Jake Lynch’s article seriously misrepresents both my political views and research record. To be fair to Lynch, he is a relative newcomer to Australia so he is probably not familiar with the key players in the Australian debate.

For the record, I have been a consistent supporter of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for over 25 years. This means finding a mid-way compromise based on mutual concessions between legitimate Israeli security needs and legitimate Palestinian national aspirations. It also means condemning extremists and supporting moderates on both sides, rather than demonizing one side via boycott proposals based on ethnic stereotyping.

For many of these years, I have conducted scholarly research on Israeli (and related) Jewish politics. I am not a Middle East studies specialist, but neither of course is Jake Lynch. My output includes numerous peer reviewed articles in a wide range of Oz and international journals, and two prominent books. It is ironic given the harsh tone of Lynch’s criticism of myself that I co-authored with Geoffrey Brahm Levey (in our co-edited book Jews and Australian Politics, Sussex Academic Press, 2004) the seminal critique of the campaign by some pro-Israel lobby groups against the awarding of the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi. I personally did not believe Ashrawi should have received the prize as she is not a peacenik, but equally I felt the campaign against her was disproportionately harsh given she is clearly a moderate (on the Palestinian spectrum) and supporter of two states.

In contrast, John Pilger is a hardline extremist. He does not support Israeli/Palestinian peace and reconciliation. His public writings all suggest a position favouring the dissolution of the existing State of Israel, and its replacement by an Arab state of Greater Palestine. He is no more suitable to receive a peace prize than an advocate of a Greater Israel who supports the expulsion of all Arabs. I strongly recommend that Jake Lynch and the Sydney Peace Foundation reconsider the award of their peace prize to someone who preaches the opposite.

Dr Philip Mendes

Thanks for a thoughtful article, Jake, but I can't help feeling it applies wishful standards to a problem that defies hope. Your interest is obviously in 'peace journalism.' If I read the article rightly, peace is the object you think journalism on the Palestine/Israel situation should be working towards -- which is a morally overwhelming view. And yet, of course, the article comments on the journalism of war (here as in your earlier piece on Sri Lanka).

What standards can we expect of commentators in war, other than partisanship? Both sides are trying to win, and they use the news to that effect as any warring party would. If Pilger seeks to even up the ledger, then of course Israeli partisans want to bring him down. In effect, they argue (with some merit), what he is doing is a contribution to the Palestinian war cause. He is a partisan, too, even if you believe his cause is justified.

The critique of news manipulation (from both sides) is irrefutable, but what does it tell us we didn't all know? If I were in either of their camps, I'm sure I would be working like fury to spin the news my way too. I mean: people who want to kill each other can be expected to come across as frighteningly out of control when they discuss it; the real problem is that they're trying to kill each other, though, not the way they talk.

I want to hear Pilger's point of view in this debate; the personal smears against him do the pro-Israeli cause more harm than good in my eye; and I'm dead against those who would silence him. That doesn't mean he gets off un-confronted, though. He's a war journalist.

Thanks Jake for opening up the debate;
There is no doubt the pro-Israel lobby is alive and thriving and a quick peek at the activities of AIPAC is a clear example of an effective lobby that virtually governs America.

It is procedure for the Pro-Israel lobby to reject any Sydney Peace Prize award to a candidate likely to criticize Israel's Apartheid. The last one to my recollection was Dr Hanan Ashrawi,working for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian / Israeli tragedy.

Dr Philip Mendes continues to push the two state solution which Israel supposedly adopts on the one hand but firmly resists on the other as it continues to expand the Settlements and applies collective punishment on innocents in Gaza, destroying homes, targetting civilians, even UN relief stores whilst closing the borders, denying Gazans access to medical treatment, shooting fishermen, ramming international relief ships.

George Galloway has initiated convoys to relieve the human suffering in Gaza, the latest being a Ten Million dollar convoy from the USA, following on one from the UK, "Viva Palestina" Demands are being made to open the borders at Rafah to allow for humanitarian relief

As the truth gets out more people round the world are enraged as they become aware of Zionist atrocities and Israeli Defence Force brutality as they bulldoze palestinian villages..Remember Rachel Corrie , an American peace activist run over by a bulldozer ?

The British Trade Unions are imposing a boycott on Israel and so the boycott will spread round the world hopefully to force the zionists to meaningful negotiations..I will be working to have Australian Trade Unions also raise awareness and join the action

A two state solution will not succeed...Only a single, secular state governing for all will eventually overcome a 'jewish state'that continues to spread it's neo fascist ideals and lobbies round the world.

Thanks Philip your reply to Jakes peice helped make his point, perhaps you should read what you wrote. Maybe you don't see where your problem is.

For the record I think we should kick everyone out of the "holy" land a then use it as a nuke waste dump.

I'm most interested in why one-eyed support for Israel is so popular in this country.

The appeal to Americans is obvious: many voters there are evangelical Christians who look forward to a supernatural apocalypse if Israel dominates the middle east. Australia is far more secular and sensible, yet our governments also let superstition guide foreign affairs.

The common argument in favour is that Israel deserves support because it's nominally a democracy, although that argument is rarely accompanied by an acknowledgement that Israel excludes people from democracy and citizenship on the basis of race or religion, or that any nation will become an Israel-style demi-democracy if it's showered with money, weapons, and uncritical support from the West.

'I'm most interested in why one-eyed support for Israel is so popular in this country.'

Hey Sancho me too.

Whenever I hear anyone talk about Israel or the Palestinians, I always seem to agree. Then someone says it's all rubbish and I can see their point too. It's my most fence-sitting topic. But I do waver more towards the underdog, which I would have thought would be very Australian.

So you would think if Israel was like Manly, and Palestine was like Penriff, most people would be going for Penriff.

I did think Mel Gibson was pretty funny with that outburst:-) Does anyone know if the Jews really do run Hollywood? Or the World? It sounds like the sympathy card from the Holocaust is pretty powerful. Fair play I suppose, but when will the Palestinians start to qualify for one? Maybe when they stop shooting rockets and stuff?

I always want to read up on this stuff, but I've got to the state where I cant believe anyone can discuss it without a good measure of propaganda.