Finally a sensible analysis of the whole ridiculous affair.

I agree mostly with what you say.

What then of today's news that Irvine has got 3 years for denying the holocaust.

The author rightly points out the anti-semitic portrayals of Jews in Arab newspapers, but neglects to mention offensive portrayals of Arabs and Muslims in Israeli publications. He also fails to mention the offensive and racist articles appearing in a publication with which he is associated, which has published offensive puerile pieces from Muslim-hating authors like Daniel Pipes and Mark Steyn. If I were to take an average piece from a Mark Steyn article, replace the words "Muslim" with "Jew" and "Islam" with "Judaism", I'd have something that would find pride of place in a Nazi publication. Before the author castigates others, he might want to set his own house in order.

I agree with Ted – there is more than simple “reactionary influences” at work.

AMSADL – I too noted the news of David Irvine

He was also banned from entering Australia for his views.

I believe he should not have been imprisoned in Austria nor banned from visiting Australia.

Irvine is the classic reason for never denying freedom of speech.
He, like the KKK and every other extremist and organisation who preach hatred and intolerance need to be allowed to vent.

Only by their venting do the tolerant of the world get to know what has to be challenged.
Prevent the vent and you push the “cause” underground where the damage it can do is far more serious than loonies with banners (eg IRA, El Qaeda cells etc).

It is said censorship treats the sage equal with the fool and freedom of expression allows the world to measure them each from the reasoning of their utterances.

Allow the cartoonists to blaspheme (if that is what their cartoons imply).

Allow us to see Irvine for the fool he is.

Deny the zealots of intolerance the opportunity to gag anyone or risk far more serious consequences than what is, at worse, the babblings of godless imbeciles.

It is more effective for countries like Syria and Iran to exercise what amounts to democratic trade embargoes against those who offend them. It is neither appropriate nor constructive to forment idiots into states of hysteria and call for the death and martyrdom of cartoonists who offend the sentiments of the religious (and often closed) minded.

Me thinks the author has sought to misrepresent broader Arab and Muslim portrayals of the cartoon debate. Whether it suits his partisan purposes or not, the author must acknowledge that a substantial number (if not the majority) of Muslims (including on this very website) have criticised & castigated the extreme reactions of a minority from Arab and Muslim majority countries. Yet this is mentioned nowhere in his article. Had the author studied a broader range of newspapers and publications, he would know religious scholars and lay Muslims condemned the violence. Instead, the author is intent on portraying all Arabs and Muslims as freedom-haters, itself a most anti-Semitic enterprise.

The main point here is that people will always find some way to divide us. What ordinary people have to do is find ways to unite us irrespective of race, creed or colour.