radical phil,

Your attempt to portray the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as just another conflict like the Macedonian/Greek or Serb/Croatian is inaccurate.

In these conflicts:
- no one ethnic group is confined to a walled ghetto where their survival is at the whim of their oppressors
- no one ethnic group receives roughly half of the US annual foreign aid budget
- no one ethnic group has nuclear weapons
- no one ethnic group receives substantial military aid from the US
- no one ethnic group has Nuremburg type laws that distinguish between citizenship and national rights to discriminate against the other

The list could go on…

In fact, as I remember it was a NATO assault led by the US that intervened to stop the bloodshed in the Balkans. The Palestinians repeatedly asked for international intervention with peace keeping troops under Arafat but were denied, at Israeli's insistence, by the US. Of course the internationalisation of the conflict would make it much harder for the Israelis to mount operations like the 2004 rampage in Rafah. And that would be the last thing Israel wants.

If you want to find comparisons with other conflicts then apartheid South Africa would be a better place to start.

It's a bit much to expect Hamas and lots of others to "recognise the state of Israel" when Israel will not delineate its own borders. This, as we all know, is because it intends to hang on to the West Bank by hook or by crook, but does not want to reveal its intent, which of course is totally illegal. But the illegal settelements go on expanding relentlessly, while the water in West Bank aquifers is transferred conveniently into "Israel proper".

In my book Hamas and all other Palestinians have every right to refuse recognition to an entity with no borders, but with obvious ambitions to expand into the remnants of the Palestinian homeland.

Youngsteve

You are presuming that Jewish groups have no sympathy for the Palestinians. In my experience that is not so for the majority.

Regarding who fired the first shot, that was well before WW2 and it was fired by Arabs against what they perceived as newcomers. Discrimination against non Muslims, leading in modern times to Jews (and some Christians) fleeing to Israel, started with the spread of Islam.

There is a question of who was responsible for the flight of some of the Arabs from Israel. Obviously Israel must take some blame for that, but what about the Mufti of Jerusalem who inspired them to attack, and the King of Jordan who did nothing to help them even though he claimed they were has own people? Or Egypt or Yemen or Iraq who happily edged out ancient Jewish (and Christian) communities but were not prepared to give hospitality to similar numbers of their own kind, ie the Palestinians.

You see the superficial view of the so called left continually ignores the other side of complex situations (why Communism was a total disaster).

Naturally the poor Palestinians feel totally aggrieved but their own people have disowned them and taught them to blame Israel for everything. None of the Arab nations unfortunately are remotely competent by the standards we set ourselves. And this is not just a western thing, I am also comparing them with Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Malaysia. It is not PC to say this but it is true.

The Palestinians, like the Christians in the Arab world and the Jews in Iran are caught in a nasty situation, not of their own making, but blaming Israel, Jews or even George Bush will not help.

Larry: I’ve actually been very careful in my various writings on the Academic Boycott debate and related issues to distinguish between those Left groups which support a two-state solution, and those which advocate the destruction of Israel. The latter are definitely a minority, but they tend to be vocal and passionate, and very effective at demonising Israel. I fear that some of the key people in IAJV, rather than challenging these views and educating the Left against them, are willing to cooperate with the anti-Zionist fundamentalists.

The same nuances that you refer to of course also apply to the Jewish community. It is not just IAJV who support peace and reconciliation. There are many thousands of Australian Jews who identify with the Israeli Left, but equally they believe that peace will only come when both sides are willing to change and compromise.

Of course, Israeli groups such as Meretz and Yesh Gvul are not anti-Israel, but they operate in a very different context in which the tensions around Israeli security vis-à-vis Palestinian national rights are well understood because everyone serves in the army, and understands the complexities. This is not the case in Australia where people live in a peaceful and overwhelmingly innocent society, and often don’t understand what it means to live in a region afflicted by terrorism.

Philip

logic, I don't know if I agree that the Palestinians are embroiled in a situation not of their making. I'm of the opinion that both parties share equally in this conflict. I'm not in favour of the blame game but, I do think both Palestinians and Israeli's ought to have their feet held to the coals of their own fire. Both contribute equally to the prevailing misfortune. I call it a misfortune because for 60 years give or take, peace has been nothing but an opportunity to rearm and renew the battle after a little R&R. I call it misfortune because it is not a situation that will lead to a victory.
There is one fundamental difference that I believe in the long run {God only knows how long) puts Israel heads above the PA. That is that the Palestinian brain trust leaves as fast as it develops and the country is poorer for not addressing that loss. Where Israel has intelligent or at least motivated migrants coming to live in Israel from around the world with diverse experiences and abilities. Very few Palestinians return from overseas to make life in the old country any better.

To comment on what Phil Mendes has said.

Philip claims " [I have] actually been very careful in my various writings on the Academic Boycott debate and related issues to distinguish between those Left groups which support a two-state solution, and those which advocate the destruction of Israel".

I beg to differ. The public effect of what you have often said in the past few years has been to reinforce prejudice against 'the left' by conflating what I'd call the the 'sectarian left' with the position taken by many progressives. You have given vastly too much importance and legitimacy to the sectarians and their hairsplitting and at the same time, forgotten that there are some baseline facts about the nature of the occupation, and so on that have lead to such hostility to Israel and an over-generous tolerance of extremism on the other side.

We need to present strong & positive options beyond both Zionist and Palestinian nostrums, for two states (and issues such as over which you may differ, but they have been raised in different forums, including one or two state options, negotiations over 'the Jerusalem question', the water question, the Golan heights, reparations [including reparations for Jews from Arab lands], the right of return--for both communities, etc.) This will require a lot of compromise, reconcilitation, and abandonment of ideological and religious zealotry on on both sides. The more support the mainstream 'left' gives to deepening such mutual talk the better.

However, it's a hard task to raise such controversial issues in Australia. For example, to speak of shared Jerusalem sovereignty among Australian Jews will attract vociferous labelling, even though Palestinians Christians and Muslims have just as much historical right to the city. But it is a mainstream issue in other environments and is debated by Israelis and Palestinian thinkers. In an attempt to transcend the usual, MIT is running 'Just Jerusalem' competition, http://web.mit.edu/justjerusalem.

I know that one respondent has bagged 'academics'--but violence certainly hasn't provided any solutions