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.