Abdar Rahman Koya accuses me and others of practicing an indifference to history rather than merely being pragmatic in our solution to this problem when we defend the continued existence of the state of Israel and point out the errors in history that have justified anti-Semitism. Yet it is an indifference to history that Koya and others practice that paints a black and white picture of the Palestinian-Israeli issue that continues to promote misunderstanding and even hatred. Always 'Arab good, Jew Bad'!

When Israel was created, thousands of Palestinian lives had not yet been taken. It was not created through the mass shedding of blood but through debate, albeit heated at times, and the signing of a pen. There were numerous Arab initiated riots prior to that time that had shed blood, mostly Jewish, but not on a massive scale. Israel was created in an area of the Middle East that already had a clear Jewish majority living in it. Just like Transjordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon before it, Israel was created by international powers. The only difference was that it had a majority Jewish population and not Arab Muslim. And contrary to what Koya would say, the vast amounts of Jews who came to this land before and after the Second World War and who eventually fought and died in the ensuing Arab initiated wars, were refugees and not invaders or conquerors. Yet Koya would also probably have us believe that the ethno-cultural background of the Jewish state is not part of the reason that the surrounding countries and peoples sought its elimination.

Mass Arab Palestinian lives were only taken only after the Arab nations declared war and invaded and then maintained this state of war for 60 years. That is historical fact and all of Koya's desire for revisionism can't change that. All I ask is when will Arab nations and their Muslim brethren around the world acknowledge their role in the plight of the Palestinian people and their responsibility for finding a peaceful solution outside of the destruction of Israel and the conquering of its people?

It is at least a shared blame as I fully acknowledge Israel's far than perfect nature and do not absolve them of all their actions in the last 60 years. However, the destruction of Israel and the resulting death of its people (as they will not allow this to happen), counter to what Koya insinuates, is the goal of Hamas. Just read their charter in its entirety to understand that.

I do know what kind of 'state' I'm talking about? Israel for all its obvious faults is still a vibrant democracy. Arab Israelis can vote and participate in politics, run newspapers and protest. There is a strong movement for peace and negotiation among all types of Israelis who are free to voice their opinions. There is an active and progressive Supreme Court who forwards the causes of equal rights and human rights for all Israelis. It is one of the few courts in the world to declare illegal all forms of torture including non-lethal torture as was used in Gitmo and Abu Gharib by the Americans. Do I see them as 'occupiers' of the West Bank? Yes, they should withdraw to the 1967 borders and dismantle all settlements there. Should Palestinians have a state of their own? Of course I believe that, but not if it means the destruction of another state and the expulsion or death of its people. Who could really accept such a solution?

The International Jew was inspired by and based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion . So whether the latter is a fake is extremely important to whether we can accept the former. As a former book publisher, Koya should realise this. Hamas in its charter accepts the Protocols as the truth, it is key in their war against Israel and the Jews. Ford and his family, accepted the truth about the fraudulence of the Protocols and apologised for The International Jew . Yet Koya would continue to maintain its underlining "truthfulness" despite knowing that its source was an insipid fake and that the author rejected his own book in the end. That is the faith of a true zealot.

Finally, what does it matter if a book sells well or not? If it is fraudulent then the publisher is morally obliged to either say so or choose not to publish it in the first place. Sales do not mean much. The Protocols still sells well in Iran, whose view of Israel is well known and I'm pretty sure that Mien Kampf still sells well to the neo-Nazis. So what? It means little. If an idea is based on lies and racism then the idea itself is deceitful and racist even if it was unintended to be so.