NationStates Jolt Archive

May I present to you:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42442000/jpg/_42442333_majadele_ap203b.jpg

Raleb Majadele (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254691.stm)

I think this is good news. Obviously it had to be Labour to make that move, but given the demographics of Israel, it had to happen sooner or later anyways. I'd expect the Right to nominate someone to be in the public eye as well, just to court the Arab vote.

Note how Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=majadele&itemNo=812014) doesn't think the story is worth much of an article, and that you can't even find a link to it on the main page. Seems like they consider it a rather everyday sort of thing, with the focus being on the actual politics of the decision, rather than the symbolism of it.

Good. I now just hope that the ultra-nationalists appointed last year are chucked out. However, it might just help give the Israeli state more legitimacy in the eyes of some wavering Islamists and push them towards accepting the two state solution, already supported by a majority (http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2006/no58.pdf)of Palestinians.

Another nail in the coffin of nationalism:(

Another nail in the coffin of nationalism:(

I hope you know the differnce between nationalism and patriotism, if not read Orwell on the subject

I hope you know the differnce between nationalism and patriotism, if not read Orwell on the subject

Indeed.....

You had a point?

Indeed.....

You had a point?

Nationalism dying is no bad thing, if you look at the fact that what nationalism ultimately creates is Xenophobia and agressive state behaviour

Nationalism dying is no bad thing, if you look at the fact that what nationalism ultimately creates is Xenophobia and agressive state behaviour

Ah. This may be your problem. I happen to think Xenophobia and aggression are politically expediant.

Ah. This may be your problem. I happen to think Xenophobia and aggression are politically expediant.
And political expediency was probably the reason for the appointment of this minister.

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread quite nicely. *hint, hint*

And political expediency was probably the reason for the appointment of this minister.

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread quite nicely. *hint, hint*

That is a fair point, however......;)

I simply disagree with the appointment, given that he has been elevated simply due to his beig Arabic.

How utterly pointless.

Moves like this one might soothe the consciences of center-left Israeli Jews, but won't actually solve any problems - not with regard to institutional racism within Israel, nor with regard to the continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

May I present to you:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42442000/jpg/_42442333_majadele_ap203b.jpg

Raleb Majadele (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254691.stm)

I think this is good news. Obviously it had to be Labour to make that move, but given the demographics of Israel, it had to happen sooner or later anyways. I'd expect the Right to nominate someone to be in the public eye as well, just to court the Arab vote.

Note how Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=majadele&itemNo=812014) doesn't think the story is worth much of an article, and that you can't even find a link to it on the main page. Seems like they consider it a rather everyday sort of thing, with the focus being on the actual politics of the decision, rather than the symbolism of it.You lie. Look at the size of the man's nose. He is obviously a Jew.

Anyway, let's hope this helps in the process of reconciliation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

That is a fair point, however......;)

I simply disagree with the appointment, given that he has been elevated simply due to his beig Arabic.
That's not uncommon in multi ethnic/language states. Switzerland, for example, maintains an exact ratio of men/women and German/French/Italian/Romansh speakers in their Cabinet. It's the same principle of representation.

May I present to you:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42442000/jpg/_42442333_majadele_ap203b.jpg

Raleb Majadele (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254691.stm)

I think this is good news. Obviously it had to be Labour to make that move, but given the demographics of Israel, it had to happen sooner or later anyways. I'd expect the Right to nominate someone to be in the public eye as well, just to court the Arab vote.

Note how Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=majadele&itemNo=812014) doesn't think the story is worth much of an article, and that you can't even find a link to it on the main page. Seems like they consider it a rather everyday sort of thing, with the focus being on the actual politics of the decision, rather than the symbolism of it.

Its front of the "National" news section.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/LiArt.jhtml?contrassID=1&subContrassID=7&sbSubContrassID=0

That is a fair point, however......;)

I simply disagree with the appointment, given that he has been elevated simply due to his beig Arabic.

Can you prove that?

Another nail in the coffin of nationalism:(
If it aids the path towards a two-state solution, how is it a nail in Israel's coffin?

Ah. This may be your problem. I happen to think Xenophobia and aggression are politically expediant.
Yes, because that worked out so well in history. :rolleyes:

It's a start :)

While I mostly support Israel, they have to stop treating Palestinians like second-class citizens. This is a good step in the right direction.

I don't think they should relinquish the Gaza Strip and the west bank though.

While I mostly support Israel, they have to stop treating Palestinians like second-class citizens. This is a good step in the right direction.

I don't think they should relinquish the Gaza Strip and the west bank though.


You're in favour of colonisation and slow-drip ethnic cleansing then....

You're in favour of colonisation and slow-drip ethnic cleansing then....
Israel took that territory after it was attacked by an alliance of countries. I see no reason why they should go and give it back to their attackers. And the same goes for the West Bank. If the Arabs and Persians really wanted that territory, they shouldn't have attacked Israel.

If you're don't support it, I guess your just an anti-semite who would have enjoyed a second holocaust.

Israel took that territory after it was attacked by an alliance of countries. I see no reason why they should go and give it back to their attackers. And the same goes for the West Bank. If the Arabs and Persians really wanted that territory, they shouldn't have attacked Israel.
.

What nation attacked who is really immaterial to the people living there, and doesnt justify Israel building colonies in their midst. We are not talking about uninhabited areas, after all.



If you're don't support it, I guess your just an anti-semite who would have enjoyed a second holocaust.

Bereft of argument, I see.

What nation attacked who is really immaterial to the people living there, and doesnt justify Israel building colonies in their midst. We are not talking about uninhabited areas, after all.






It does matter when discussing justification of relinquishing Israeli territory.

It does matter when discussing justification of relinquishing Israeli territory.


Its not "Israeli" territory.

May I present to you:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42442000/jpg/_42442333_majadele_ap203b.jpg

Raleb Majadele (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254691.stm)

I think this is good news. Obviously it had to be Labour to make that move, but given the demographics of Israel, it had to happen sooner or later anyways. I'd expect the Right to nominate someone to be in the public eye as well, just to court the Arab vote.

Note how Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=majadele&itemNo=812014) doesn't think the story is worth much of an article, and that you can't even find a link to it on the main page. Seems like they consider it a rather everyday sort of thing, with the focus being on the actual politics of the decision, rather than the symbolism of it.

Well done Israel. So much for Israel being afraid of muslims/arabs.

That is a fair point, however......;)

I simply disagree with the appointment, given that he has been elevated simply due to his beig Arabic.

Care to back that up with evidence?

Israel took that territory after it was attacked by an alliance of countries. I see no reason why they should go and give it back to their attackers. And the same goes for the West Bank. If the Arabs and Persians really wanted that territory, they shouldn't have attacked Israel.

If you're don't support it, I guess your just an anti-semite who would have enjoyed a second holocaust.

Oh brother. What a dumb statement to make.

Its not "Israeli" territory.

It did when they took the territory. In reality, it wasn't Egyptian, Jordanian, or palestinian's territory either.

It did when they took the territory. In reality, it wasn't Egyptian, Jordanian, or palestinian's territory either.

Well for one thing, no it isn't. Thats why its marked on maps as the "occupied territories". Secondly, I think that saying it belongs to the people that have been living on it (and their families) since pre-1967 is a fair enough position to take. Otherwise we're back to rewarding the mugger.

Well done Israel. So much for Israel being afraid of muslims/arabs.

emm....Many are. Some because of "terror", others because of the fear an Arab majority. It may not be a "cross the road to get away" fear, but its certainly there. The first is understandable, to an extent, the other says something rather ugly about the future of the Israeli state.

Well for one thing, no it isn't. Thats why its marked on maps as the "occupied territories". Secondly, I think that saying it belongs to the people that have been living on it (and their families) since pre-1967 is a fair enough position to take. Otherwise we're back to rewarding the mugger.
I don't think this rewards egypt in any way.

I don't think this rewards egypt in any way.

Another stupid comment. You seem to be on a roll.

Care to back that up with evidence?

No he can't, anymore than neocons in the US can back up statements like, "Obama is only popular cuz he is black."

Another stupid comment. You seem to be on a roll.
Yes. Because I'm not automatically anti-Israel, I'm stupid, and any comment that doesn't support your point of view is stupid to.

I'm wondering if you would like to explain why.

Egypt was among the nations that iniatiated agressions against Israel.

LAst time I checked, the spoils of war went to the victors.

Well done Israel.

Frankly, this is how they should have started off in 1948, as a secular state with citizenship awarded equally regardless of ethnicity, but that fell to pieces with the shambolic failed constitutional convention. And since then Israel has essentially been 'winging it', and making many mistakes along the way.

I hope this a sign of a willingness to correct these mistakes.

It's a start :)

Ditto.

Yes. Because I'm not automatically anti-Israel, I'm stupid, and any comment that doesn't support your point of view is stupid to.

I'm wondering if you would like to explain why.

Egypt was among the nations that iniatiated agressions against Israel.

LAst time I checked, the spoils of war went to the victors.
So, had the Arab states won any of the wars with Israel, you would accept that Israel would then have had no right to exist, as it would be 'spoils of war'?

If you're don't support it, I guess your just an anti-semite who would have enjoyed a second holocaust.
Claiming that criticising Israel is the same as anti-Semitism is an argument that will cause you to be immediately discredited not only on NS, but also in respectable debate - and rightly so.

Claiming that criticising Israel is the same as anti-Semitism is an argument that will cause you to be immediately discredited not only on NS, but also in respectable debate - and rightly so.
I was only doing that as a joke, since the poster I was replying to accused me of
"Supporting colonisation and slow-drip ethnic cleansing", which I agree is an absurd claim to make based on someone's point of view.


Damn the internet's lack of a sarcasm feature.

So, had the Arab states won any of the wars with Israel, you would accept that Israel would then have had no right to exist, as it would be 'spoils of war'? Assuming that Israel had made moves to blockade egyptian ships and started a build-up of Israeli troops on the Egyptian border, then yes.

Damn the internet's lack of a sarcasm feature.
Psst: Use the ':rolleyes:' or type [/sarcasm] or something. Just a hint :)
Egypt was among the nations that iniatiated agressions against Israel.

LAst time I checked, the spoils of war went to the victors.
When was the last time you cheked? Anytime after 1945?
Assuming that Israel had made moves to blockade egyptian ships and started a build-up of Israeli troops on the Egyptian border, then yes.
So you only support that the spoils of war goes to the victors if the victors did not initiate aggression then? Sounds a bit incoherent to me, I must admit.

Psst: Use the ':rolleyes:' or type [/sarcasm] or something. Just a hint :)

When was the last time you cheked? Anytime after 1945?

So you only support that the spoils of war goes to the victors if the victors did not initiate aggression then? Sounds a bit incoherent to me, I must admit.
In practical terms, I doubt that Egyp would have given up any Israeli territory. In moral terms, it would be wrong of them to have agressed in the first place, and therefore anything they gained would be ill-gotten.

However, Israeli took no more than what was needed to ensure a tactical advantage in the event of another act of agression by Arab forces. What they did was not wrong.

And I promise I'll never use an adage in an argument again.

Yes. Because I'm not automatically anti-Israel, I'm stupid, and any comment that doesn't support your point of view is stupid to..

No, your comment that If you're don't support it, I guess your just an anti-semite who would have enjoyed a second holocaust. when you didnt like me taking you up on your support of the continued occupation/colonisation. was the first one, and your second one was mentioning Egypt when the aggressor state building colonies in the area is Israel.

Egypt was among the nations that iniatiated agressions against Israel.
..

Egypt also has a peace treaty with Israel.


LAst time I checked, the spoils of war went to the victors.

The mythical "muggers charter" which comes up quite often in this discussion. You'll find that annexation of territory by war is a no-no these days.

I was only doing that as a joke, since the poster I was replying to accused me of
"Supporting colonisation and slow-drip ethnic cleansing", which I agree is an absurd claim to make based on someone's point of view.


If you support holding onto the West Bank, thats what you're backing.

No, your comment that when you didnt like me taking you up on your support of the continued occupation/colonisation.
Christ, it was a joke.

was the first one, and your second one was mentioning Egypt when the aggressor state building colonies in the area is Israel.
I was talking about the agressor in the Six-Day War

The mythical "muggers charter" which comes up quite often in this discussion. You'll find that annexation of territory by war is a no-no these days.
I understand that, but in this case Israel had a valid reason to occupy territory.

In practical terms, I doubt that Egyp would have given up any Israeli territory. In moral terms, it would be wrong of them to have agressed in the first place, and therefore anything they gained would be ill-gotten.

However, Israeli took no more than what was needed to ensure a tactical advantage in the event of another act of agression by Arab forces. What they did was not wrong.
As far as I can tell by this post, you don't really mean that the 'spoils of war belong to the victor' as you said previously - you mean that you think that they can hold on to an area for tactical reasons / security? That's a whole different cup of tea.

If you support holding onto the West Bank, thats what you're backing.
No it's not.

As far as I can tell by this post, you don't really mean that the 'spoils of war belong to the victor' as you said previously - you mean that you think that they can hold on to an area for tactical reasons / security? That's a whole different cup of tea.
Exactly. Sorry for the confusion; I added the "spoils of war" because I thought it sounded better. It's my fault for not explaining my position clearly.

Christ, it was a joke..

Usually when its said, it isn't. Unless its something along the lines of "You just want to feast on Jewish children" its not going to be obviously a joke. And even then....


I understand that, but in this case Israel had a valid reason to occupy territory.

Briefly, before the deal with Egypt, perhaps. Made some border areas into something like the zone between North and south Korea, maybe. But building civillian housing? No, I don't think so.

If you support holding onto the West Bank, thats what you're backing.

Although Israel's presence in the West Bank is wrong and goes contrary to international law, your statement is ridiculous. Many pro-Israel advocates are proponents of holding on to the territory because they fear that "disengagement" will do nothing to quell the violence but would instead embolden the Arab militias. In the interests of peace, they feel the need to negotiate from a position of power and thus ensure a permanent end to the struggle. It's not unreasonable to suggest that withdrawal would grant the Palestinian militias a greater flexibility in carrying out their attacks and increase the Israeli death toll without inching closer to a resolution to the problem. It is not irrational to posit that simply giving the Palestinians more territory is not only ineffectual, but a catalyst of increased violence.

Exactly. Sorry for the confusion; I added the "spoils of war" because I thought it sounded better. It's my fault for not explaining my position clearly.

Welcome to the nitpickers forum ;) :p

Try to stay as precise as possible and choose your words with some care, and you might avoid getting mobbed again - good luck! :D



*Flees the Israel thread as it is inevitably doomed to wander down the path of all middle east threads before it*

Although Israel's presence in the West Bank is wrong and goes contrary to international law, your statement is ridiculous. Many pro-Israel advocates are proponents of holding on to the territory because they fear that "disengagement" will do nothing to quell the violence but would instead embolden the Arab militias. In the interests of peace, they feel the need to negotiate from a position of power and thus ensure a permanent end to the struggle. It's not unreasonable to suggest that withdrawal would grant the Palestinian militias a greater flexibility in carrying out their attacks and increase the Israeli death toll without inching closer to a resolution to the problem. It is not irrational to posit that simply giving the Palestinians more territory is not only ineffectual, but a catalyst of increased violence.

Then why is settlement building continuing?

Then why is settlement building continuing?

You never mentioned anything regarding the building of settlements. You stated that "if you support holding onto the West Bank, that's what you're backing," referring to a policy of ethnic cleansing. I do not support Israel in its imperialist actions, but you cannot brand all those who feel that Israel should not disengage from the West Bank as monsters who advocate a campaign of pseudo-genocide. They're not inhuman; they simply have a political view of the situation which is diametrically opposed to yours.

In essence, I think that the Israeli government should maintainnothing but military bases on the West Bank and Gaza. I know people are usually idiots when they say that "fighting the terrorists over them stops us from fighting them over here", but in this case it's true. There's going to be a lot more fighting in Gaza than in Israel, and that means that there's going to be less Israeli casualties.

The root of the problem is that Arabs and Palestinians are deeply anti-semetic. It doesn't have as much to do with Israel as it does with ancient cultural traditions. Even during WWII before Israel even came into existance the anti-semetic nature of Hitler's government appealed strongly to Arabs, which was a large part of the reason they became allies.

Then why is settlement building continuing?
Because Israel is trying to turn the Strip into an Israeli friendly territory. And their using one of the oldest tricks in the book- displacing or killing the local population and then moving in your own.

Which is exactly where my support of them ends. I'm for a military occupation- not a psuedo-genocidal campaign in order to cut off a source of terrorist recruites.

So you only support that the spoils of war goes to the victors if the victors did not initiate aggression then? Sounds a bit incoherent to me, I must admit.

I'd say it seems to be consistent as long as the goal is to reduce the number of wars:

If a country which launches an aggressive war is allowed to keep any land they take then this would serve as an incentive for war, so agressor nations shouldn't be allowed to keep captured land.

If a country risks losing some of its territory if it launches an agressive war and loses then this serves as a disincentive to start wars. So war taken by nations while fighting a defensive war should be kept.

I'd say it seems to be consistent as long as the goal is to reduce the number of wars:

If a country which launches an aggressive war is allowed to keep any land they take then this would serve as an incentive for war, so aggressor nations shouldn't be allowed to keep captured land.

If a country risks losing some of its territory if it launches an aggressive war and loses then this serves as a disincentive to start wars. So war taken by nations while fighting a defensive war should be kept.But there is no higher authority to enforce who's keeping what.

But there is no higher authority to enforce who's keeping what.
Hypothetically, that would be the UN.

But it's not what I really meant in any case.

Am I the only one who was expecting an onion article?

Am I the only one who was expecting an onion article?

An Onion article? :confused:

The root of the problem is that Arabs and Palestinians are deeply anti-semetic.

Oh, the unintentional irony of that statement...

Oh, the unintentional irony of that statement...

HAHA!! So very true.

But there is no higher authority to enforce who's keeping what.

True, but I was addressing the complaint from an ideological angle. I doubt it'll ever be enforceable but I think it would be a good system.

Oh, the unintentional irony of that statement...

Although Arabs are a Semitic people the term 'anti-semitism' is rarely, if ever, taken to mean anything other than anti-Jewish. ;)

The root of the problem is that Arabs and Palestinians are deeply anti-semetic. It doesn't have as much to do with Israel as it does with ancient cultural traditions. Even during WWII before Israel even came into existance the anti-semetic nature of Hitler's government appealed strongly to Arabs, which was a large part of the reason they became allies.

In my opinion, the majority of Palestinians (and Arabs in general) are good, decent people who are being exploited by their civic and religious leaders.

And their using one of the oldest tricks in the book- displacing or killing the local population and then moving in your own.


What do they call the process of forcibly removing or liquidating a certain ethnic group in a defined area? Ethnic Cleansing.

Thank you, come again.

In my opinion, the majority of Palestinians (and Arabs in general) are good, decent people who are being exploited by their civic and religious leaders.Which religious leaders?

In my opinion, the majority of Palestinians (and Arabs in general) are good, decent people who are being exploited by their civic and religious leaders.

This is indeed a true and accurate statement.

Hypothetically, that would be the UN.

But it's not what I really meant in any case.This is no hypothetical world.

What did you mean, really?

The root of the problem is that Arabs and Palestinians are deeply anti-semetic. It doesn't have as much to do with Israel as it does with ancient cultural traditions. Even during WWII before Israel even came into existance the anti-semetic nature of Hitler's government appealed strongly to Arabs, which was a large part of the reason they became allies.

Absolute bollocks. I suggest you read up on the subject.

You never mentioned anything regarding the building of settlements. You stated that "if you support holding onto the West Bank, that's what you're backing," referring to a policy of ethnic cleansing. I do not support Israel in its imperialist actions, but you cannot brand all those who feel that Israel should not disengage from the West Bank as monsters who advocate a campaign of pseudo-genocide. They're not inhuman; they simply have a political view of the situation which is diametrically opposed to yours.


Firstly I mentioned "colonisation" which strikes me as being accurate, given whats going on. "Slow drip ethnic cleansing" is also accurate, in that Arabs are driven from their homes (though not nessecarily slaughtered en masse). As the poster did not at the time clarify what they meant by "hold on to" it is fair enough to take it that they meant annexation.

This is indeed a true and accurate statement.


And checkpoints, shootings, beatings and land seizures have no effect at all, I suppose.....They just get riled up by some wily old Imam/whatever.

And checkpoints, shootings, beatings and land seizures have no effect at all, I suppose.....They just get riled up by some wily old Imam/whatever.

When one side is doing its best to kill you because of religious hatred, one must do something to protect thyself. Checkpoints I can agree with. Hell even New Orleans is instituting checkpoints to try to curve crime. Land seizures I do not agree with and that is why I object to the settlements. Beatings I also object to as well as shootings unless they were shot at first.

As I continuously said, who started what to whom is a matter of opinion.

Absolute bollocks. I suggest you read up on the subject.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Himmler_to_Mufti_telegram_1943.png
"To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory.

Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Ali_al-Kaylani
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anti-Semitism#In_the_19th_century

Fact of the matter is that many of the major leaders of the Arabs were planted pretty firmly on the Nazi side in WWII. Husayni (being the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem he was a major influence on and reflection of public opinion of Palestinian Muslims) was a great fan of the idea of the Holocaust, and Kaylani tried to lead a pro-German revolt in Iraq, which incidentally ended with hundreds of Jews killed in rioting.

And it would be ridiculous to discount the influence of particularly the former still has on the thoughts and opinions of modern Palestinians. Or, to quote the late Yasser Arafat:
Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini?... There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops.

On the other hand, one has to be fair and acknowledge that outside the Middle East many Muslims did the right thing. There are cases like the main Mosque in Paris saving children from deportation, or the hundreds of thousands of North African Free French troops who helped fight the Nazis. And of course Mohammed V of Morocco, who protected the Moroccan Jews.

When one side is doing its best to kill you because of religious hatred,.

There was somewhere between 20,000-30,000 Jews living in an around the Area before the Zionist project began. Although it was hardly "holding hands in the shower" it was, compared to their counterparts in Europe, a fairly quiet existence.


As I continuously said, who started what to whom is a matter of opinion.

Thats the foundation of the Israeli state. Here who is colonising who is not really open to debate. And I might think that hatred would better attributed to that than religon.

You stated


The root of the problem is that Arabs and Palestinians are deeply anti-semetic. It doesn't have as much to do with Israel as it does with ancient cultural traditions.
.

Thats just not true. At all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Muslim_lands

The root of the problem is that Arabs and Palestinians are deeply anti-semetic. It doesn't have as much to do with Israel as it does with ancient cultural traditions. Even during WWII before Israel even came into existance the anti-semetic nature of Hitler's government appealed strongly to Arabs, which was a large part of the reason they became allies.

Some are, to state that every member of a group shares an idea is to generalise, and generalisation are almost always wrong.

Many moderate Palastinians will point out that before the Establishment of Israel, Arabs and Jews lived together peacefully, and truthfully, they did, so the argument that Arab anti-semitism is somehow deeply seated culturally is BS. Indeed, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a point when he says that even the most anti-Jewish Islamic governments came nowhere near the level of cruelty that formed the average Western European state until quite recently. I am willing to believe Arabs when they say their issue is with Israel, because, even though I support Israel, I recognise that Arabs have been hard done by them.

And in defence of the Arab role in World War Two, SOME Arabs supported the Nazi, but not because of any hatred for Jews, but because Germany sought to dismantle the British and French Empires which ruled Arabia at that time, as the old Iraqi saying goes, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. But on the other hand many Arabs also fought with the Commonwealth and Free French Armies, so its hardly a black and white issue.

How unfortunate.

How unfortunate.

Yes, progression and attempts to create equality and end a violent conflict are always unfortunate...