Ron,
I’m not sure I understand your use of the words colonialism and imperialism. David Solway’s article and his references makes a good case that Jews are native to Israel so even taking the Palestinian counter claims at face value how can you call it colonialism? If the Jews had accepted Uganda from the British, that would be an example of colonialism. What is your definition of imperialism? Is it Israel’s’ ambition to build an empire from the Nile to the Euphrates? Or is it just one group ruling another? I don’t see you getting hot about the Alewites rule over Syria (and Lebanon) or Turkeys occupation of Cyprus or any other example of an occupation that took place after we all became enlightened.

Director: OK Mr. Soros lets take it from the top.
Soros: No Mr. Bond I expect you to die.

I want to reply to 2 previous posts: The Mongols were vicious but no more so than many of their contemporaries. Cities were put to the sword only if they resisted Mongol rule. But the biggest difference between Mongols and Islam is that the Mongols understood the true difference between war and peace. For a Moslem there is only war until judgment day. They captured half of the Moslem’s empire and ended Sharia in their holdings. The term I’ve always heard used to describe Mongol religious attitudes was “evenhandedness”. It allowed previously oppressed peoples to return to society.

To the poster who described Bush as “caught in the middle” I agree he knowingly lied. But I think he did so (and maybe to himself) because of the sheer size of the problem. Instead we got his business school nonsense about tipping points. So how can we reach a consensus to “fix” Islam? If we can’t I foresee a never-ending war (short of actual judgment day). Even if the Moslems win and conquer the world they will quickly turn on each other over who is more authentic.