Dear Editor,

Dissidenz's point is absolutely correct. American foreign policy is grossly distorted on the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict - something that Mearsheimer and Walt (most recently) - have pointed out to considerable effect. Until the US recognizes the complexity of the issues at work in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US will continue to be a major source of the problem in the region. Indeed, American influence in the Middle East has been largely malign. This is tragic, since the US could have been a benevolent influence and a genuine moderating force. But it's too late for that. American power in the region will be crippled in the aftermath of the Iraq war, and its influence will continue to decline as its foreign policy ineptitude becames increasingly clear to the rest of the world. Many international actors have much greater interests in the Middle East than the US, and they may eventually be forced to step up and manage regional affairs - hopefully, in a fairer and more equitable manner.

None of this is to excuse the Arab world for its own problems, but many of those problems are rooted in, or have been greatly aggravated by, the influence of the West and the historical legacies of colonialism.

When discussing the Arab-Israeli question in particular, there is one fact that trumps all others: Israel was created on land that was already occupied by another people. Period. Little more needs to be said. The fact that those people did not willingly give up their homes and did not want to live in a state dominated and controlled by foreigners should hardly be surprising to anyone. All we need do is ask ourselves how we would react if a group of foreigners suddenly came along, told us that they had more right to the land of our birth than we do, and then proceeded to settle that land, with the expressed intention of setting up their own state. I don't think that many of us would react well to that kind of situation.

In the modern world, generations of Israeli-born Israelis have established a legitimate claim to the land that their ancestors never had. That does not, in any way, mitigate the injustice done to the Palestinians. Eventually, this conflict will be resolved and part of that resolution will have to include Israel acknowledging that it was created at the expense of another people and their society.

It may well be that there was a good argument for the creation of an Israeli state, and that argument was (obviously) greatly strengthened with the Holocaust. Again, however, there is no argument that invalidates Palestinian claims and it is possible to acknowledge the political and practical necessity of creating an Israeli state while recognizing the injustice done to the indigenous people of Palestine.

I should point out that many Israelis already acknowledge this simple truth. Indeed, even Ariel Sharon recognized this reality in one of his last speeches before the Knesset.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

I was hoping that this Debbie Schussel person used the word "Paki" in ignorance, not realizing that it's roughly the equivalent of using the word "nigger". Unfortunately, after looking at her blog, I can only conclude that this is a deeply, disturbingly racist individual. She must have known exactly what she was doing.

Re: the larger question: I was going to say that I hope Americans have had enough experience with white-skinned, "typical" Americans running amok and killing large numbers of people that they would realize that the race/ethnicity of the Virginia shooter is irrelevant to this conversation. Again, though, after reading Schussel, I must admit that I despair of American commonsense. It seems that too many people are looking for an excuse to feed their own hatred and petty prejudices.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

A lot of the people posting here seem to know nothing about the internal politics of Quebec or the fact that xenophobia in the province is nothing new. However, it has been given a new respectability in the past election and is now manifesting itself in many different ways. This is just the newest example of discriminating against women with hijabs.

I want to reiterate points made by some other commentators: in a multicultural society, finding a tolerant limit is absolutely essential. This is not a question of the "rules of the game". As an earlier writer pointed out, games develop within particular cultural contexts. They accommodate the needs of that context. If they wish to spread to or be accessible to people of different cultural backgrounds, the games need to be flexible. In a place like Canada, this kind of flexibility is an absolute necessity. The failure to realize this is, as I said in my earlier posting, shameful.

Let's make no bones about this: Muslims, and other minority groups, are under siege, in many different ways, within contemporary Western society. These petty examples of intolerance are symptomatic of much deeper problems. These issues are more pronounced within Quebec because of that province's long struggle with ethnic nationalism and its efforts to preserve and protect a distinct ethnic identity - efforts which, inevitably, shade towards racism when dealing with the "other". But the bigotry towards Muslims - which many people seem all too willing to justify - is a growing problem across the West. And it is more a problem of Westerners than Muslims.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine