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