Dear Paul L.,

As Antony Loewenstein says in his book, 'My Israel Question,' and I quote:

"...I wanted to know why it was almost treasonous to advocate a Palestinian state. I wondered why a Jew couldn't be both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. And I couldn't understand why dissenting viewpoints were shunned and ridiculed. It almost seemed as if Jews wanted to maintain a ghetto mentality...

Palestinians have become 'unpeople,' seemingly unworthy of sympathy or understanding. 'Our people are important, but 'they' are not. This narrative has been constructed through a complex web of media, politics and lobbying, and has resulted in a skewed perspective on the defining conflict of our time. I spoke to Arabs, Palestinians, Jews, Christians, Muslims and atheists in Australia, the USA, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, France, United Kingdom and Switzerland to hear alternative voices, possible solutions and legitimate grievances.
Some will be familiar; many will not. Many of these individuals risk ostracism from their communities for speaking out.

I am often accused of bening anti-Israel and hostile towards the Jewish people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I support the rights of Israelis to live in peace and security, but not at the expense of the Palestinians.

Why do we constantly hear about Israel's need for 'security,' as though that justifies erecting walls, checkpoints and barriers?

Why is the world told to believe that the Palestinians should onle accept peace on Israel's terms? I've come to the sad realisation that many in the West simply don't like Arabs or Palestinians very much and therefore believe that we have the right to treat them as we wish."

I agree with Antony Loewenstein - in all of this the news media play a crucial role - they are the major conduit for the debate.

You accused me of not doing my research...and this from someone who
uses Wik...pedia as his main point of reference?

We must move past using dehumanisation and delegitimisation as weapons to be wielded against the Palestinians.

It is time for a radical rethinking of the conflict.

It is interesting that none of you mention the role that Henry Kissinger played in both the Six Day War and the one previous.

Unofficially Kissinger was able to confab with both sides, but his main pursuit was apparently as of Jewish religion he is said to have favoured his own kind, first making sure in the earlier conflict that the new Israelis where secretly armed from the US.

The most intriguing news, however, is contained in a recent report about rhetorical data from the Nixon era, either proving that while Nixon gave the okay to keep quiet about his regime favouring Israel going militarily nuclear, Kissinger was against Israel going atomic, believing that it would not only upset the balance of power in the Middle East between Arabs and Jews, but would expand such resentments the world over.

Reckon that as usual Paull will have a different story, his one about political philosophers officially having different views, meaning right or left, the only way we can explain it is that right-wing philosophy leans towards fascism and left-wing leads towards communism.

In most Australian universities, it could be said that the tendency for political philosophy, tends to be slightly left of centre.

Finally, it would be interesting to encourage a dialogue to prove whether Kissinger's view about an atomic Israel upsetting possibly a global balance of power has proven right or wrong.

Passy,

Considering that every Arab Israeli war from 1948 to 1976 was started by the Arabs with the sole intention of "pushing the Jews into the sea", the image of the harmless tolerant Palestinian who has been put upon by the big bad Zionist Israel is a little hard to swallow.

The continual targeting of Israeli civilians by the Hamas and Hezbollah whilst using their own civilians as cover has often left the IDF the choice between doing nothing or hitting civilian areas.

The complete delusion that a free Palestine would coexist in harmony with Israel and not continue the odious tactics presently employed is why Israel is determined to seed guarantees before conceding anything.

Paul L continues to defame me by calling me an anti-Semite when my whole point is, like many Jews, to question Zionism.

I accept his intimidation and denial of my right to free speech. These are the typical tactics of the ideologues of the right - shut down your opponents by defaming them and driving them from the process of free speech.

I refuse to indulge in this "discussion" when those of us who raise legitimate questions about Zionism and the foundation of the Israeli state on the bones of the Palestinians are immediately labelled anti-Semites. Why not address the issues Paul? Because you can't. Defamation is a substitute for discussion and debate.

Thanks for destroying my free speech through your defamations Paul L.

I hope your fascist tactics in driving me from this discussion make you happy.

The German V-2 rockets in London in 1944, because of their untargeted promiscuity, and lack of any warning were in many ways worse than the 1940 Blitz, despite its far higher casualties. By 1944-45, civilian morale in Britain seriously sagged. So one should sympathise now with what the inhabitants of northern Israel are often undergoing daily - this is not to demean the casualty figures that are a fraction of those exacted by Israeli bombing in Lebanon.

Fear and anger, however, are bad counselors when it comes to finding a way towards that "lasting peace", even if the danger is that in a few years' time, the rockets might carry Iran-made nuclear tips, fired not from neighbouring Lebanon but from the unreachable remoteness of Iran - a part of the political creature naming Israel an illegitimate, or bastard child of the U.N.

With some impotence, many perhaps agree that there is an urgent need for a new strategy to break the logjam in the Middle East as a whole.

As the terrifyingly imminent threat of a nuclear Iran is important, a radical gambit would be to go for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, running from the Mediterranean to the frontiers of nuclear Pakistan. This, however, would require an internationally backed, total clampdown on Iranian nuclear development. At the same time, it would involve Israel's relinquishment of its nuclear capability.

Israel's nuclear arsenal has so far done nothing to deter terrorism over the years - or even a conventional war. Denuclearising Israel may be the surest way to get support from the moderate Sunni Arab states to apply pressure on Iran – another gambit.

To assure Israeli security, such a scheme would have to be backed by a commitment to "take out" instantly any Iranian, or other Middle Eastern facility that threatened to cheat. There is an almost deafening logic to this, albeit unpalatable to those who place military might in a total negative light.

The alternative? An increasingly, but understandably paranoid Israel going it alone... the aftermath is unpalatable but I fear, inevitable.

I am still steamed up about being called an anti-Semite, so excuse my rant.

In Canberra we used to have an MLA who was elected on a no self government ticket who was a secret extreme right winger.

When Eric Butler and his fascist League of Rights attempted to hold a meting in Canberra (with the support of this MLA) I organised and led the demonstration against them. This involved a coalition of trade unions, ALP people, churches etc.

We managed to turn some people away. Then we went into the meeting (at my urging) to turn it into a people's history of the struggle against fascism. The cops threw me and the others out.

When this MLA was part of a coalition against some particular Government proposal I stood up and moved in a hall of thousands that we not associate with such an extreme right winger. The small l liberals howled me down because they didn't understand the nature of his politics or didn't care. It wasn't easy standing up in front of a crowd of people I wanted to relate to (but knew I would alienate by my actions) and oppose this MLA sympathiser with the League of Rights on principle.

When this MLA sympathiser with the League of Rights turned up to one of my political meetings I forced him to leave our meeting.

When the right wing skin heads began organising in a local pub I canvassed various groups to see what action we could take.

My whole life has been a struggle against racism. That is why I want serious and intelligent people to examine what Zionism is - a philosophy that for example excludes Palestinians because they are Palestinians from returning to their homelands.

Israel is a limited democracy - like white South Africa. It is no accident that both states were very close. They shared a common approach - democracy for some at the expense of the majority whom they force(d) into bantustans.

One day there will be a rainbow nation in the middle east.