Perhaps a lefty/iconoclastic intellectual elite obsession with Israel? DavidnPrice-Jones yesterday suggested it was because nationalism got anbadnwrapmafternWWII... Maybe. Or maybe all the trendy academics just deep down don't think the Jews are entitled to anhomeland and self determination.

All this talk of proportionate response puzzles me... No one has ever articulated what one might actually be or how other Western countries would respond to similar provolcation. It's just one of those reasonable-sounding phrases that really doesn't mean anything.

Of all those conflict zones you mention, Israel is the only example where our politicians (on both sides) express active support for the main aggressor. They are not the only war criminals we support but they are considered a part of the democratic west - they are one of our own in a way that Burma, Yemen, Pakistan (etc) are not. The defense of Israeli war crimes by Australia (and our allies) is therefore a significant factor in maintaining the occupation. In short we are implicated in Israel's war crimes and that's why we talk about it.

If Israel was treated by the west in the same way that the west treats (and talks about) countries like North Korea, Iran or Burma then the conversation about the occupation would be different. People only feel the need to point out the obvious when everyone else is ignoring or denying it.

Yes, left academia obsession with Israel and the US -- and mostly acceptance or at least nonchalance of the worst crimes of other regimes. It's a fashion thing, but stupid.

Incidentally, regarding disproportionate response by Israel, what is that nonsense?

1. Hamas et al hurl hundreds of rockets into Israel, no defined targets, designed to kill indiscriminately. (Just like suicide bombings.)
2. Israel responds with targeted attacks in defence and response, and civilian casualties occur.

Those suggesting disproportionate force by Israel are blurring intent and outcome. That's dumb and dumber.

Those defenders of Israel's terrorism - and that is what it is this time, and was in 2008 - will play the anti-semitism card to muddy the argument and justify thuggish brutality way out of proportion to the terror Hamas is able inflict on Israel.
What maddens so many about Israel's endless oppression of the Palestinians is the profound injustice and lying justification for it.
There used to be a place Palestinians called their home. It was roughly divided in two by the United Nations in 1947. Israel is now around 80% of that place and occupies the rest except the blockaded gulag that is Gaza. Israel wants the rest of the 'promised land' and will continue to build settlements in the West Bank, erect walls and make life miserable for Palestinians for as long as it takes. Only after aquiring that promised land will Israel seriously consider peace. Sadly for both peoples that peace is most unlikely to ever eventuate.

@Tim Mulligan

You're right, Israel are evil because they are not letting their countrymen die in the same proportion as Palestinians. Its so unfair & totally inequitable.

1948 the calls for genocide of the Jews were quite clear.

Mr Mulligan, you don't get it, do you?

First, the Palestinians have to recognise Israel's right to exist. Duh? Only then can we get working on two states with reasonable equity for Palestinians.

It's not rocket science. Poor pun intended.

All too predictably the obfuscation and the muddying argument has begun. The Palestinians deserve the right to exist as do Iraelis. Israel exists and is recognized while Palestine no longer exists and is not recognized.

Good. Now let's get going.

1. Stop the Hamas and IJ rockets and suicide attacks.
2. Recognise Israel's right to exist.
3. Decide on borders for a Palestinian state
4. Israel must give up some occupied territories
5. East Jerusalem for the Palestinians

Please note that 3, 4, and 5 will not happen unless 1 and 2 do. The process is clear, it's up to the Palestinians to make it happen. If it was so, there would inevitably be a sharing of wealth across borders and Palestinian youth would harvest a real future.

Even so, I don't consider that Islamic Jihad will ever agree to the first two conditions - and perhaps not Hamas either.

Historically speaking, Gaza was an Egyptian territory from 1948 until 1967, many alternative histories coule have begun then, as they can today.

It was occupied by Egypt, but not part of their territory.
Did Israel try to get Egypt to take Gaza during the Camp David accords, or were they too worried something that looked strategically bad on a map - Egypt have an intrusion deep into Israel.
I bet they would love to get Egypt to take Gaza now, just as they would love for Jordan to take all the parts of the West Bank they don't want.

". . . just as they would love for Jordan to take all the parts of the West Bank they don't want."

Not really . . . why not expand proposed Palestinian state borders east of the river into Jordan?

Is bombing people's airports, stopping medicine from coming through and letting sick people die at checkpoints not a provocation?

Is shooting 12 year old children, blocking their exports to destroy their economy and starving them out not a provocation?

Is bombing their residential areas and UN buildings and then refusing to let reconstruction materials through so they have to live in tents not a provocation?

But by all means, keep blaming the victims. The only thing that matters is that Israel can keep bulldozing people's houses in peace and quiet.

And no, we aren't going to talk about Syria. We're going to talk about Israel, it's warcrimes and it's shameless apologists.

"When Ariel Sharon ordered the complete withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from Gaza in 2005 the Palestinians had a choice"

No they didn't because Israel blockaded them. The prison guards just moved to the borders instead of being inside them.

You've just regurgitated a bunch of shallow talking points you've heard elsewhere without really thinking about things for yourself, Mr Beirman.

Educate yourself by going to the United Nations website where you can view the 'UN Partition Plan - 1947' which also shows the 'UN Armistice Lines 1949'. While there view the map of Israeli settlements in the territories occupied in 1967 and as they were at 1st October 1996. Without a reasonable historical understanding of Israel/Palestine you will not adequately appreciate why the conflict never ends and the ignorant and simplistic commentary follows. I don't mean to be rude, but that also includes what you have posted.

Ed says.
"...Hamas and Islamic Jihad from Iran and other allies to continue their long-standing objective of destroying Israel."

Where is the evidence this? How do you know this will happen if a settlement is reached?

Stop believing in what you want to believe...people of all walks live happily together ALL OVER THE PLANET....It is the politicians/military/money that behind "wars of choice"...not "the 99%".....Follow the money not the rhetoric.

If Jews can live with Muslims & others anywhere, AS THEY DO IN IRAN, they can do it in Israel & Palestine...

Yes A Ahmed....there is always 2 sides....and one is generally lying..........
......thats why we have Lawyers & Judges....the trouble here is International Law can only be enforced if USA wishes and it seems clear the Israel lobby has hi-jacked the Political & Media systems in USA & beyond.....Perhaps there is some other reason for this mad "Imperial expansionist" agenda I can't figure out unless it is war profiteering for "the 1%".

Japan & Germany have proved you don't need "More territory" to create great prosperity.......I reckon, contrary to Economics bull-dust, there is plenty of resources and land if used sensibly...& people want to live in Cities anyway.....I also reckon with current technology we can produce more food than you can poke a stick at....troubler is billions of people have no money to buy necessities. We are not going to make Geo-political progress until we stop putting money into war & put it into development...Forget Climate change, we need to deal with the over-population disaster we are looking at and DEVELOPMENT is THE only way to to this I can see.

@Russell...

...the "play the man & not the ball" "routine" tragically reflects on you, not your target!

Sorry, or was that Jeremy Samuel that Russell quoted that was playing the man etc...
It's the old smokescreen & divert attention thing YET again...

'unless boundaries were noted,'

By Hamas too?

Stop the money to Israel......Stop the missiles from Iran to Hamas too?

Remember when Sadam Hussein gave $50,000 to the family of suicide bombers?

It ain't one sided.

some voices say netanyahu wants Iran, but needs to sterilise its own yard before stretching out,...
they are getting there, and yes,
United States Approves

Why is it that criticism of Israel Govt. gets labeled "Anti-Jewish" or "Anti-Semitic" .......except perhaps if it comes from Jews.

Perhaps this really indicates "anti-goyism"? (or PRO war-ism).

Perhaps also, this is a manifestation of invading the unprotected minds of little children with religion.

Perhaps Israel "constantly at war” “supporter freaks" need another 65 yrs to do a fair settlement....or another 5,000 years to evolve beyond this "us & them" thinking.

Seriously, I'll bet there a millions of Jews that in their heart oppose the racism & injustice going on due to Israel Govt. policies!

@William Bruce,

That's easy. It is because Israel is held to higher standards than is any other country on Earth.

It is because the Jewish state is expected to behave with an altruism and a concern for those who hate it, and wish to destroy it, which is expected of no one else.

It is because if the sole Jewish state is held to standards that are expected of no one else on the planet then the suspicion creeps in that their Jewishness may, just may, have something to do with it. That and the vitriolic hatred that their regional enemies spew for all Jews. That may influence the view as well.

In fact, the expectation that Jews are expected to display such a morally superior behaviour is in itself an expression of praise for Israel. It is extremely racist, but is praise regardless.

WilliamB says: "Israel is held to higher standards than is any other country"

Really? What nuclear non-proliferation treaty has Israel signed?

What other democracy is also a theocracy -- "Jewisih state", to quote William?

This is largely our US fault, of course, but what other state do we give several $billions per year, no questions asked?

What other country has a lobby like AIPAC that demands our Presidents and other leaders pay it obeisance?

Indeed, Israel was created by international agreement and has a right to exist, as does any other country, including the ones messed up by the British over centuries, like Palestine.
;]
.

@Alex Cannara:

In answer to your question about democratic theocracies. Well, none. However, when it comes to democracies with an official state religion, try: England, Scotland, Greece, Malta, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Costa Rica, Greece, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Tuvalu, Switzerland, Iraq, Bangladesh, Jordan, Maldives, Malaysia, Cambodia, Bhutan, Pakistan.

Arguably also Andorra, Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Phillipines, Portugal and Spain.

And plenty more non democracies too. Neither Egypt nor Iran are included in the above.

However, unlike the above, although Israel is predominately a culturally Jewish country Judaism is not an official state religion. It is a secular country. Israel is, by no reasonable definition, a theocracy.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

Israelis arent only thick, they are getting thicker, and of course that requires more land.
Usury, ten eyes for an eye, twenty teeth for a tooth, and
all out of living people,... unsurpassed Wrath and Vengeance!
"As you sow, so shall you ,..

@mark mc dougall

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

The idea that Da Joooos have any obligation to protect their population, let alone any right to do so is ridiculous.

How dare they target those who are trying to kill them.

The idea that the government of Israel has a greater obligation to its own people than to those who want them dead is ridiculous. Just because every other government in the world does the same thing is no reason for the Israelis to imagine that they should be allowed to get away with it.

Perhaps a Israeli version of Mabo might help, doesn't seem likely though,does it?

Perhaps 1967 is before your time Aaron Troy Small, for it was then that our untenable 1901 Federation constitution was re-written: to recognise Aboriginal Australia as an integral part of contemporary Australia.

For wrongs must be righted and wrong politics: revised.

When I mentioned the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate earlier, I did so because our contemporary UN process and Charter is a continuum that respects and has no substantive disagreement with the League's lawful dealing.

Evidently the US Presidential Administration overlooked this legal nicity in 1947, as it chose to subvert the UN General Assembly to provoke civil war in Palestine. Today and undoubtably with some regrets, it now seeks to shore up the unequal outcome which has never been recognised as legitimate by ethnic Palestine's peoples or importantly, by any of the peoples in the nations that are close neighbour to Palestine. A Security Council veto protects the US Presidential Administration's policy but veto does nothing to assuage moral imperative.

JohnKS has it right. The power of Security Council vetoes is antithetical to democratic progress.

“Then why, Chris, is one official Israeli poistion that Jerusalme is their capitol?”

Um, because it was traditionally the capitol of the old Jewish State maybe? And they want it to be? That's just a guess of course. It could be that they tossed a coin, but I doubt it.

“especially when many of the countries you listed, including England, don't ceremonially invest their newly-elected officials via the prelate of whatever is listed as their "state religion".”

And?

So what? They obey their own rules, not yours.

To keep you happy, here is the enthronement of the current Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGLN1kREJ2Q

As to the rest of it? Gosh, a culturally Jewish State has laws influenced by Judaism? Gee, whoda thunk it. What were you expecting? Laws based on Confucianism maybe?

Alex, you clearly have no idea of the government structure of Israel, or of what a theocracy is, or of what a state religion or an established church is, or the extent to which these things can vary, and I really don’t see it as my role to teach you.

Hell. you didn't even do me the courtesy of properly reading my last posting, given that I made no such conflation, so I would just be wasting my time anyway.

If you want to just hate Israel based on ignorance please feel free to continue. In the meantime, until you know a little more of what you criticise please don’t waste my time.

This really is a very silly comment.

Take a look at the preamble to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland to chose at random another Western liberal democracy.

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Would anybody seriously contend that Ireland is a theocracy?

What a strange double standard this displays.

Israel is a secular liberal democracy where religion is free and more or less in its place.

How much it is in its place is a matter of taste and opinion and sometimes politics. Just like in every other Western country. A certain royal commission proves that surely by its very existence.

But to suggest that the country is a theocracy because its dominant religious tradition is Judaism rather than Catholicism or Lutheran is just plain deplorable.

http://geofffff.blogspot.com.au/

So, Che, the Irish Constitution makes religious statements that the Irish themselves violated repeatedly -- say via their IRA or past support of Nazism? Actions speak louder than constitutions.

And Chris , fumbling for why Israel insists its capital is Jerusalem -- remember the Temple, Chris? Y'know, where the means for communicating with He Who Cannot Be Named resides?

If Israel were truly non-theocratic, then why would it be necessary for the Knesset to draft laws today, that might be passed, to remove various civil powers from Rabbis?

Those of us with Jewish, Irish, Italian & other ancestries, with living relatives to learn from, grasp the inconvenient truth that Israel has a way to go before it's truly a "liberal democracy". The testing is building, as their demographics inevitably change.

FYI -- One of my Scandinavian friends responded to their being a "theocracy" like Israel, or not...
------
"It's a relic from the reformation.

Norway was a Catholic country until 1536. With the economic benefits the reformation gave the Danish king in Denmark, he imposed the same arrangement in Norway to be able to grab the land owned by the Church. Norway then saw a long period of decline morally and politically.

The new Lutheran priests were educated in Copenhagen only and were Danish born. This added to the lukewarm attitude the Norwegians always have had to the then new government- controlled church.

Norway declined into oblivion after this. Bergen, my hometown, did have an active fish trade with Germany and that made it interesting to immigrants from Denmark and Germany aiming to meet it's needs, especially the needs of the Hansa League's here in Bergen. The fish trade made Bergen rich in it's days and attracted Dutch and Scotch to settle here, thus creating an interesting blended culture of Northern Europe.

This worked positively for cultural life but Danish control of the new Lutheran Church was total and it was so cemented at the end of the Danish reign in 1812 that the new domestic Norwegian government just inherited it the same way it was when Norway had a Swedish King.

The issue of the day in 1812 was to develop Norway economically, so the church was left to live it's own life. Later in the 1880's independence from the Swedes became the issue of the day and the church with is traditionally Danish roots became an active supporter of this. When we finally got it in 1905, the church was on the winning team, thus enforcing it's power over the people! Paradoxical situation I must say!

The century under the Swedes saw more development than the four hundred years under Denmark. It wasn't bad being under the Swedes. And, it was right to gain independence, but the domestic price might have been to high.

However, the Norwegian church was brave against the German-led occupation from 1940 to 1945. They spoke out against brutality and they functioned as the only legal opposition to occupation forces. They gained popularity again so they came out strengthened from the war. This they used or misused until their influence started to fail in the 1970's.

Now people are hardly visiting the churches so there is a move towards a separation between the church and the state. The problem now is that the church would go bankrupt if it is "freed" from the state. So there we are today. The church has become a government sponsored institution that is good to have when we are born, get married and when we pass away, and especially when we are hit by calamities like the massacre last year.
Most Norwegians are content with this arrangement but there are smaller church communities as well and even they receive support from the government based on the number of members. The amount is the same pr. capita as what the Lutheran church gets but the number of members is still significantly different.

This economic compensation works as a compromise that helps other religions survive in spite of our special system. Denmark and Sweden have similar systems. So Scandinavia should have been one country, but we can't agree, so we're left with 3 small countries!"
------
Hardly a story matching the creation of a "Jewish State", "Mormon State", etc., eh?

With regard to Che Gorilla and your Islamist/Nazi comment. Really? So now were gonna attribute a linkage between nazism and Islam beyond the short term benefits that certain Muslims leaders seeked being on the sides of Nazis in the Middle East against the threat of a Jewish state being implemented on Palestinian/Arab territory. Italia, Romania, Japan were all allies of the Germans in World War Two. So your gonna draw up a nazi/Catholic Nazi/Balkan or perhaps Nazi/Buddhist comparison as well? No I didn't think so. And please before you venture out and place convenient labels to throw mud on Islamic nations or society as a whole which Western mainstream media already wonderfully does, consider a little bit of Jewish history before anything. Ie how Spanish Jews fled from Spain due to the inquisition and were welcomed no questions asked by the Ottoman Empire, which some historians place as the sole reason for the survival of half the Jews at the time in Europe if not for the noble gesture of the Ottoman Empire. Or perhaps Turkey being one of the First Nations to recognise the state of Israel? It's an easy and simplified way to argue a point or put in place a premise which made up labelling than attempts to justify but I ask we do a little more factual analysis before coming to such absurd and frankly offensive labelling. Afterall this is not a forum for Fox news. If I will argue against actions of Israel I will argue against the policies of the current right wing government in place. I won't construct my argument on such notions as the haters of Jesus Christ/Jews. Sounds ridiculous right? My point exactly.

Good comments, Baz.

I forgot also to link other Nazi sympathizers, like Ireland, the Bank of England, Chase Bank, Barclays, Swiss banks, some noted Britons, Charlie Chaplin, Lindberg and, as you mentioned, the Vatican, with its famous Koncordat with Hitler.

When one's unsure who will win, or when one knows $ will be made regardless of who wins, a conflict can be a profitable opportunity, as Henry Morganthau (Sec. Treas.) documented.
;]

Interesting discussion, Che. But, it falls into the trap of labels: "Nazi/Islamist". Islam worldwide is a vast assemblage of peaceful sects and well over a billion people. Islam & Nazism are meaningless to relate in any label..

What we do agree on is the absurdity of much of British rule and subterfuge in the Middle East , as well in the Indian sub-continent.

We can also agree on the history of the Hebrews, who were of many nomadic tribes in ancient times, becoming partly unified under Saul, then split under David & Ishbaal, into 2 kingdoms about 3000 years ago.

When modern Israel was formed by international edict, after WWII, the concept of returning Hebrew lands to Jews was allegedly a noble goal. But, even in that moment, Ashkenazi Jews (mainly European) initially refused entrance to the new Israel by Sephardim (Iberian Jews) and N. African Jews, as from Ethiopia.

Thus, even though Jews were looking to regain a land they'd lost centuries before, they were quite able to discriminate on who was a 'worthy' Jew for Israel -- a defining attribute of a theocracy.

That weakness of principle has been improved on, somewhat, but Israelis & Palestinians have equally legitimate claims to lands, and equal responsibilities to the rights of one another. In this sense, Israelis are hardly victims.