In answer to Fellow_Human, Israel has peace treaties with Egpt and Jordan as a result of those countries deciding to pursue negotiations rather than warfare. Israel has just disengaged from the Gaza Strip, despite the unwillingness of the PA to negotiate and despite the genocidal charter of Hamas. The fact is that the Arab world has aggressively attacked Israel by military means for decades and has only ever made gains as a result of pursuing peaceful negotiations.

Crusader, Stan1 and Fellow_Human:

No doubt that the concept of 'Land for settlers' was lately on the rise in israel (at least until the recent evacuation of the Jewish settlements of the Gaza strip), but it did not happen in a vacuum, but as direct result of the Palestinians not willing to have peace and sending suicide bombers into the cities of Israel.

Israel's former prime minister, Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinians almost everything they could dream about: almost all Jewish settlements would be dismantled, they could get a state on 98% of their land, including large parts of East Jerusalem and the holy Moslem places, alternative lands instead of the remaining 2%, generous American financial aid, allowing a limited number of refugees - those with humanitarian causes, to live in Israel and financial compensation for the rest, who could then settle in the Palstinian state. When this agreement was almost achieved, Yasser Arafat literally turned his back and instructed his convoy of cars to drive away from that peace conference.

This proved that the Palestinians are not interested in peace or the well-being of their own people - what they want at all costs, just like Iran, is to end the Jewish entity of Israel and throw the Jews (as stated not once) into the mediterranean sea. They do not even care about having their own independent state: if this is what they wanted, they could have it long ago (in fact, they could even get their state first, then break their peace agreements and attack Israel again from better positions).

As a result, Barak's Labour government collapsed and was replaced by Sharon who supported the settlers.

The settlers do not enjoy a majority in Israel - most Israelis hate them and will happily rid themselves of the occupied territories, especially if they felt that it was safe to do so, but those who believe that Israel must do whatsoever is needed to survive, do and will continue enjoying the absolute majority in Israel.

It is now the Palestinian's turn to demonstrate whether and when their basic attitudes changed.

Israel should, if attacked ever again from Gaza, turn off the water. the problem will be gone in a week

This is an excellent article with a timely warning.

This issue is not really about Israel, Palestine or the history of the Middle East. Its about the destruction of the West. Anyone who can't see this when it has been stated so clearly by our enemies is a fool.

The "we're not perfect either" or "look what a Westerner did in the past" lobbies are pathetic sympathisers with our enemies who wish for the destruction of their own community as a "punishment" for imagined or reinterpreted wrongdoings of the past. They are so without insight that they don't envisage that this entails their own destruction.

They will call for "diplomacy" when Tehran is mounting a nuclear attack and attempt to lead us to passivity in the face of imminent destruction.

Tehran is inviting destruction. I can envisage the newscasts showing the bodies of their dead children and blaming the US yet again in order to recruit more Western sympathy.

The sooner anti-terror laws weed out Left wing anti-west sympathisers in our own community the safer we will all be.

With less proactive leadership in the West,the worst could well happen.

The Bob Browns and Kim Beasleys of this world would kill us all with their passivity or dilly-dallying in the face of a crisis.

In response to Leanne Piggot's article and those who responded.

I agree with Leanne in as far as she went, but she barely scratched the surface. All seem to have no knowledge of Islam or Muslim concepts.

I am not taking the Muslims side, but warning those on the other side that their ignorance of Islam and Muslimism could prove to be the Muslim's great weapon of atomic magnitude.

What I think I know!

Most Muslims are not fundamentalist, most fundamentalist are not terrorists. Most terrorists seem to break the Muslim Law in every thing they do. Suicide is about the worst crime a Muslim can do.

Both Muslims and Christians both use the word 'religion'. The same word means very different things to each. To the Muslim, religion means Law, and when 'religion' is traced to its route it does mean Law.

If a Muslim converts to another religion the Muslim Law demands the death penalty, both for the converted and the converter.

History shows that Muslims have tolerated Christians in their domain as second class citizens. As they expand their domain by holy-war and jihad, their aim is to convert their new citizens to Islam.

Holy-war and jihad are fundamental to Muslim Law and to ask them to abandon these would be to ask them to abandon Mohammed. Remember, the words holy-war and jihad means something very different to them than what they mean to us (semantical problem).

If you are curious about how I know what I think I know, it is because I have just read a book by BERNARD LEWIS

THE CRISIS OF ISLAM __ HOLY WAR AND UNHOLY TERROR

B LEWIS has written a number of books including:

ISLAM and the WEST.

BERNARD LEWIS'S BOOKS should be mandatory reading for every body in the west.

Leanne's article seems to me to be a straightforward series of observations about an international issue, unsullied by opinion or conjecture. Even her conclusion, that there is more to this than pure Israel-bashing, is carefully phrased and moderate in tone.

How come this appears as an online opinion? Where are the wild accusations and hairy-chested claims? Where is the muslim-bashing, the holy-war armageddon-very-cross accusations?

Instead we have an unemotional and straightforward piece of reporting, which a couple of decades ago would be applauded for its sober presentation of fact. No wonder all the responses are limp-wristed rehashes of personal prejudice - there's nothing to get the hackles a-rising and the blood a-boiling.

Thanks Leanne, a valuable and timely reminder.