'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