There has been a lot of discussion of the assassination of Hamas operative Mahmoud ah-Mabhouh by a group of assassins, presumed to be Mossad agents. Malcolm Fraser has added his comments here: http://bit.ly/bUvWFz.

There has been a tradition amongst first world countries that you don't assassinate leaders of your enemy countries, although if they are killed in the course of war that is another matter.

But this does not appear to extend to sub-national military organisations, and we appear to be quite happy for unmanned drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan to blow-up the odd wedding party at the same time as they assassinate members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We are even told that SAS soldiers have been involved in taking out selected human targets.

I'm not sure why the latest presumed Mossad killing is attracting such criticism. Hamas is on the cusp of being a national military organisation, but no more so than the Taliban (or probably Al Qaeda), so if it's OK for us, why not the Israelis?

I also note that the PM's favourite religious figure is a Lutheran Pastor who was caught up in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler in WWII.

Is assassination of national enemies legitimate, and if so, under what circumstances? What differentiates the Israeli action from those we are party to, or admire?

Graham do you think media attention on this issue is really about the rights or wrongs of the assassination of Hamas operative Mahmoud ah-Mabhouh?

This issue is about the identity theft of innocent Australian citizens via forged passports. Stephen Smith stated that this act is not the act of "a friend" and goes to the very heart of relations between Israel. What was Mossad thinnking?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/australian-passports-in-hamas-hit-duplicated-or-altered-stephen-smith-says/story-e6frg6n6-1225834232594

No-one other than other militants is going to mourn the passing of Mahmoud ah-Mabhouh.

The issue is about the hatred so many on the left have for Israel more than anything else.

Of course assassination is wrong. As we have seen over and over again mistakes are regularly made and without judicial oversight it makes the government judge, jury and executioner. It is against every rule we live by. It is open to severe abuses and injustice. Imagine every government had remote controlled drones under their control. Who thinks they would not be tempted to use them to get rid of their opponents and anyone they consider "an enemy".

The example this sets is that the rule of law does not matter and along with Americas doctrine of "pre-emptive defense" it is no wonder our societies are becoming more violent and more corrupt.

Should South Africa have assassinated Nelson Mandela? Should the English have assassinated Gandhi? Should Australia have assassinated Ivan Milat or Martin Bryant rather than brought them to trial? Where does it end. Murderers, rapists, child molesters, con-men, thieves, the poor, the disabled, Labor voters? Talk about a "slippery slope". Execution is state sanctioned murder. Assassination is just barbarity and a refutation of our claim to be civilised.

I suppose runner supports Palestinian miltants forging Australian passports then.

I am prepared to bet that there are quite a few mothers, widows, & kids, of dead british service men who wish the UK had been a bit stronger.

I'm sure they would have prefered the UK had "taken out" known IRA activists & leaders, rather than continue to send their young men to Northern Ireland to act as moving target practice.

Perhaps I have strange morals, but I'd rather we had assassinated Hitler in 38, than tens of millions of inmocent people in the next 7 years. I would like to hear from those who disagree.

If you do agree with that, please explain the difference. I'd rather chop off a few heads, rather than thousands of legs.

Peacful protest is fine, but once a single innocent is hurt, the perpetrators are just so much garbage to be cleaned out, the least costly way possible.

GrahamY: << we appear to be quite happy for unmanned drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan to blow-up the odd wedding party at the same time as they assassinate members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban >>

Says who? I'm certainly not happy about noncombatant civilians being murdered by "our" allies.

<< Is assassination of national enemies legitimate, and if so, under what circumstances? >>

I think that killing "national enemies" is only legitimate when conducted under the rules of engagement of a declared war between sovereign States. Otherwise we assent to State-sponsored murder of people the State decides it wants to eradicate, not to mention excusing all the "collateral damage" involved.

It would have been quite legitimate for the Allies to have assassinated Hitler during WW2, but not prior to the declaration of war. I note that war doesn't seem to be formally declared by States these days, which blurs the issue somewhat.

Mind you, the creation of such a grey area where murder can be claimed to be legitimate in certain circumstances is probably why we don't formally declare war any more.

CJ I was judging our approval of assassination on the basis of the column inches in newspapers and the decibels in broadcast devoted to decrying it. I know some people aren't happy with the drones, including me, but we don't make a lot of noise about it.

The issue of Australian passports being used seems a bit trivial to me. Passports are hijacked all the time. I think it is a measure of the shallowness of the debate that it needs to use this issue as the basis.

What is shallow about the possibility of a friendly ally sanctioning the forging of Australian passports?

Our own Foreign minister does not appear to think the issue shallow.

I agree with pelican, the highjacking of Australian passports is a serious issue, particularly when the holders of those passports are linked with violent international acts. The fact that the Australian Government has made it clear that the three Australians embroiled in the intrigue have nothing to do with it, will save them from possible retribution, even though such retribution would have had no solid foundation. It's important for all Australian citizens that the Government speak up about it in order to protect the innocent and our generally good name.

I think the real criticism of Rudd - and all the governments before his - is that he only did this when forced to look for a diversion to other issues. Whereas previous Governments dropped it in the too-hard basket.

But, we'll take it any way it comes.

GrahamY
I am with CJ on this.
Column inches?! shrill screams?!

The media as a barometer, of the depth of support for an issue, is a whole other subject. Suffice it to register, that it's grossly flawed and so superficial as not worthy of being in the same context as accuracy/objective justification. The one exception maybe elections, they're about winning political seats, not accurate public opinion or objectivity.

One could suggest that is the equivalent of letting the inmates run the asylum or justifying a lynch mob's behaviour. Democracy is based on the weight of the mass, not the hysterical shrieks of self-interest and/or ignorance of a noisy minority.

The question is “is Assassination as a tool of foreign policy acceptable and why?”

My view is clear no it isn't !

I think it's a bogus argument to bring in “predator “ activities in order to blur the lines they're wrong in that they're indiscriminate. e.g. would you accept the police using a “predator” to attack an alleged paedophile killer in a block of flats or where there was possible 'collateral damage'?

In short the predator used as an attack weapon where there is a risk of 'collateral damage is indefensible.
As is it's use in Palestine in similar circumstances.

I sanction lethal force against a violent perpetrator by the authorised force ? If, there is no other way.

The striking inside a third country *without their authority* is a criminal act against the person, the law in both countries and national sovereignty.

It makes a mockery of the striking counties pretensions of being a law abiding country. therefore such actions are rogue in an international sense. Yes, by that definition the US's predator attacks maybe hypercritical and even rogue.

Palestine isn't a member of the UN nor is it a recognised country with a nationally recognised army. Therefore irrespective of their names Hamas, Taliban, RIRA etc. are organised violent criminals and have no right to speak for the country anymore than the Mafia for Italy.

Mosad I forgive you.
I admire you.
I wish western country's valued their peoples lives as much as you do.
Hey!
I made it! red neck nut at last!
No realist, the dead person would not for a second think about methods he used to murder others.
Grow up people, these folk play by no rules why should we?

Considering that Hamas militant leaders plan and execute bombings and mass murders in Israel and are given explicit support by the other Arab countries (5 star hotel in Dubai) the chances of bringing him to justice using legal methods are not available.

The outrage is that passports were forged. The lack of concern for the dead Hamas commander is palpable.

The preferred method of justice is legal process. If that route is not possible, then justice is served by predator or hit squad. If mass killers cannot rest or hide, then the world can only be a better place.

I agree with CJ on when assassination is "ok"- and even then I would probably only be okay with it if the person were head of an unlawful militant group. But as a national head it becomes a LOT more complex.

Also, I'm not exactly thrilled about the notions of justice that we HAVE to make sure the person behind whatever enemy campaign needs to be 'brought to trial' while a soldier simply doing his job isn't so worthy of 'justice'. If they're supposed to be 'fair game' so is the guy actually calling the shots- and I'd rather he were picked off by a sniper or drone than a horde of guys mowed down just to ensure the actual "bad guy" can be restrained and put in chains.

And Pelican- I absolutely agree that this SHOULD be the issue, and I'm really actually surprised and appalled at how little response your point is getting.
Implying our country in an assassination attempt on a third nation's soil is bad enough, but you say they've actually used identity theft? For either of these we aught to actually consider publically declaring ourselves neutral at the very least (only because voicing outright opposition to Israel tends to encourage too many jihad nutcases to move to our country).

Dear Graham,

I'm not going to go into the history of Israel,
and the Israeli settlement in Palestine.
As Antony Loewenstein tells us - in his
book, "My Israel Question," :

"Palestinians have become "unpeople"... Israelis
are important but they are not. This narrative has
been constructed through a complex set of media, politics, and lobbying, and has resulted in a skewed perspective ..."
In short - Israelis can get away with murder and seen to be
just.

If the Israeli Government and its agents had the
decency and responsibility of admitting to the
assassination instead of denying it and if they
had undertaken that assassination in their own
name instead of stealing the identities of foreign
nationals thus exposing these nationals to revenge
attacks from terrorist sources the world might
understand their actions.

However, everything to date reaks of activities
by a criminal organisation which in Western countries
would be tried for extreme criminal activities.

This is not the first time Israel has been accused
of such activity and according to International Law
this act should be dealt with at the highest level of
the International Court of Justice. Had this been an
assassination of an Israeli operative - the ripples
around the world would have turned into a major storm.

It appears that the activities of other so called rogue
states are not tolerated by Western Governments and yet
Israel has never been called upon to account for its
actions.

It's time they did!

KH, Pelican, others

The substance of this and my other comments on "Israel" is/was threefold fold .
- the first that extra judicial murder and in a third state is unacceptable.

- consequent illegal actions to support that are also unacceptable i.e. state sponsored fraud including forging passports, false statements to customs, and goodness know what other crimes needed to mount such an attack. I wonder if the US isn't burning the wire to TelAviv about the state sponsored bank fraud. Was it randomly selected or....?

- the possible consequences in/to those implicated countries like UK, Ireland, Germany, France and Australia etc.

To this latter point it is not beyond the realms of possibility that as a secondary goal was wedge politics. Making harder for said countries to deal with the Arab nations by heightening the suspicion of their fearful population. In that way moving the west to close ranks against the Arab lobby.

Neither is it totally fanciful for Mossad and therefore, Israel, to be hoping for a ground swell of PR sympathy, for the them against the evil killers. Knowing full well, that emotion tops rational thinking in the public arena. i.e. to accept the hit was righteous, one has to accept the Israeli perspective first.

Israeli nationalist, zealots and those who expect to gain [settlers etc], have in the past and continue to use international sympathy to excuse the otherwise inexcusable.
Take the Norway incident in the murder of the wrong Palestinian. Have any of the guilty ever been jailed. Read their PR of the time.

Consider for a moment the difference in world response to 9/11 and the massacre of Palestinians by the Israeli client militia in Lebanon.
The current PM still refused to acknowledge their (his) mistakes/culpability in the incident.

One wonders if a Lebanese hit squad using the same logic executed the current Israeli PM for his alleged involvement. Would Israel the world shrug and say fair cop? I doubt it.

Someone has to draw the line somewhere. I propose respecting national sovereignty and all that it implies, state sponsored murder forged passports included)

Obama has recently raised the prospect of assassination for those whom the Govt defines as illegal combatants.

The CIA for decades has been doing this along with many other Govts.Obama just wanted to legalise it.

Assassination is the least of our worries.Israel wants to invade Iran probably with the use of nuclear weapons.The USA is trying to limit China's rise by cutting off it's energy supplies.This is the very same reason why Japan entered WW2.

Just speaking to a friend recently who visited the USA.She said it
was a eary feeling of people worried about Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs from Iran that could wipe out communications and power.This again is scare mongering by the US Govt.People in the USA are stock piling food and amunitions.

If we all want to stop this nonsense,then we'd better realise that HAMAS and Al Queda are not the only lunatics on the block.

We are involved in illegal wars in Iraq,Afghanistan and Pakistan under the pretext of stopping terrorism.These wars are all about taking energy and reoursces and there are no good guys.

Yeah, this just CAN'T help but turn into a Israel debate/bashing sesh.

I think the general rule regarding assassination is that it needs to create a positive outcome for your side. The problem is - I think - that the equation regarding positive outcome is SO nuanced that we just don't do it, plus, we don't have the enemy of the degree Israel does. We couldn't hope to understand and comprehend the situation there.

The difference between us and Israel is that they are in a permanent state of war. Who, really, is a direct threat to us?. In conflicts like the one Israel is permanently in - don't tell they're not when their soldiers die most days - is that taking out one gun runner/scumbag fertiliser may set the enemy's cause back months. Yeah, more than likely he'll be replaced but if they took out the guy they also took out his means, experience, and contacts. How many Israeli lives do you think they saved by knocking this clown over?.

...and really, who cares?. Just another dead scumbag. At least he's serving a purpose as fertiliser now.

Examinator- very good observation- I never thought of the implications of Israel trying to hamper the relationship between the Western and Arabian business worlds (it would definitely be in their interests to try to separate the largely Israel-hostile Arab world from western cash).

Why no USA passports- should be obvious- they simply cannot afford to anger the USA at all- if the USA pulling the plug on its financial support for Israel would be too scary to imagine- regardless of how likely the USA would lose from leaving them out to dry. Other western countries (most of which critical of Israel (most of Europe) or simply offer nothing useful beyond moral support (us)) are a different story.

Ultimately, I think it may be a case of Israel using passports by countries it doesn't care to offend, to stage an assassination in another country it doesn't care to offend.

Dear Graham,

In an earlier thread on this topic I asked “how Mahmoud Abdel Rauf al-Mabhouh can be regarded as being a terrorist because of his involvement in the kidnapping and deaths of two Israeli soldiers in 1989 (where he disguised himself as an orthodox Jew) while the actions of the Mossad agents are seen as somehow justified?”

To further the point look at Ariel Sharon;

“The Qibya Massacre occurred in October 1953 when Israeli troops under Ariel Sharon attacked the West Bank village. Sixty-nine Arabs were killed, many while hiding in houses blown up over their heads. Forty-five houses, a school, and a mosque were destroyed.” Wikipedia

Add to that his implication in the Sabra and Shatila massacres and the question must be asked was he a legitimate target for a Palestinian hit squad?

I am more than happy to put the deeds of Mahmoud Abdel Rauf al-Mabhouh on trial but to be called a terrorist deserving of death for being involved in the killing of two Israeli soldiers surely must allow the same punishment to be justifiably dealt to Sharon.

Naturally if one was an Israeli one might see things differently but justice is depicted as blindfolded and as Australians, outside of Palestine or Israel, why are we having difficulty in seeing this for what it is.

With regard to the drone attacks I explored this in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2633&page=1

I am probably feeling even stronger about the issue now. If the allies need to resort to this sort of warfare it is time to leave. It has caused so much misery and reprisals in Pakistan that we need someone with moral authority to say enough is enough.

Sorry no intent to be rude, but I can see the kick a Jew boots are on.
Bali, 9/11/ attempts to murder airline passengers, the list is long and growing.
And the blindness that tells some only Israel offends sickens me.
Iran a country based on pure hate, gets not a mention, yet many think its first Nuclear bomb will find a home in Israel, a dreadful final home.
War is not pleasant, not fun, but to ask one side to play by the rules and not care much about the other is blindness.
Mossad if it did this is no better or worse than others who plan such murders daily in such luxurious places.

Has it occurred to anyone commenting here on this topic that these assassinations that are supposed to stop terrorism,are a result of the West taking of energy/resources that are not theirs?

The Arab world has a lot to be angry about.While their regiemes are often just as totalitariarn as China,it does not give us the right to take what is not ours.

We all getting involved into discussion about whether capital punishment may or may not be human where decided by the court. That it where someone is charged and usual "beyond reasonable doubt". Why would someone introduce assassination as a tool of anything? That is crime in any case. That how it always must be treated. Any political links should be cut and all other explanation taken out so not to confuse anyone and not to bring fame to the criminals. Assassination is crime - that is how should be treated any single or mass assassination.
Double standards would fight back very soon. double standards here is as clear as a demonstration of anti-fur campaigners with steak in their stomachs.

Antony Loewenstein asks:

" 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 only accept peace on Israel's
terms?"

I support the right of Israelis to live in peace and
security, but not at the expense of the Palestinians.
Assassination is not the answer. The killings are not
effective in reducing anything. International Law
prohibits assassinations in times of peace and in times
of war - and it's time Israel was stopped from acting
above the Law - yet demanding that others play by the
rules - and screaming for justice when others retaliate.

You can't expect justice - when you yourself don't comply.

Ariel Sharon made it quite clear when he said:

"Sometimes we will announce what we did,
sometimes we will not announce what we did.
We don't always have to announce!"

Those who dared criticise Zionist wrongdoing in
the past, and who dare criticise Israeli policies
and actions in the present,
should not be deterred by false
allegations of antisemitism.

Foxy,

It would appear that you implicitly approve of what Hamas does, as I see no criticism of their atrocities.

You also say "Assassination is not the answer. The killings are not
effective in reducing anything." Actually that is not true, if the Hamas command have to spend vast resources in protecting their commanders, and their ability to communicate with their foot soldiers is disrupted, their effectiveness is drastically reduced.

If Hamas (or even Fatah) showed even the slightest ability to negotiate in good faith, the palestinians would not be in the situation they are now.

Even when Palestine included half of Jerusalem, the west bank and Golan heights, bombs were continually exploding in Israel.

What does Israel need to do for peace? Cease to exist?

As the forum from the expected general topic on political assassination turned out to be discussion on the particular assassination or even discussion anti-Semitism vs anti-Islamism, I would like that opinion ‘against both’ to have its own proud space.
There are some people that do not wish to be involved to the war where both parties acting for their own gain without considering large majority of “others”. Either party win they would turn their power and criticism against Christians and those without certain faith. Personally in this situation one would prefer to wait before making any alliance between those above or listen to one who does not make fool of you too often

Fascinating posts - even the ones I don't agree with.

I found Foxy's the most rational, particularly:

<<< You can't expect justice - when you yourself don't comply. >>>

The best leaders lead by example. With that in mind neither Israel or Palestine qualify as leading anywhere except into further destruction.

Another quote (apologies, apparently that is how my mind is working this afternoon)

"You can bomb the world into pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace." - Michael Franti

And some of us think we are more highly evolved than Neanderthals.

Bollocks.

GrahamY: "There has been a tradition amongst first world countries that you don't assassinate leaders of your enemy countries, although if they are killed in the course of war that is another matter."

I don't get it. You answered your own question. If I lived on the Israeli side of the border and had idiots lobbing rockets at me most days, I would consider myself at war with them. If I lived on the Palestinian side of the border and had to suffer regular incursions of a foreign army I would consider myself at war too. Thus the Israelis and Palestinian are in a very real sense, at war. As in, at each other throats, killing each other on a monthly basis. It is a much more visceral war than say the US in Afghanistan.

As for assassinating commanders and generals, this is standard practice. The US assassinated Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in WW II for instance.

The news that Israeli was titillating but not surprising and thus made the headlines for only a short while. Apparently the realisation the Israel government's secret regularly steals passports from Australian overseas, and uses them in its espionage operations was far more surprising to most. Obvious in hindsight perhaps, but nonetheless the thought of a foreign OECD government going around stealing passports for unsuspecting travellers is downright jarring. It is is unsurprising it will take quite a few newspapers inches to explore and digest the implications.

Shadow,
Your pro Israel stance has blinded you to the topic subject.
As I demonstrated with my example Lebanon V Israeli PM , your argument is emotional and subjective.

Both foxy and I made the same/similar objective points, extra judicial murder in a third country is Legally (and therefore morally) wrong. As Mossad/Israel is the presumed/assumed perpetrator the natural determination is that *their* action is wrong. As are their actions of involving other parties by means of forged passports

In no way does the specificity of the topic i.e. "Assassination as a tool of (state) foreign policy" imply that the general principal is any different for the Palestinians/Arabs or martians.

The individual murdered for political reasons is irrelevant.
At worst his status is the same as a Mafia Don. A leader of violent criminals. The 'war' label is simply political propaganda. Particularly if Israel denies they are entitled to prisoner of war status etc.

I repeat it is a conflict of Israel's making ...We don't need/want it here or have involvement implied.
Tip If Israel doesn't want to be seen as a rogue nation and question their national sovereignty, don't subvert or ignore other's. Unless at war with them.

The end doesn't justify the means.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Antony Loewenstein on his book,
"My Israel Question," tell us that:

"...numerous Hamas spokespeople have
suggested settlement with Israel is a
possibility, based on 1967 borders.
Israel has rejected this, preferring to
act unilaterally. After all, Israel likes
to be able to chant the "no partner" mantra.
Leading Zionist groups in the USA and Australia
have supported the international isolation of
Hamas, even as its head of its political bueau,
Khalid Mish'al, has said that his party does not
fight Jews "because (they) belong to a certain
faith or culture...Our problem is with those who...
imposed themselves on us by force."

Israel does not have the right to act unilaterally.
It's been calling the shots since 1967, and clearly believes
that the USA and her allies will support whatever it does.

It's time that the international community placed a higher
value on the humanity of the Palestinians, and did not allow
Israel to wreck havoc and destroy the prospects for a
peaceful solution.

If you're interested in obtaining a better picture -
I recommend that you read Loewenstein's book.

Dear Belly,

No intent to be rude? Too late.

If I could fire myself up to do so I would take personal offence at your insinuations, but I can't so I won't.

However I wish you would stop seeing race in everything because we tend to regard such people as racist. We are talking about the state of Israel, or more specifically the actions of the Israeli government but to you it is all about the Jews and to drive it home you say “Iran a country based on pure hate”.

I have said this before on OLO and I will repeat it as often as I have to.

Iran has the highest percentage of Jews in its population of any country bar Israel in the Middle East. Its own constitution dictates that as a religious minority Jews must have representation in its parliament.

However by our standards Iran's treatment of religious minorities, women, gays etc is not good and in some cases it is quite appalling, but to single it out as the worst is hardly supported by the facts. Just compare it to Saudi Arabia our ally.

Iran does have issues with the State of Israel. But anyone who cares to remove their blinkers can not help but feel Israel is divesting its self of legitimacy at a frightening rate.

So please lets try to park notions of Jews and Arabs and talk about what the states themselves are engaging in.

Meanwhile I agree with you that if “Mossad if it did this is no better or worse than others who plan such murders”. I would wish my government had clean hands on the matter but the reported actions of our SAS leaves doubt that they do and therefore it leaves me depressed.

Everyone had better realise that we have all ingredients for another world war.We have a serious economic collapse of the West that in reality is just starting.Countries fighting over limited resources.Lies, deception by our own Govts and their perceived enemies.

Countries for centuries have used war as a diversion for home woes.The real devils in this debacle are Wall St,US Fed,London Oligarchs,and the European Central Bankers.They thought they would achieve a world govt via monetary manipulation.It blew up in their faces.China and Russia have out smarted them.The West has now no real productive capacity,and China technologically/scienticifically is out pacing the West.

The USA is left with it's enormous weapon capacity to take energy and resources.When you are left with a single tool the options are nil.

The only people who win during times of war are the bankers and the arms dealers.In both of the last world wars the bankers financed both side of these conflicts.

So all of you choose.Are you going to become aware and active thus stop this insanity or be lulled into war and chaos.

Examinator and Foxy,

I have not read Antony Loewenstein's book, but I have read several articles by him, and while he has spent much time on research, no one could claim that he is politically unbiased in this issue, and all the publications are focused on pushing a single point of view.

As far as legality is concerned, the first duty of any government is to protect its citizens. As far as the UN is concerned, the pursuit of combatants across borders while frowned upon is not illegal, but the other country also has the right to defend its borders.

The harbouring of insurgents is also illegal, in that it can be considered an act of war. (This does not apply to mobsters)

I personally have no connection whatsoever to Israel, and freely acknowledge that Israel has often been excessive in its retailiation, I cannot see any realistic alternative to its containment strategy.

As Hamas has never publically conceded that it is prepared to accept the existence of Israel, a couple of off the cuff statements by Hamas spokesmen that they would consider peace with the 1967 borders as one of the many conditions, carries no weight.

Your repeatig that this is a conflict of Israel's making does not make it so and ignores the high intensity terror campaign by Fatah from 1948 to 1967 which by no means can be laid at Israel's feet.

Since 1967 the borders have changed, but little else.

The solution can never be the complete capitulation of Israel, and idealistic dreamers like AL are only fueling unrealistic expectations.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You need to do a bit more research - I have.

My sources come not only from Antony
Loewenstein, but Dr Ilan Pappe, Senior
Lecturer at the University of Haifa, Israel,
from Yossi Melman, "Haaretz," Israeli newspaper,
from Robert Manne, Professor of Politics at
La Trobe University, Arnold Zable - another
Jewish intellectual, Alex Dafner, Yiddish
program on SBS radio, and others too numerous
to mention on this 350 word post.

I see no further point in continuing this discussion
with you Sir. We will simply have to agree to
disagree on this one. The evidence is there for
you to see - however you have to have an open mind
to be able to do that! And the evidence goes back to 1948!

Shadow,

I still think you are missing the topic and my point. As I understand you you are saying it's ok for.
- state sponsored extra judicial murder in a third country?
- Therefore, it's ok to ignore a third country's sovereign borders and laws?
- It's ok to subvert *other* countries passports system, security, trade(4-5-6-7-8-9th countries) to hide their intentions to enforce political ends in the 3rd?

It seems to me, you argument has some obvious flaws. It would seem, that at least 8-9 other countries don't agree with you, at least on the last point.
Why isn't in Australia's government allowed to defend OUR interests both terms of passports and potentially our trade and security. Or being a country in which Israel can act out their 'unique' foreign policy at ITS whim. Perhaps, like in Norway, murder the wrong person
you, or more distressing me.

BTW what legal evidence have you that the individual in question was actually involved in actions that actually killed someone?

All you have (and you are acting as judge and jury here by supporting Israel's action) is that he belonged to a violent organisation...good luck with that in any court outside of Zimbabwe etc.

Like I said your argument depends on your emotional bias.

end part one

Part 2
As for your gob smacking, understatement statement *sometimes* Israels retaliation is excessive! EXPLAIN OBJECTIVELY -
By objective I mean without preconditions or biased starting point
-their murdering the wrong Palestinian in Norway?
-the tremendous disproportionate number of civilian deaths/capital damage between the sides.
- punish all Palestinians, for the actions of a minority group (the equivalent punishing all Northern Irish Catholics because of the IRA or perhaps the RIRA).
- the clear video pictures of Peace nut being shot when there was no other local action.
- destroying hospitals and schools.
- Israel's part in the massacre of Palestinians in the Lebanese refugee camp by client militia.
- Israel is protecting key Militia Leaders in Israel today?
- Why you wouldn't support A Lebanese hit quad taking out the Israeli PM for his alleged culpability in the afore mentioned massacre.
- Zionist quasi military support for crushing Palestinian Nationalism in the 1920-48.
- why one religious group is more entitled to a homeland and those who have continual connection with the land for over 1800 years don't!
- it was taken by force and terror. Many had legal title, BTW.
- the lack of enforcement of injustices by settlers against the Palestinians.
- The in principal difference between apartheid/national socialist and Israel's justifications, tactics if we exchange race for religion?

Answer: Dodgy PR, Western guilt, US largess and money oh yes their 'god' .

Foxy,

Again your list of sources are all calling for the capitulation of Israel, some more radical than others.

An "open" mind is open to more than one opinion.

From the partition plan in 1947 that was accepted by the Jews to 1976, every land expansion by Israel occurred after a concerted invasion by the Arab countries.

The 1947 Jerusalem Riots occurred following the vote in the UN General Assembly in favour of the 1947 UN Partition Plan on 29 November 1947.
The Arab Higher Committee declared a three-day strike and public protest to begin on 2 December 1947, in protest at the vote. Arabs marching to Zion Square on December 2 were stopped by the British, and the Arabs instead turned towards the commercial center of the City at Mamilla and Jaffa Road, burning many buildings and shops. Violence continued for two more days, with a number of Jewish neighborhoods being attacked.

It is clear who cast the first stone. The concern amongst Israel is that if they return to the 1948 borders, nothing will have changed except the borders.

If the Intefada were to cease, the actions of Israel to the palestinians would change from containment to communication.

If you have anything other than flowery words by AL et al as to what could possible be a viable solution I would be most grateful.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not going to do your research for you Sir.
The whole idea is that you need to find things
out for yourself. The facts are there if you're
interested - but you're obviously not.
You dismiss my references as being "biased,"
while you cite "facts."

However, you're not alone. Palestinian pressure
groups are not nearly as well organised or
influential as the Zionist lobby in countries such
as Australia and the United States, inaccurate or
unbalanced reporting that damages the Palestinian
cause is much less likely to be the focus of
comment.

If you're really interested in learning another side
to the conflict - read Loewenstein's book, "My Israel
Conflict," it just may surprise you. (Don't pre-judge
something until you've actually read it - Loewenstein
cites all of his sources)

Shadow,
My sources are many.
I note you ignored my list of actual events that go back before 1947.
If one goes back to the beginning of the Jewish nationalism (sic), early to mid 1800's and ask.
'Who was it that campaigned for a home land (someone else's) on the grounds of some claim their god gave it to them?' A bit Francisco Pizarro-stein for mine.

The Zionist's schemed and even employed violence to ensure the annexation. A trifle, 'might is right', don't you think?

Sorry ol' mate, but if some religious lot took my/your family land. Land that they had lived on for 1800 years, based on some dodgy claim that their god gave it to them 5000 years ago, I think I/you would get a wee bit belligerent(and then some)!

There is a clear line of escalating conflict between Jew and Palestinian since then.

One could note a clear parallel principal with Australia's indigenous, Irish , Welsh, Scots. All of the above have had their cultural heritage accepted with varying degrees of recognition.

But as late as last week or so on OLO a group of latter day Jewish proselytizers were denying the Palestinians their nationalism. Their propaganda consisted of the usual half truths and lies. As I said then, check the history, this is a conflict of Jewish/Israeli making and sorry no sale we don't want it here.

I've also said Israel is a reality and should go back to the 1948 borders, pay compensation and get the UN to involved. However, we both know who wont accept that. I doubt that the *Palestinian people* would reject a sensible option.

I don't get the uproar.

Surely the murder of Mahmoud ah-Mabhouh will bring about peace in the middle east, I mean repeating the same action (murdering each other) over and over again works doesn't it?

What was it that Einstein said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

Examinator, how far back do you want to go? The diaspora?

In reality only a small proportion of either Israelis or palestinians were born before 1948 or even 1967, so the issue is dealing with the here and now.

As atrocities and war crimes have been committed by both sides, neither can claim a moral high ground. The single biggest problem with these intellectuals is that they try and view what is happenning through the glasses of a society at peace. I can't think of any conflict which has been completely clean by either side.

If Hamas's demands are completely unacceptable to Israel, then it is a waste of time trying to pursue. Similarily negotiations cannot occur until there is a cease fire, and the cycle of attacks, retailation and counter retaliation is not likely unless both sides are willing to pull back.

In the interim, high brow commentry on the issue by AL etc might as well be considering Roman times for its relevance.