aqvarious also says Dr Israeli is "an individual ... discuss[ing] the socially observable cultural challenges created by such people as Hilali and other like minded Muslims who do not want to integrate into their host societies."

1. Israeli speaks about all Muslims, not just Hilaly or supporters of political Islamism.
2. Israeli has a history of supporting the ethnic cleansing of Muslims (and Christians) in the Occupied Territories. He also openly supported the war-mongerers in Bosnia.
3. The International Court of Justice recently ruled that the war in Bosnia was a genocide. Dr Israeli openly supported the Bosnian Serbs who perpetrated the genocide. That means he supports genocide.
4. Those who defend Israeli should also come out and declare whether they support the genocide in Bosnia and whether they want similar genocides to be repeated in other parts of Europe.

I therefore request that coach, B_D, dee and others of similar ilk place their cards on the table and declare whether they stand with Israeli in supporting genocide for those deemed Muslim.

The tendency of some contributors to draw on the southern Thailand conflict as indicative of the inherent violence of Islam seems to misunderstand the conflict, no matter how many links David Boaz attaches to his posts.

I feel that discussing this issue will leave me branded a Muslim apologist, however the insurgencies in Pattani and Mindanao and Sulu in the Southern Philippines is an area where I have a very good background and have actually interviewed many of the people involved, which I cannot say is the same for other contributors who have brought it up. The southern Thailand conflict has recently taken on an increasingly brutal nature but there has been unrest since the 1930's, and serious armed conflict since the 1970's emerging from Thailand's annexation of the formerly independent Malay region, discrimination and forced assimilation over most of the 20th century. The conflict has long been driven by local issues and is predominantly an ETHNIC conflict.
The fact it has been labelled Islamic reflects the current media climate and heightened concern about transnational terrorism, which views the Muslim Umma as some sort of centralized conspiratorial body but there is LITTLE EVIDENCE OF EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENT. In revolutionary independence movements such as this, it is inaccurate to label violence as religiously based - the Contras in Nicuragua were known to partake in particularly gruesome murders (right wing), as were the Philippine New Peoples Army (Maoist). Thai governments themselves have come under much criticism for brutal measures in dealing with the Pattani-Narithiwat conflict, such as the Krue Se Mosque siege which killed 31 and the Tak Bai incident where almost 80 men suffocated in the back of police trucks after being stacked five or six deep.

The deaths of Monks and Buddhist civilians in the South are horrible consequences of war and should not be excused AT ALL, but to suggest that they are caused by the insurgent's Islamic religion is sickening and racist when so many atrocities have been witnessed in these type of independence conflicts in the past, regardless of the ethnic or religious stripes of the perpetrators.

I have not heard Israeli speak and my internet search has not for me produced results in which he gives his views.

Until I get such an opportunity (which I soon will) I will reserve my judgment. I also know little about Hilali other than that which I read in the newspapers, but I do get the impression that he badly insulted the country which accepted him, which is very bad manners, while Israeli has not done that.

I still wish Muslim immigrants in this country success in their lives here. But don't try to convert me I am happy to be a lapsed agnostic Jewish Australian.

First of all do you have any sources to back up your claims against Professor Israeli? I'd like to see a reference of two.

In answer to your final question - well, der NO! This is a no brainer. Active genocide against the innocent is a crime against humanity. IF Professor Israeli backs the idea of ethnic cleansing then he should be condemned. Just as Sheik Hilali should be condemned for his sexist remarks.

Now,as a secular humanist I would say that the comments made by those two rampant Monotheists demonstrate yet again that Monotheism is an anti-human and violent idealology. Monotheism is not worthy of any peaceful and humane society

In response to Snappy Tom's points about the status of Muslims who convert to Christianity and that of minority Muslims in Pakistan, there are equally examples of the inverse in places such as the Northern Phillipines, where numerous instances of family disownment and job discrimination against Muslim converts and Muslims have emerged particularly since 9/11. Also many instances of police excesses in dealing with Muslims have been noted in recent years, and one police inspector has stated that "we are at war with Islam" ("Muslims identify with ‘terrorist’ ideals" Manila Times, November 19, 2003).
Religious or ethnic intolerance is not confined to Muslim societies- the predominantly Catholic Philippines has long been characterized by distrust of and conflict with Muslims, and the separation of Pakistan and India involved Hindu and Muslim atrocities in equally large scale measure.

I do not want to be seen to be defending religious intolerance in any form but it seems to be that many posters seem to view Muslims as the 'worst of the worst' - dictated by conduct that is exceedingly worse than any other religious group. Before we buy into conspiratorial ideas about the desire of Muslims to Islamize Europe to their own image, let us not forget that the large Muslim populations of England and France are legacies of long and bloody colonial endeavours, not simply a case of the third world exploiting European benevolence and tolerance.

Irfan, If you read my posts you will find I do not place Islam nor Muslims in any position less than Jews and Judaism or Christians and Christianity. I repeatedly refer to all Abrahamic religions as no better or no worse than each other. What I do state about Islam if you want a negative is that it is in my opinion the worst sort of government. That is not a religious or cultural attack but, a political observation. If you can't handle that, it's your problem not mine.
Tell us how Hilali comes to be in Australia? Tell us how Hilali makes his money? From where does his financial support come? Tell us how Hilali finds an audience at several large cosmopolitan mosques. Tell us of how it was several weeks of silence by the Muslim community when it comes to Hilali et al spouting trash but, you have an article ready for OLO before Isreali has finished speaking. (Yes I realize it's an exaggeration but, it isn't relative to time lines.) Tell us also of the different people and organizations that came out against Isreali's comments day one. Not as with the Muslim community after weeks of cajoling from the broader community and newspaper articles calling for an apology. Also please note that my comments on your article are related to your response, Professor Isreali's comments and Mufti Hilali's comments. Not on every word either has ever uttered. Not on their religious affiliations or their personal philosophies. I stayed with in the bounds of your article. It's an awful cheap exploit to broaden that scope now searching to defend a cheap association between language and behaviors. Don't come the victim with me Sir. I wont accept it in your writing and I wont accept it from you as a personal defence. I expect better from you.