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.

Jake Lynch notes that most of the media reports seem to frame the stories in favour of Israel.

That would be because under the standards of Western rationality, journalists attempt to be fair between parties to a dispute.

Sadly, one-eyed supporters of genocidal maniacs think that evenhandedness is itself evil. They are right; even-handedness between evil and good is collaboration with evil. But they are wrong; their side daily commit crimes agaisnt humanity. If the Palestinians had waged peace as monomaniacally as they wage war, they would have half the seats in the Israeli parliament by now.

As for Jakes quoting Pilger - PILGER! - before we even read the quote his credibility is ruined.

The conflict is between the Israelies and the Palestinians why don't we just let them fight it out. It is not America's or Australia's fight why don't we just stop sticking our noses in and butt out.

To the the Israelies and Palestinians living in Australia or America you have sworn allegiance to your new countries what happens in Israel or Palestine from now on should really be of no concern to you. Your concern should be for the countries you have given your allegiance to. Worry only if they are attacked or didn't you understand what it means to swear allegiance.

Houellebecq
you lot of Israelli apologists make me puke.
So you dont think that the pallestinians dont yet qualify for a sympathy card? What are you waiting for?The decimation or the total obliteration of every Arab settlement?
You hard-hearted sod.
Socratease

hear hear socratease,

I think these hardhearted fools cannot understand why the Palestinians just don't give up and quietly accept their own genocide at the hands of what these fools see as an obviously racially superior people.

im avoiding comment because simply revealing the facts gets to distract from the acts...
here are the facts
one god...giving all living their life
#not one live but by his will
to murder any life insults the giver/sustyainer of life...god

god is good/grace/mercy/love/...light sustaining life
he dont judge any..life...get it

the judean/messiah came..[his own rejected him...but jews arnt his own...these bolchovic jews have a true homeland...not in the semite countries...they basiclly arnt even semites..they arnt even the life givers people...WRESTLING FLESH...THEY CONTROL THE REALMS OF FLESH...NOT SPIRIT

they helped kill many of the messiah's own..[xtians...plus 25 million murded..IN ONE SINGLE DEATH MARCH..but they were..'only goys'...and they..[DUE'S..really believe only jews get to heaven..

well were seeing their idea of heaven..continual confilict about physical aDVANTAGES/LAND AND advantage..in the state of israel...to adopt the cloak/skin..of...murderd scape goats...lambs of the father..the faux people..of the faux god..of these realms..and dont we know who's realm this is?

the realm of deceit,..realm of murder..realm of lies...real of control/deception/..turning gods holy?..[wholy gods...all land/firmameant..]...claiming this land gods but that land not..lands divided...when all lands are holy[wholly]..gods

all living are gods living...who is not goids people...what we have hear...here..is a clear case..of claiming higher authority..via fraud..god loves every of his creation equally...dont debate me..debate the true messiah...

he come...came...was offered these realms...and refuse it
..then went to prepare his..own house..[realm]..just as satan feathers his 4 th reiche from the saftey of its own poisened/walled estates...

building their own prison...that the head's.. will in time abandon...when the next blood sacrifice to satan is brought on...bring it on you fools...

one living loving god...get it..

we are all mortal heirs incarnate..of the father of all living
..all good/goods..life/living...god...logus/logic..truth/light/life/love

Radical Phil,
Yah! you believe in a two state solution ( presumably by negotiation) and are thereby saying that is fair? to whom? You must otherwise you wouldn't be citing it as some example of your moral justification. Have you heard of Ambit claims?

If I appropriated you home, your wealth then offered you the back shed with 3 mtrs on one side, $50 and no clear irrevocable access to it, how is that fair? Give you a 1/3 but raze it first? And you wouldn't get shirty? I don't know for sure But I think I might!

Pragmatics tells us that Israel's existence is a given but draw the line where Israel wants it? An orderly hand over of all lands back to the pre 67 borders, reparation to all the dispossessed in Lieu of losses, complete houses and infra structure is GETTING fairer.

Merely advocating a two state solution is simply siding with Israel. The Palestinians have still lost ground that they once owned...re my analogy.Totally fair would be they both live in one secular country after the Israel paid reparation. In fact Pilger is right if not always totally realistic.

examinator,if you draw tyhe line where Israel wants it where do you put the expelled Arabs and those who have a right to return after the tragic return?
Israel wont accept them. What you suggest as a pragmatic solution CANNOT be accepted by Israel because it would lead to a one nation that would beIsreal with an israeli majority to maintain a democratically Israelli government in perpeetum or the jews stand to be democratically dispossessed in their "own land" ...it being highly dubious what really constitutes their own land ...it is all a myth enforced by their all-powerful IDF.

socratease

Socratease,
I'm not sure what you mean.
The point I was making to Phil that merely supporting two state solution isn't fair to the Palestinians so it's hardly some thing he should shout about.

Albeit fairer than greater Israel i.e. Israel is a place where Arabs are effectively 2nd class citizens and the extreme right wing Israeli Jews are able to currently drive policy power. I see no reason that this wouldn't continue under Jewish extremism is going to change.
In reality there is no way Israel much less a greater Israel is ever going to be a real just/fair democracy given its immigration etc. policies.

If the line is drawn to include the 'occupied' territories then (by world general consensus) Palestine will simply be slave enclaves (sorry client State) dependent on Israel and the whims of the extremes on which the Israeli right depend. That is clearly unfair and not surprisingly unacceptable to the Palestinians, see my analogy.
Therefore supporting this version of the two state is pro Israel.

The solution I suggested as being fairer i.e. enforcing total evacuation of Israelis to inside the pre 1967 borders leaving the buildings and infrastructure is fairer to the Palestinians but won't be acceptable to the Israeli Jews because many will loose their homes etc. All be they fruit of the poison tree. A well established legal principal.

Given the Arabs (and there were Palestinian nationalism at the time) legally 'owned' much of the land the fairest solution is a secular Greater Palestine in which both live (Pilger). Obviously such laws as automatic citizenship to Jews must stop and measures to maintain secular nationhood introduced. These must include expelling Syrian and Iran supported militias etc and including in Lebanon and general disarmourment of the people. However this is while fair it is unrealistic.

Back in the real world the solution will probably be some cobbled together version of 2 states (favouring Israel [US]) and the animosity from extremists on both sides will continue.
Either way it's still hardly Fair to all.

Excellent article Jake.

I can't understand why we are held captive by the Jewish Lobby either. Australians are a fair people who generally support the disadvantaged. Yet many of us simply don't understand the realities of the situation. We believe what we see in the media and hear from our politicians. That's why the Jewish lobby, surely the most well-funded and sophisticated of any lobby, has been so successful with our political parties and media.

There is also a powerful Jewish Lobby in Britain, but in Britain there is a much larger Muslim population which provides a counter-weight to the Jewish Lobby. Britain is also a much larger, older and more confident society than ours. The British were never occupied by the Nazis and so consequently never sent any Jews to concentration camps. In short, the Jews don't have a lot over the British. It was, after all, the British, who decided in principle to give part of someone else's land to the Jews in 1918. So the British can always say, we supported the creation of Israel and don't have a history of persecution like on the continent.

My personal opinion has always been that if you felt guilty after WW2 then you should have offered them Kent or perhaps Bavaria. Perhaps this is why Britain has a stronger moral obligation to help the Palestinians than we do. After all, they did give away someone else's land for crimes committed by a European people.

The British Empire has left the world with many great things but its contribution to the creation of that 'sh___y little country', as so eloquently put by the French ambassador, is not one of them.

Certainly most of us had a heartfelt sympathy for the German Jews as well as a hatred for the Nazis.

But while most of us felt it righteous that the same Jews were allowed to return to Israel their original homeland, our utter foolishness has been to allow such a tiny state to become a most modern atomic power.

Indeed, a viperish little atomic state with not only the capacity to upset Middle East power balances for years to come, but in all truth her growing arrogance alone not fitting her as a Middle East peacemaker.

"I'm most interested in why one-eyed support for Israel is so popular in this country".Simple,the answer is money.
Politicians are only interested in staying in power and the jewish lobby with lots of supportive money holds influence.
The press has a jewish bias for the same reason.
All credit to them for their success but their influence and opinion reaches everywhere and holds sway because of their financial clout and ability to 'buy' government and media influence or alternately remove it if not supported.
Let us not be concerned about how they got their wealth.Good luck to them - the fact is they have it and use it to garner the political and media support and that really is all that matters to this lobby.
Sadly, in this country, who takes any notice of the validity of the Zionist cause or support for the plight of Palestinians against the power and strategic use of money for influence.Some alternatively might call it 'political correctness' Tosh!.

1. Israel won the West Bank & Gaza in a war of self-defense forced on it. It did not "occupy" it in a war of aggression, but won it.

2. How can the land be "Occupied Palestine" when there never was a state of Palestine as such? The boundaries of "Palestine" have yet to be determined by proper peace negotiations which have not yet been finalized.

3. Israel has withdrawn from West Bank populated areas as per the Oslo Accords, and from all Gaza since 2005, and therefore cannot be said to "occupy" them. If entering to arrest or kill terrorist leaders the P.A. refuses to stop or jail = "occupation," the Coalition "occupies" Pakistan, and Israel "occupies" Lebanon & Jordan.

4. If restricting supplies at Gaza check-points = "occupation," then Egypt also "occupies" Gaza, the Nazis "occupied" England during WWII, and the Allies "occupied" Nazi Europe which makes WWII incomprehensible.

5. The language of "occupation" buys into the Palestinian narrative, but is untrue as a matter of simple fact. It also ignores that Palestinians wish to occupy & annihilate all of Israel; Hamas states this clearly, Fatah also pushes it with its "Right of Return," and all Palestinians who endorse the "Nakba" view of 1947-8 agree.

Sancho is in error concerning Israeli citizenship criteria.

Actually, there are 1.2 million Arab Muslim citizens of Israel, and ca. 150,000 Christian citizens (Arab and non-Arab), according to Israel's population statistics for 2007 (at that time, there were 5.3 million Jewish citizens - Israel is a very small country). It is actually easier for non-Jews to obtain citizenship in Israel than most foreigners to obtain Australian citizenship; Israel accepted more Vietnamese refugees per capita than any other Western country, and, tellingly, the only Middle Eastern country in which the percentage of Christian citizens in the population did not decline over the past 60 years, but has actually grown, is Israel.

In sharp contrast to Israel, almost all Muslim state statistics show a drastic decline of Christians as a percentage of their population, usually around 50% down, but in some states closer to 90%. This is about the percentage of decline in the Palestinian territory.

Furthermore, Israeli Arabs have their own political parties with their representatives in the Israeli Parliament, have their own newspapers, live securely and peaceably in all Israeli cities, and have all other civil rights usual in a democracy, although it cannot be forgotten that they tend to side with Israel's enemies and the head of Balad, an Arab political party, has actually gone to Lebanon to appear on Hezbollah TV endorsing war with Israel; he was allowed to take up his Israeli Parliament seat again after this (something that would not have been allowed in any other Western democracy at war, hot or cold), but only recently was discovered actually spying for Hezbollah and Syria and materially furthering their aggression, so he has finally been indicted for treasonous behavior.

Finally, Zionism cannot be racist since Jews are not a race. They include Ethiopian Jews, Aryan Jews, Arab Jews (e.g., some Yemenite Jews stem from massive Arab conversions to Judaism before the rise of Islam in Arabia), Chinese Jews and Indian Jews, etc.

Israel is a genuine democracy, Sancho, and even more liberal than most other Western democracies, as a matter of fact.

Dear Prof. Lynch

I entirely support your stance against censorship. Both SBS reporters and Students for Palestine should be allowed to have their say.

However I have a question.

Are you a genuine supporter of free speech;

or are you one of those who only defend the right of people to express views you find congenial.

Let's consider three cases.

In 2005 Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University, lost his job because of his speculations about the reason why women were under-represented in Harvard's science faculty.

See: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/

In 2007 James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix, also lost his job. He expressed the view that Africans were less intelligent than Whites.

See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

Quote:

"…the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion."

In 2005 Professor Andrew Fraser's article defending the White Australia policy was removed from the Deakin University Law Review.

Now Prof. Lynch, are you prepared to defend the right to free speech of Messrs Summers, Watson and Fraser with the same vigour that you defend the rights of Students for Palestine?

For the record I have vigorously defended on these boards and to my fellow Jews the right of Australia's notorious Holocaust denier, Frederik Toben, to have his say.

This topic always brings up the crazies.

Hey socratease, how have I become an Israeli apologist? I said first I sit on the fence, then I said I lean towards the underdog (ie Palestinians) then I said you would think more Aussies would also lean that way, then I said how come Palestinians don't get a sympathy card.

But you go on with that anger, it sounds cool. Embrace it and nurture it. It's what I enjoy most about OLO. The bitter and twisted are endless amusement. I even got examinator to spit the dummy and start a new blog because I wavered from his topic about dogs!

Dear Mr Lynch

In your opinion piece you refer to a stoush between the pro-Israel lobby and the Sydney Peace Foundation, over the decision to award this year’s Sydney Peace Prize to the journalist and film-maker, John Pilger.

The word stoush carries the idea of a fight between 2 groups. As far as I am aware there has been no move by any representative of the Jewish community to fight CPACS over the award. Certainly some members of the Jewish community have criticised the award as have members of the general community. So what? Surely people have a right to disagree with CPACS’ choice. Yet you appear to find this problematic and characterise it as the undesirable action of a lobby group rather than legitimate criticism. Thus I find your use of the word stoush misleading as it gives the impression that there has been an organised Jewish community response which is not the case.

I’m also a little uneasy about the term "Pilger- bashing" directed at Philip Mendes because he has pointed out shortcomings in Pilger’s work. I respect and support your right to find fault with Mendes’ analysis of Pilger. What would your response be if people characterised your criticism as Mendes-bashing? Would you think that was just? Could it be that those who disagree with you are bashers while you are a valid critic? I wonder ………

Prof Lynch,
Don't worry too much about Steven and Sadler both have their own elitist agendas stemming from their views that they are part of the 'God's chosen people' a sub branch of the morally depleted 'might is right mind set'.

Sadler's argument apart from being cherry picked to bolster his position is selective to the 'N'th degree. For his argument of their's right of conquest to be consistent the Nazis were in their right to try and conquer the world as were their obscenities. The Romans were justified in their brutality given they 'won Israel' by conquest ergo might is right. Bollocks.

Steven only want's freedom of speech so he and his ilk can let fly at the Muslims and Arabs in general.

His support for such extremist freedom of speech is because the Jewish PR lobby has a bigger/better than the Arab world.
e.g. their appropriation of the term "the Holocaust" . One could argue that Genghis Khan etc bloody conquests were proportionally several times worse than 'the final solution' oh yes what about the Gypsies statistically more of a Holocaust.

NB it happened and it was an obscenity of mammoth proportions but it doesn't JUSTIFY what is being done today in the name of Israel nor are the Arabs any less blameless in their atrocities.

Besides which he know that no one believes the idiotic drivel anyway save the hopeless bigots. But sees an advantage in being able to vilify Arabs by virtue of ingrained western cultural bias/prejudices. Oh yes, he denies moral responsibility for social harmony too. His argument is predicated such appalling lapses of reality ....who is going to admit that perhaps they're not informed enough to spot the spin.

The point both these posters miss is that there are differences between information, non information (the point of this article)and DISinformation as in bias and plain old down and dirty prejudice regardless how eloquently delivered. The aggression towards you is proof of his real agenda. support for a lessor evil to enable a bigger one would make Goebbels proud.

LOL examinator,

I know your views - including an unparalleled ability to detect nefarious "Zionist plots" everywhere.

I am however interested in Prof. Lynch's perspective. Is he one of those pseudo defenders of liberty who want s free speech for his "side" while wanting to suppress the speech of those with different – and distasteful – views? Or is he a genuine protagonist of free speech.

I doubt' he'll answer so this is in any case moot.

Mild smile Steven,
You overestimate my abilities of detection, "Nefarious Zionist(?)plots" nah. Just yours, old son, just yours.

Are you saying that the Arab lobby is as organized and/or powerful as the Jewish/Israeli one in the West? Surely not!

BTW Your myopic bias is hardly a secret much of your writings on OLO have links to your Israel bias your penultimate comment shows that. But that's your right.
I was commenting to the author. You're too smart not to be aware of my thoughts on this subject...your comments to me were superfluous.

Both prayers and Aussie good luck for Obama in his attempt to straighten out both the Israelies and Palestinians together.

Biggest problem of course will be Netynahu, made a bigger problem through foolish Western admiration.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Excellent article.
It is difficult to get to the bottom of why there is such bias on issues like this, though certainly the censorship and self-censorship of the press and politicians is a major contributor. This forum discussion should be an indicator.
Thus, I see that religion is part of the problem not just in the Middle East but here in Australia. Racism is not the only form of predjudism, Sadler! Evangelicalists are not the only Christians who beleive thier god wants the Jews in Israel and are awaiting armageddon in the Middle East.
There is much predjudism against Moslem people in Australia. I just heard on the radio the Israelli president declaring that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons, why do we listen to Israel and the US condemning others for what they have had and continue to proliferate for many years? It obviously is not because we can trust them to abide by international law!

I think everyone except Zionists believe that there can never be any just settlement of the Palestine issue.The Israelis have the support of the US and some EU countries.They have been antagonised and feel threatened by militant and radical fundamentalist Islamists and this has not ended and is never likely to. I actually see that they, Palestinians, actually have right on their side but I cannot side with them not as long as the Islamists around the world threaten jihad against even those who are not involved and do not wish to get involved.

The problem remains that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and continue to dispossess them of their homes. Nothing anyone can say will change any of this. Obama knows this but cannot/will not act against Israel.I and all free thinking people of the world call this Israeli action THEFT, pure and simple. Armed theft.