I say nearly all because the official reactions from two countries clearly stood out in marked contrast to the ritualized panacea of diplomacy, formality and respect that was on show. Predictably, the first reaction came from Israel.

For the last three years, Sharon had been largely successful in casting Arafat as the principal obstacle to peace in the region, an inveterate terrorist with seeming omnipresent powers who (and here Sharon was following the lead of Clinton and Barak before him), chose to 'unleash' the second intifada rather than accept Israel's 'historic compromise' at Camp David in 2000. In the nefarious circuits of the mainstream media, this quickly became gospel in a way that completely side-lined all Palestinian counter-claims regarding Camp David, as well as conveniently side-stepping once again the very fact of Israel's ongoing and illegal occupation. Arafat became larger than life, though for all the wrong reasons. But more importantly, his wholesale demonization had the desired effect of derailing any prospect for renewing negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, or breathing new life into the beleaguered 'peace process', both of which Sharon had voted against in the Knesset and remained vigorously opposed to.

Few were surprised then as the Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid - who had earlier tried to explain that Arafat should be buried in Gaza rather than Jerusalem because the latter was "the burial place of Jewish kings, not Arab terrorists" - expressed the general sentiment in Tel Aviv over Arafats death, gloating how it was "good...the world was rid of him."

The other response that stood out from the rest of the international community did not come from the White House as one would have expected, but from the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. Here is what Howard had to say:

"I think history will judge him [Arafat] very harshly for not having seized the opportunity in the year 2000 to embrace the offer that was very courageously made by the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, that involved the Israelis agreeing to about 90 percent of what the Palestinians wanted."

Perhaps confused that he was being asked to comment on why he thought the Camp David negotiations of 2000 had failed rather than on the news of Arafat.s death, Howard then went on to speculate that "many people" saw Arafat as a terrorist and concluded:

"I find it very hard to believe he couldn't have taken more action to restrain the activities of terrorist organizations."

And that was it. With these few terse remarks, Howard managed to produce what was undoubtedly the single most inappropriate and belligerent response to Arafat.s death proffered by any political leader outside of Israel, and at a time when many were in mourning. Re-hashing little more than his obviously partisan distortion of the Camp David negotiations followed by a crude throw-away line about terrorism, Howard went about simply dismissing the legacy of a man whose importance on the world stage had, after all, spanned decades.

For all of his proselytizing about upholding traditional values and moors, both the timing and spirit of Howard.s remarks lacked any sense of moral propriety or decency. Similarly, they lacked the sort of foresight or diplomatic finesse that one could be forgiven for expecting from a Prime Minister and supposed 'statesman'.

In all, it was an extraordinary display of ignorance, arrogance and sheer partisanship by a Prime Minister speaking from the relative obscurity of Canberra, thousands of miles away from the Middle East, who isn.t - it should be explained - generally known here for his great command of Arab history or politics, or his great compassion for the down trodden and dispossessed.

Not surprisingly then, as the tributes and condolences continued to pour in from across Africa, North America, Asia, Europe, the Arab world and Latin America, from such people as Nelson Mandela, UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, the Arab League's Hossam Zaki, the European Union's Javier Solana, religious leaders, heads of state and so on, Australia's isolation became all too apparent.

At issue here, is not only Howard.s stupidity. Nor is it his unwavering commitment to holding firm alongside Israel in the face of mounting international support for Palestine and its people. More so, it is the way Howard.s comments showed a profound disengagement from, disrespect for and insensitivity towards Australia's own Palestinian community. Whether we had been supporters or critics of Arafat, the overwhelming response to Howard.s comments was understandably one of anger, disbelief and dismissal, quickly followed by a familiar sense of alienation and continuing invisibility in this country.

These same sentiments were expressed following Australia's decision earlier this year to join America, Israel, and a handful of US protectorates in Latin American and the Pacific, as one of only seven countries to vote against UN General Assembly Resolution ...that called on Israel to dismantle its illegal apartheid wall in accordance with an 'advisory opinion' handed down by the International Court of Justice in...

Both the decision by Australia to squarely side by Israel and America at the UN, alongside Howard's remarks about Arafat, once again give lie to the myth that Australia maintains a neutral position vis a vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or that Australian's of a different ethnic background to the Anglo-Australian majority somehow live in a truly representative and multicultural society.

Just why Howard felt the need to say what he did about Arafat, especially during a time of mourning, is anyone's guess. A lack of personal tact and dignity is surely one reason. So is Howard.s over-zealous commitment to simply abdicating vast tracts of Australian foreign policy to the whims of the White House administration. No doubt, our Prime Minister imagined that he was saying exactly what Washington and Tel Aviv were expecting him to say.

However, there is another reason, one that is far more difficult to sell, though, I think, just as relevant as any slogan about Howard having become the deputy sheriff for Bush in the Pacific region. It is simply this: both Australia and Israel are settler colonial states. Both are 'nations' whose foundational moments are steeped in colonial racism and violence - the genocide of Australia's indigenous inhabitants versus the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous Palestinian population in Israel. Both try to cover these less than flattering beginnings with national narratives that advocate such things as 'miracles' in the desert, and laud the 'pioneering spirit', 'bravery at the frontier' and so on. Both necessarily exhibit the follow-on effects from their internal histories of racism, racial violence, racial oppression and the paranoia and ambivalence that mark every settler colonial society. And as transplanted settler communities, both have a heightened fear of attack and imminent danger vis a vis their neighbors either in Asia (in the case of Australia), or the Arab world (in the case of Israel).

My point? That it is not simply a matter of coincidence how virtually every single mainstream report, piece of analysis or commentary dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in Australia, is inevitably underwritten by a tacit identification with and empathy for Israel and the 'trauma' it faces.

Israel is made to feel familiar; a people like 'us'; their pain human and real. Along with this, Israel continues to speak as the first person in an endless media narrative that has already tallied up who is right and who is wrong, who acts in self-defence and who refuses to 'rein in the terror'. Whatever Israeli officials say about whatever situation, their accounts are never scrutinized as partisan or possibly one-sided.

In contrast, the Palestinian continues to live a shadowy life on the television screens and in the print media of Australia. The Palestinian belongs to another world. S/he rarely speaks or rather, is rarely allowed to be heard. S/he is only present where there is violence and chaos. And of course, there is never any shortage of media commentators only too willing to take apart the hidden agendas, lies, violent affiliations and so on of Palestinian representatives.

Without wanting to collapse the different histories and realities of Australia and Israel, I would argue that Australia and Israel have roughly the same cultural wiring, the same colonial phobias and fears about racial difference, and the same heightened sense of paranoia that one often finds lurking 'at the frontier'. It is for this reason that no Palestinian voice can or will be heard in this country until there is justice for Australia's indigenous community and a requisite re-wiring of Australia's cultural, political and social landscape.

John Howard represents the worst of these colonial and racist traditions. A cultural conservative who is forever looking back to the pre-multicultural heyday of the 1950's, the trademark of his nine years in office has been his liberal use of racial scapegoating and his carefully staged demonization of Australia's own Arab and Islamic communities. Perhaps the only redeeming feature about his comments is that given his relative unimportance in influencing international affairs, few in the international community actually listen to what he has to say.

But we still expect an apology John.

Alex Kouttab is a Palestinian writer living in Australia. He is former Secretary of the Australian Arabic Council and is currently completing an honours degree in politics.