First, the non-specific smears: "anti-Israel worms"; then the generalised spin: "scholars...have easily shown the many holes" [in M&W] "Even Chomsky dismissed it."; then some sleazy innuendo: "blood oaths...the blood of Christian children." My God, what mental contortions did you have to perform, Bren, to produce this kind of nonsense? How soul-destroying. You make a point about not being a Jew. So what? You slander Jews if your point is that the above constitutes a generic 'Jewish' viewpoint (whatever that is). And since when do you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist? But to cut to the chase. You suggest that to say Palestinians are "stateless and occupied" is "black and white analysis." Whatever feat of tortuous mental gymnastics you perform to deny reality, the bottom line is that the majority of Palestinians, whether in exile or under occupation, are stateless. Yep, black and white. And those in the Occupied Territories are just that - occupied. Black and white again. And yes, by any meaningful moral standard, occupying the lands of others is bad. Nothing complicated about it. And because occupation breeds resistance of all kinds, including sometimes acts of terrorism, this should not come as a surprise. Your pretense that the conflict between Palestinians and the state of Israel is "the most complicated of conflicts" doesn't really fool anyone. We're all familiar with colonial-settler land grabs and the crime against humanity that is occupation. And despite the propaganda tactic of blaming the victim, we all know who has the jackboot on his neck. "No easy answer"? Again, the elements of a solution are not not hard. Get out of the Occupied Territories for starters: dead easy. Then, implement the right of return of Palestine's stateless and disenfranchised refugees and dismantle Israel's apartheid legislation. The hardest thing will be for Israelis to rethink Zionism and the anachronism of the Jewish state. You do them no service by aiding and abetting their denial of what needs to be done.

If only the AIJAC were as harmless as Bren Carlill claims..

Did you note the attempt to create that good old emotion - fear - in the line "that would seek to advance the Palestinian cause of a state of their own (with world Islamic caliphate and destruction of Israel being optional extras)."

This is the first time I've come across Mr Carlill, but I've heard Ted Lapkin speak and he sounds like, and has a grasp of facts similar to, Fox News. Not surprising really, as he proudly proclaims that he's a card carrying member of the Republican Party. Some of the comments made publicly by Mr Lapkin, as he is aware, are potentially grounds for civil action by the parties maligned by him.

Thus for him (and by the tone of this article, it's AIJAC policy), to use the umbrella of free speach is not to make rational arguments based on fact, but to engender fear and uncritical acceptance of their objectives by using dog whistle politics.

The fact that the Murdoch press allows Mr Lapkin to publicise his views on things outside of the AIJAC remit says more about the state of Australia today and the Murdoch press than it does anything else.

Also, Let's not forget that at least one member of the US chapter has been involved in spying for Israel against the US government.

Unsavoury is an understatement.

A world Islamic caliphate? Are you serious? And who will be the first education minister? Dr Hanan Ashrawi?

This article has done more damage to AIJAC's credibility than anything I've seen written on their behalf.

Irfan, what credibility did it have before this article?