The Israel-Palestine conflict did not start 20 years ago. It has its roots in the early 20th Century and officially started 61 years ago when Israel ethnically cleansed a majority of the indigenous Palestinians, destroyed their villages, towns and neighbourhoods, and wiped Palestine off the map. Israel was built on the rubble, corpses, blood and tears of Palestine, and Israel continues to occupy and oppress, expand and colonise using its overwhelming military supremecy. As well as Palestinians, there's also tens of thousands of Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese and other Arab victims of Israel.

And let's not forget the Israeli victims. But with a kill rate ranging from 20:1 in the 1967 Six Day War, 9:1 in the 2006 Lebanon War, and 102:1 in the 2008/09 Gaza massacre, why would Israel refrain from using its weapons of mass destruction, which it used to such brutally devastating effects in its most recent wars. 

There are alternatives of course. However, Israel has ignored and refuses to comply with international law or any UN Resolutions relating to Palestine, for example, General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948), Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

Like the US, Israel may not do body counts, but the victims of Israel and the US do, and they're still counting.

One thing which separates the above is that our government isn't supporting and encouraging the brutal and criminal activities in Darfur, Chechnya, Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, the Chinese annexations or Iran. Nor is it attempting to deflect, distort and discourage criticism of the above.
In the case of Israel the reverse is true.
Following, as it did,  a ruthless starvation policy of Gaza which lead directly into a senselessly brutal military assault against the ailing infrastructure of the same district, to arrange for a delegation to visit Israel with the purpose of deepening our trade relations between our countries is nothing short of encouraging Israel's brutality and soothing any concerns that international law might one day come to include the Israeli military.
Australia is directly complicit in Israeli crimes against humanity. If the Australian government refuses to condemn acts of blatant viciousness then is the moral duty of all people of conscience to act on their own behalf.

And note how the lead graphic conflates an anti-Jewish push with the current moves against a pariah state that happens to be run by Jews. 

These fuckers of course have no self-respect.  They can't even get right the character of the proposed boycott.

The bizarre thing is that the Zionist lobby is happy to claim Jewry in general as being supportive of Israeli criminality (while simultaneously excommunicating all detractors with venom), without confronting the moral implications.

If Jewry is thus defined, i.e. as being synonymous with an unrepentant support of a criminal state (whose  raison d'être is ethnic cleansing), albeit dragging along as a rump buffer those who are squeamish but throw up their hands in powerless while finding comfort in the appropriate platitudes of mild angst against that criminality, there is ipso facto a rational basis for anti-Semitism.

To repeat the dictum from the (Jewish) philosopher Michael Neumann:

'The more anti-Semitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism is a moral obligation.'