelis have died in the last 57 years, but far fewer than in commensurate conflicts such as East Timor. If you want to make comparisons that are not offensive to the survivors of real genocide, then try to put things in proportion.
Philip

Dr Phil,
You claim that Leunig's cartoon was "a deliberate attempt to diminish and trivialise the extent of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust by comparing Jews with Nazis." Can you refer us to any such outrage in any of your writings, directed at the Gaza settlers who wore orange Stars of David, tattooed their forearms, called the Sharon Government Judenrat, and likened their evacuation of the Strip to the deportation of the Jews to the death camps? Any outrage at fascists such as Meir Kahane or Baruch Goldstein? Any outrage at the Jewish settlers in Hebron who plaster Palestinian walls with graffiti such as "Palestinians to the gas chambers"? Any outrage at the open discussion of 'transfer' (aka ethnic cleansing) in Israel? Any outrage against the incusion of transferists such as Benny Elon in the Sharon cabinet? As for the Palestinians regarding the creation of Israel as an "orignal sin", put yourself in their shoes: ethnically cleansed in 48 and rotting, stateless, in refugee camps ever since so that the Zionist movement can live out its egregious fantasy of a separate, Jewish supremicist state in Paslestine. Even Olmert's Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, is on record as saying that today's UN wouldn't pass the 1947 Partition Resolution. ('Improve the image', Aluf Benn, Haaretz 16/2/06) You trot out the party-line about "a genuine chance for peace during the Camp David negotiations of July 2000", blissfully unaware, it seems, that Barak's Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, one of the negotiators, is now on record as saying that Camp David was "not a missed opportunity for the Palestinians" and that, if he'd been a Palestinian, he "would have rejected Camp David, as well". (www.democracynow.org - debate with Norman Finkelstein) And that other tired myth about the "Palestinian intifada" destroying "the only Israeli Government that has ever offered the Palestinians an independent state": I challenge you to retract it after reading the following pieces: 'Imperial Misconceptions', Roni Ben Efrat, Challenge Magazine, 13/7/04; 'Popular Misconceptions', Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, 11/6/04; 'More than a million bullets', Reuven Pedatzur, Haaretz, 29/6/04. Enjoy!

Dr Phil
Re your last post: Since when has Israel's strategy ever been any other than the "use of violence and terror" against Palestinian civilians "as a first rather than last resort"? Palestinian civilians, not Israeli civilians, have always been the first party victimized by Israel's state terrorism. Israel has always been the primary wielder of violence and terror in this massively asymmetrical conflict. As for a return of the 1948 refugees: why not? They are entitled without qualification to Israeli citizenship. Israel's mass expulsion of these people violates the UN Charter, international law, and Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the right to a nationality - and Article 13 - the right to leave and return to your own country. There can be no "compromise" of humankind's most fundamental, inalienable rights. Re the question of genocide, no one is suggesting that Israel is annihilating Palestinians in death camps. However, given the definitions of the Genocide Convention of 1948, previously quoted, the onus is on you to prove that the term does not apply to Israel's treatment of Palestine's indigenous inhabitants. Maybe you'd prefer Baruch Kimmerling's term 'politicide'? Whatever you choose to call it, however, whatever the methods employed or the scale, we're dealing here with a crime against humanity that's been going on now for 58 years. How much longer must the Palestinians remain on the rack?

If Strewth wishes to read a balanced account of what happened at Camp David, I suggest he checks out what I wrote in ”Israel’s camp david peace proposal: generous offer or sham?” in Australian Quarterly, Volume 76, No.1, January-February 2004, pp.14-17.

Other than that I am only interested in further discussions with people want to find some common ground, rather than engage in endless points scoring.

Philip

Thanks for the reference to your article on Camp David, Dr Phil, I'll look it up. Shlomo must've gotten it all wrong. So much for Israeli Foreign Ministers. You had indicated in an earlier post a staunch opposition to the Israeli settler movement. I'm aware of your polemics against Leunig, anti-Zionists, the divestment movement etc, but nothing similar against the settlers. If you could direct me to these, I'd be eternally grateful. And I do agree with you about those people who "engage in endless point scoring". They're sooo annoying!

See most recently Two States or Two Universes? A Personal Reflection on Israel/Palestine 1982-2006 by Philip Mendes, published in Australian Quarterly, 77(6), November-December 2005, pp.17-20.

Philip

So, self-styled staunch opponent of Israel's settlers, Dr Phil, claims he's given them a slap on the wrist in Australian Quarterly, November-December 2005. Seems that publication went belly up in 1997.
The ball's in your court, Dr Phil.

Strewth strewth: I just received the February 2006 edition of Australian Quarterly in the mail. Must be my imagination.

Philip