origins of Modern Israel

[Higgly]

I'd like to know where and how you are basing your opinons.

Good for you.

Again perhaps i'm missing something here but how is a 1919 map of the league of nations mandate going to prove your piont. This is what i see, I see the land that was supose to be the state of Israel in it's entirety, a jewish homeland...

Which would be?

My Webpage

You are welcome to your web page. This is our web page.

And when you compare it to the terroritory that was actually decided by the UN in 1947. there is a massive difference between the 2. infact these borders were rejected by all parties.

Yes they were! Thanks!

Nov 1947 map according to www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

What does the death toll have to do with the situation. would it change anything if it was equal ?

Yikes!

That is some silver plate when you go back to the very beginning and start looking at all the concessions that israel has had made on thier behalf, by either the British, the league of nations, and the UN all trying to find a solution to a problem in which most if not all the world did not care about or had had at the time a racist view on.

OK. What is your starting point? What exactly is Israel conceding? This is a country that started with diddly squat and ended up with 90% of someone else's territory. Concessions my fanny.

And lets be be real here for a moment US interests in the area were very minimal in the 40's, 50's and did not really start supporting Israel with limited miltary equipment until the 60's and 70's.

Errr. In the 40s, Israel was sucking up to the Brits. In the 50s, it was the French. Israel has always relied on the gullibility of strangers. A real Blanche Dubois among nations...

My Webpage

Yeah right. You have a web site,. Who cares?

you also forget to mention of the support that some of the middle east countries were getting from mother Russia. but you also forget to mention that US also sponsors most of the middle east with US dollars and other support.

Russia was the second nation to recognize Isray-el in the UN in 1948. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to bring tht up.

To which state did these palestians belong to. which citizenship did they hold, to what government were they to answer to. to what nation do they proclaim to belong to. Why i ask that is with out it how do they hold property rights,citenship rights, or have any rights other than those afforded by the UN to all persons.

You're joking, right? Are you saying there are pre-conditions for human rights?

I've spent 2 tours in the area as a peacekeeper, one in El gorah with the MFO and another in Syria with the UN i am by no means an expert but i have seen some of the problems that this conflict has created and i have a problem with laying it at the feet of one nation. but see this as a middle east problem that involves all the nations involved. And will take all those nations to solve this.

What makes you think I am laying it at the feet of one nation? I am just telling it like I see it. If you are honest, you will do the same.

[Army Guy]

Blackdog:

Not true. The 1847 partition plan was accepted by most mainstream Zionist groups, including the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-waiting. Only a small minority of Jewish organizations (including the terrorist Irgun and Stern Gang) rejected the UN plan.

At any rate, any solution would most definitely involve a return to Israel's approximate pre-1967 borders.

Yes you are right, my mistake however it was shortly afterward the war of independance in 1948 that Israel determined that those 1947 borders were indefensible.

Thus Israel has no "safe and recognized" borders under these agreements, and the cease-fire lines, as the above agreements signed in Rhodes in 1949 make clear, are unacceptable to the Arab countries. The November 1947 borders specified in the UN partition plan could have been the borders, but those borders were rejected by the Arabs at the time, and were not acceptable to Israel later since they proved indefensible against armies and porous to terrorists. Until the Israel-Egypt Peace Agreement of 1979 there was no change in the formal situation as of the 1949 Armistice.

facts.

At any rate, any solution would most definitely involve a return to Israel's approximate pre-1967 borders

Why the 1967 borders, and i'm assuming thats before the 67 war not after it.

[Army Guy]

Higgly:

Your not interested in debating this subject, but rather stating your opinion, ...OK you've had your say move on. leave the remaining bandwidth to us that want to debate the subject with more than some snappy come backs or actual research.

[Black Dog]

Why the 1967 borders, and i'm assuming thats before the 67 war not after it.

Yep. What that basically means is Israel would withdraw from its settlements in the West Bank, which is the only way of ensuring a contiguous and thus viable Palestinian state. If you take a look at this map you can see how the oprescence of Israeli settlements would compromise teh territorial continuity and reduce any Palestinaian state to a series of quasi autonomous zones with limited access to each other and cordoned off from Israel and other areas by the separation wall.

[Army Guy]

Blackdog:

Yep. What that basically means is Israel would withdraw from its settlements in the West Bank, which is the only way of ensuring a contiguous and thus viable Palestinian state. If you take a look at this map you can see how the oprescence of Israeli settlements would compromise teh territorial continuity and reduce any Palestinaian state to a series of quasi autonomous zones with limited access to each other and cordoned off from Israel and other areas by the separation wall.

I would agree any movement towards peace is a good one, but how do you convince the Israelis and palestinians to move, what is the carrot on the stick. I don't see one, and if it fails then what , what recourse does Israel have.

[Black Dog]

I would agree any movement towards peace is a good one, but how do you convince the Israelis and palestinians to move, what is the carrot on the stick.

The Israeli settlement bloc is not a popular one. If pulling out of the settlements is the price of peace, it is one a majority of Israelis would pay. As for the Palestinians, they'd be happy to see the settlements go, but any deal to clear them out and turn the land over to the Palestinians would require a strong central authority to maintain order and ensure the transition goes well. Unfortunately, Palestinan society is too fragmented right now for such an authority to emerge.

I don't see one, and if it fails then what , what recourse does Israel have.

A two-state deal would certainly include security guarantees, meaning the palestiian authority would have to make sure no one operates against Israel from its territory. If it can't or won't, Israel would be justified in taking whatever steps to ensure its security.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I would agree any movement towards peace is a good one, but how do you convince the Israelis and palestinians to move, what is the carrot on the stick.

The Israeli settlement bloc is not a popular one. If pulling out of the settlements is the price of peace, it is one a majority of Israelis would pay. As for the Palestinians, they'd be happy to see the settlements go, but any deal to clear them out and turn the land over to the Palestinians would require a strong central authority to maintain order and ensure the transition goes well. Unfortunately, Palestinan society is too fragmented right now for such an authority to emerge.

I don't see one, and if it fails then what , what recourse does Israel have.

A two-state deal would certainly include security guarantees, meaning the palestiian authority would have to make sure no one operates against Israel from its territory. If it can't or won't, Israel would be justified in taking whatever steps to ensure its security.

There already is a Palestinian state - it's called Jordan, which is majority Palestinian.

[Rue]

"What exactly is Israel conceding? This is a country that started with diddly squat and ended up with 90% of someone else's territory."

The above statement is in fact completely untrue. Ayone who looks at the map of "Palestine" and what percentage of it was seized for Trans-Jordan, and is willing to accept historical fact as opposed to trying to re-write it would not make such a preposterous statement.

"And let's be be real here for a moment US interests in the area were very minimal in the 40's, 50's and did not really start supporting Israel with limited miltary equipment until the 60's and 70's."

This again is absolutely untrue. The U.S. from day 1 was a major player in the creation of the State of Israel and long before the 1940's. Anyone who knows anything about Middle East History would also know the major role the U.S. played in ending the Suez Canal crisis, its huge disagreement with both France and Britain over the Middle East in the 50's-90's and its cold war with Russia played through the Middle East regimes during the 50's through 90's. Again a silly thing to say.

"In the 40s, Israel was sucking up to the Brits. In the 50s, it was the French. Israel has always relied on the gullibility of strangers. A real Blanche Dubois among nations..."

Now this is an example of someone who is simply making up things. Again this is a pure fabrication and it shows the person who wrote it has no credibility. Then again this is the same writer who when called out on for making fabrications that Israel stole land to start Israel, then switched the topic in his response to me and presented an article on land in the West Bank, something completely different then what we were speaking about.

To describe Israel sucking up to Britain and France is so ignorant it is not even funny. Israel had very strained relations with Britain precisely because of how it became independent and the fact that Britain clearly sided with the Arab Regimes particularly those in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Jordan. Britain made no attempt to hide its neutrality when it seized most of Palestine for Trans Jordan and its role in inciting Arab nationalism as a tool to defeat Turkey in World War One is well known and documented. Britain's anti-Israeli foreign policy for most of the 40's to recent years is well documented.

As for France, for anyone to say Israel sucked up to France in the 50's is a complete laughing stock. DeGaulle in fact was an open and well known anti-semite.

What did happen was that for one brief period, Britain and France conspired with Israel to have a dispute with Nasser. Nasser had seized the Suez Canal and nationalized it and was going to charge Britain and France tarrifs. While this was happening, Nasser was openly encouraging war against Israel and openly backing terrorist attacks against Israel and calling for its destruction and Israel's borders on the Sinai side were being infiltrated by Fedayeen.

Israel's agenda was clear, slap Nasser and discourage his rhetoric. Britain and France got together with Israel and used Israel as a pawn to start a dispute to then justify Britain and France parachuting troops in to seize the canal. To say Israel sucked up to France or Britain is idiotic and completely ignores what really happened, that the three countries had a common foe.

The same United States, led by General Eisenhower put an end to the Suez Canal crisis by guaranteeing Israel's right to use waterways shut down by Nasser which were at the time Israel's only way to get supplies to survive. It was in fact the U.S.'s intervention that prevented the Soviets from coming in on the side of the Egyptians and perhaps causing a full blown war.

"Yeah right. You have a web site,. Who cares?"

Well considering you complain to the moderators everytime you feel anyone is rude to you, show some courtesy back.

You may also want to ask yourself when you make these emotional statements about Israel being Blanche Dubois, you may want to look at the history of anti-semitism in France, its record during World War Two, and how the French courted Israel not the other way around, then in the early 60's turned on Israel and made it clear it would side with the Arab nations NOT out of principle but because it felt since the Arab countries had oil, that is who they should side with. This is spelled out in their foreign policy documents. The French never hid this. More to the point how could anyone possibly say Israel sucked up to France in the 50's. Anyone who knows anything about Middle East history, knows that France's colonial sphere of influence never included Israel but included Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and of course Lebanon. Its very strong role in Lebanon always prevented it from being an Israeli ally and Israel would never have sucked up to either Britain or France. France was committed to its pro-Arab foreign policy and Britain was deeply committed to Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

"you also forget to mention of the support that some of the middle east countries were getting from mother Russia."

This is the only thing you have stated that is accurate. Russia in fact was the principal backer of Egypt, Syria and Iraq in the 60's. The U.S. countered with Turkey, Israel and Iran support. Britain never got involved but always supported Jordan. France openly supported the Arab regimes along with Russia.

"Russia was the second nation to recognize Isray-el in the UN in 1948. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to bring that up."

Seems to me I already made that point. Russia was technically not the second but was one of 5 that came to support Israel right after the U.S. Russia in fact was the FIRST country to recognize Israel de jure as opposed to de facto. Guatemala recognized Israel the same time Russia did.

"

I've spent 2 tours in the area as a peacekeeper, one in El gorah with the MFO and another in Syria with the UN i am by no means an expert but i have seen some of the problems that this conflict has created and i have a problem with laying it at the feet of one nation. but see this as a middle east problem that involves all the nations involved. And will take all those nations to solve this.

What makes you think I am laying it at the feet of one nation? I am just telling it like I see it. If you are honest, you will do the same."

I take the opinion of a Canadian soldier who has served as a peacekeeper very seriously so much so that I think you should as well. Army Guy is to be respected for his service and we all know is not saying anything profound when he says a conflict is not one-sided.

In fact when and if there is a conflict resolution process that is implemented, it will be precisely people like Army Guy who may be called upon to go back by the UN as consultants.

Army Guy hear me loud and clear. Israelis have every kind of opinion there is-but on one thing you can count on-they absolutely respected and will always respect the role the Canadian Armed Forces played in the Middle East as peacekeepers. So do the Beduin Arabs and Arab Israelis. Having travelled and knowing Beduins, Arab-Israelis and Jewish-Israelis they all said the same thing about Canada's armed forces-they were professional, impeccably well behaved, absolutely neutral and everyone trusted them.

Interestingly the same was not said of French troops by either side.

[JerrySeinfeld]

And when you compare it to the terroritory that was actually decided by the UN in 1947. there is a massive difference between the 2. infact these borders were rejected by all parties.

Not true. The 1847 partition plan was accepted by most mainstream Zionist groups, including the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-waiting. Only a small minority of Jewish organizations (including the terrorist Irgun and Stern Gang) rejected the UN plan.

At any rate, any solution would most definitely involve a return to Israel's approximate pre-1967 borders.

Why return to those borders? The Arabs went to war with Israel and lost. When you aim to destroy and enemy and instead as a result, they defeat you, then you're stuck with the new borders.

Too bad - live with it

[Black Dog]

Why return to those borders? The Arabs went to war with Israel and lost. When you aim to destroy and enemy and instead as a result, they defeat you, then you're stuck with the new borders.

Too bad - live with it

Because "finders keepers, losers weepers" is not a recognized concept in international relations. And since Israel has never formally annexed any of the territory it captured in '67, it can't be said to "own" it. the West bank is currently considered under international law to be de jure a territory not part of any state.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Why return to those borders? The Arabs went to war with Israel and lost. When you aim to destroy and enemy and instead as a result, they defeat you, then you're stuck with the new borders.

Too bad - live with it

Because "finders keepers, losers weepers" is not a recognized concept in international relations. And since Israel has never formally annexed any of the territory it captured in '67, it can't be said to "own" it. the West bank is currently considered under international law to be de jure a territory not part of any state.

You're right on one account: "finders (or rather WINNERS) keepers losers weepers" would make far to much sense to become part of UN dogma.

Rather cowtowning to the "we attacked and lost and now we're gonna cry, whine, sulk, self detonate and kill innocent civilians until we get lost in a battle we started by unwisely provoking a superior military" would is the concept you and your UN pals would be more familiar.

[Higgly]

Higgly:

Your not interested in debating this subject, but rather stating your opinion, ...OK you've had your say move on.

You wish.

[Higgly]

There already is a Palestinian state - it's called Jordan, which is majority Palestinian.

Yes, well one could just as well argue that there is already a Jewish state. It's called New York, Eliot Spitzer, leader.

[Higgly]

Rather cowtowning to the "we attacked and lost and now we're gonna cry, whine, sulk, self detonate and kill innocent civilians until we get lost in a battle we started...

You mean the same strategy the US is using in Iraq and Russia is using in Chechnya?

[jbg]

That's a horrific comparison.

I think it's quite apt, given your racist history on this board of recycling gross anti-Semetic imagery and stereotypes (for example, comparing Arabs to "feral beasts", suggesting they are a fifth column in western society etc.).

Jews were never dangerous to Germany.

If they were, would the Nazis thus be justified?

Out of consideration for the readers, I decided not to copy the entire post I am responding to. Those truly interested can use the "snapback" feature to read. I have thought about this over the Holiday weekend and here are my thoughts.

There is a troubling double standard at work. Every people or sub-group of people seems to be entitled to a state of their own, except, apparently, the Jews. The Palestinians are, at most, a subgroup of either the Syrians, the Arabs generally or the Muslims generally. While some can debate whether or not most modern Jews trace their ancestry back to the area now known as "Israel" there is no question that their culture does.

The place name sin the first five books of the Old Testament are the same or similar to modern place names in the area. Names such as "Jerusalem", Haifa, and Beeersheba have been in more or les continuous use since Biblical times, and are even mentioned on numerous occasions in the Bible. There is no question, as many left-wingers will point out, that political independence was more or less erased after the destruction of the First Temple, and that normally Israel was a province of one conquering power or another. There is also no question of the intact survival of a Jewish people since that time.

Given the development of the modern nation-state, and the rough ideal of independence and self-determination for discrete and distinct people, there is no question, under normal circumstances, that the Jews would qualify for such a state. There is no question that the Jews, wherever they were (except of course in the US, Canada and Australia) have, at least until the end of the World Wars, been under some kind of discriminatory, marginalized or endangered existence, despite the fact that as a group they have never sought subsidies or social services.

Early on, the status of "dhimmitude" in Muslim lands was actually less restrictive than the rules imposed by the Roman Catholic church. Thus, many Jews wound up in Moorish Spain. Unfortunately, this proved to be a death trap, since when the Church reclaimed the Iberian peninsula in 1492, the Jews were immediately forceably converted or expelled from Spain, and from Portugal in 1497. The Jews wound up shuffling around the rest of Europe through, roughly, the end of the 19th Century (expelled from and readmitted to Britain a few times, on one occasion by the same King).. Starting with a particularly deadly wave of violence commencing in 1892, the Kisinev Pogrom, and cresting with the Holocaust, Continental Europe expelled or killed almost all of their Jews. The ones remaining in wretched (sp) captivity after the liberation, by US, British and Canadian forces, of the concentration camps could not return to their now confiscated or destroyed businesses.

The logical solution was the creation of the State of Israel. The same love-hate relationship the world has with the Jews seems to devalue Israel's right to defend itself. People fees midgets to the lions in Democratic Kampuchea with barely a murmer heard from the world; an Israeli airstrike against an apartment where "fighters" lob rockets from into Israel evokes outcries.

This is not to say Israel should not adopt higher standards than Kampuchea; it is to say that war is h*ll, civilians will die, and it is up to the compatriots of those civilians to restrain the aggressors in their midst.

[Higgly]

There is a troubling double standard at work. Every people or sub-group of people seems to be entitled to a state of their own, except, apparently, the Jews. The Palestinians are, at most, a subgroup of either the Syrians, the Arabs generally or the Muslims generally. While some can debate whether or not most modern Jews trace their ancestry back to the area now known as "Israel" there is no question that their culture does.

For sure. They were right there with the Philistines.

The place name sin the first five books of the Old Testament are the same or similar to modern place names in the area. Names such as "Jerusalem", Haifa, and Beeersheba have been in more or les continuous use since Biblical times, and are even mentioned on numerous occasions in the Bible. There is no question, as many left-wingers will point out, that political independence was more or less erased after the destruction of the First Temple, and that normally Israel was a province of one conquering power or another. There is also no question of the intact survival of a Jewish people since that time.

Well what the hell. Why don't we just all just go back to the code of Hammurabai? Or Tuthankamon? Adam and Eve? The Big Bang?

Given the development of the modern nation-state,

O jeez. Fast forwarding here...

and the rough ideal of independence and self-determination for discrete and distinct people, there is no question, under normal circumstances, that the Jews would qualify for such a state. There is no question that the Jews, wherever they were (except of course in the US, Canada and Australia) have, at least until the end of the World Wars, been under some kind of discriminatory, marginalized or endangered existence...

The Queen for a Day argument. Ok, movning on...

Early on, the status of "dhimmitude" in Muslim lands was actually less restrictive than the rules imposed by the Roman Catholic church. Thus, many Jews wound up in Moorish Spain. Unfortunately, this proved to be a death trap...

Are you familiar with the term 'Protestant'?

...cresting with the Holocaust

Truly a blot on human nature. Are you familiar with what Joseph Stalin did to the Ukrainians in 1932?

The logical solution was the creation of the State of Israel.

Absolutely. I think that a Jewish state is essential to the survivial of the Jews. But what can we do about the poeple who used to live there?

The same love-hate relationship the world has with the Jews seems to devalue Israel's right to defend itself. People fees midgets to the lions in Democratic Kampuchea with barely a murmer heard from the world; an Israeli airstrike against an apartment where "fighters" lob rockets from into Israel evokes outcries.

Midgets? Hell, Pol Pot was feeding everybody to the lions. I have seen the goddamned skulls! Have you?

This is not to say Israel should not adopt higher standards than Kampuchea; it is to say that war is h*ll, civilians will die, and it is up to the compatriots of those civilians to restrain the aggressors in their midst.

jbg, you are in sad shape indeed if you are using Cambodia to defend Israel. Rue, can you please talk to this guy?

[Black Dog]

There is a troubling double standard at work. Every people or sub-group of people seems to be entitled to a state of their own, except, apparently, the Jews.

Says who?

So no comment, then, on your use of racist imagery, illiminationist rhetoric and recyled anti-Semetic tropes?

[jbg]

There is a troubling double standard at work. Every people or sub-group of people seems to be entitled to a state of their own, except, apparently, the Jews.

Says who?

So no comment, then, on your use of racist imagery, illiminationist rhetoric and recyled anti-Semetic tropes?

Referring to my use of the term "feral beasts"? Well, why is there barely a whimper when some Sunni sets off a bomb that kills 144 Shi'ites or worse yet it's blamed on the USA, but Israel is excoriated when an apartment house directly adjacent to what roughly passes for military activity is accidentally bombed? Or when some rogue US soldier sticks underpants on the head of a terrorist?

Black Dog, these people dehumanize themselves. They don't need any help from me.

[jbg]

Midgets? Hell, Pol Pot was feeding everybody to the lions. I have seen the goddamned skulls! Have you?

This is not to say Israel should not adopt higher standards than Kampuchea; it is to say that war is h*ll, civilians will die, and it is up to the compatriots of those civilians to restrain the aggressors in their midst.

jbg, you are in sad shape indeed if you are using Cambodia to defend Israel. Rue, can you please talk to this guy?

The "midget feed" I was referring to was recent. The Cambodian government received 50% of the proceeds of the "fight" between 42 midgets and an imported African lion. I would hate to think UN money and foreign aid is going to support importing lions to swallow midgets. My point is that Israel adheres to higher standards than almost every other UN member. They cannot be held to a standard of perfection.

[Black Dog]

Referring to my use of the term "feral beasts"? Well, why is there barely a whimper when some Sunni sets off a bomb that kills 144 Shi'ites or worse yet it's blamed on the USA, but Israel is excoriated when an apartment house directly adjacent to what roughly passes for military activity is accidentally bombed? Or when some rogue US soldier sticks underpants on the head of a terrorist?

Black Dog, these people dehumanize themselves. They don't need any help from me.

With all due respect, what the fuck are you talking about? I fail to see what the reaction of those in Iraq to internecine violence or U.S. torture has to with the reaction of those in Lebanon or Gaza to Israeli strikes. Unless you think of Islam and its adherents as a monolithic hive mind, which, I suppose, would fit in with your worldview (kinda like how someone once said "there's no difference between Jews in Poland and those in Palestine, although the two are widely separated.") But hey, if your cool with channeling the same shit as your people's past oppressors, that's your perogative. Personally, I think its pretty twisted.

[jbg]

Rue, I beg to differ on that. Purchasing land in private does not change its nationality.

Does that mean that despite President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase the US, from the Mississippi River to the Continental Divide (excepting Texas and points west of Texas) is still French? Does that mean that Alaska is still Russian?

That is utter nonesense and you know it.

[jbg]

The Palestinian Arabs have been reduced from a population of simple shepherds and farmers to a class of medieval serfs, with no property rights, no citizenship rights, no right to assembly or movement, in short no human rights at all, and all as a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel.

And what plans do they have to develop this land once they throw Israel into the sea? Same development plans as the Shi'ites and Sunnis slaughtering each other in Baghdad? Great business climate.

[jbg]

Referring to my use of the term "feral beasts"? Well, why is there barely a whimper when some Sunni sets off a bomb that kills 144 Shi'ites or worse yet it's blamed on the USA, but Israel is excoriated when an apartment house directly adjacent to what roughly passes for military activity is accidentally bombed? Or when some rogue US soldier sticks underpants on the head of a terrorist?

Black Dog, these people dehumanize themselves. They don't need any help from me.

With all due respect, what the fuck are you talking about? I fail to see what the reaction of those in Iraq to internecine violence or U.S. torture has to with the reaction of those in Lebanon or Gaza to Israeli strikes. Unless you think of Islam and its adherents as a monolithic hive mind, which, I suppose, would fit in with your worldview (kinda like how someone once said "there's no difference between Jews in Poland and those in Palestine, although the two are widely separated.") But hey, if your cool with channeling the same shit as your people's past oppressors, that's your perogative. Personally, I think its pretty twisted.

I'm not cool with your double standard. Israel should be held to the same standards as the Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq. If they exceed those standards, G-d bless them.

[jefferiah]

Long Live Israel!!

[Black Dog]

I'm not cool with your double standard. Israel should be held to the same standards as the Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq. If they exceed those standards, G-d bless them.

So, Israel, the vaunted Only Democracy in the Midddle East should be held to the same standards as people you refer to as "feral beasts". Way to reach for the skies.

Is expecting Israel to conform to the behavioural norms of other western democracies while expecting little from the other culturally repressed, politically retarded states in the region a double standard? Perhaps. But, to me the only way Israel (or any western nation) can expect to be regarded by anyone else as the advanced, civilized states they proclaim themselves is by setting and living up to their own standards. That means, not engaging in behaviour that would pass withjout comment in a dysfunctional failed state like Iraq.

Also, if you think I'm giving the Muslim world a fee pass, you're sadly mistaken. I can, however, judge the actions of some of their number without resorting to dehumanizing slurs. You should give it a try, it's actually quite easy.