Exactly, but what's even more important is that, regardless how many countries have seen Jews expelled, it reflects the depravity of the country, not the nature of the Jews or Judaism.

I think it's very telling that the Ba'athist leadership, including the Iraqi Republican Guards, ended up in Syria with Assaad just before he started using chemical weapons against his own country (noting the Assaad regime was likewise Ba'athist in ideology). Obviously, to date there has never been outright proof of what went on in Syria regarding the Iraqi Republicans, but it certainly puts stop to the claim that there was no WMDs to worry about. Sure, maybe the West had overestimated how advanced the Iraqi developments had gone, but there can be no doubt they had the capability and moved it as soon as the going got tough. Had Hussein got to the point he could use his weapons against a peer adversary (a point that even the Syrians never got to, all their chemical weapons being used exclusively when they had air supremacy), the subsequent inevitable invasion of Kuwait would have been so much worse than the first time, and the war far more dangerous than the First or Second Gulf Wars.

@Solar Flare true, but the WMD justification was also validated. The problem is, because the term NBC refers to Nuclear in the "N", people think that the only type of WMD is nuclear. This is incorrect. The B and C are also important - and relevant to the Iraq case. B means Biological, and C means Chemical. All three are subject to international treaties that limit and ban their use (limit and ban being the term to describe the fact that there are some agreed uses for chemical and biological warfare in a limited sense - such as deterrents for crowd control and such - but bans on biological and chemical weapons that cause certain types of harm, or that cannot be controlled). Anyway, Iraq had previously demonstrated its possession and military use of chemical, and suspected biological, weapons against internal and border targets (particularly the Kurds and Iranians), but also saw limited use in the 1st Gulf War (although direct attacks on coalition troops were never confirmed, as Sussan Hussein did not want to provoke the major powers more than he had done already - using a banned chemical weapon against Americans may provoke a literal nuclear response; however their use against Kuwaiti troops was known and proven). The fact that this stockpile was reportedly increased in both volume and capability was the trigger for the war. And these weapons all ended up in Syria, being used against various Syrian factions by the Ba'athists under Assaad. That is why there is "debate" about WMDs - some people don't understand the term NBC, and assume because it was confirmed that Iraq never developed nuclear weapons, that they therefore never possessed or produced WMDs. This is demonstrably incorrect, as the "BC" but were absolutely developed, confirmed and used.

@Solar Flare true, but that is where you go back to the conclusion - the methods to counteract delusion and lies is truth, truth and truth.

@Solar Flare well, they didn't try to create a new canal, but they did try and make the Suez Canal a truly international transit point. As the colonial world collapsed post-WWII, the old methods of ensuring economic supply were strangled from many countries - including France and the UK, but also (interestingly) even the USA experienced the bite of these changes (it culminated a few decades later with their Invasion of Panama for mostly the same reasons). One of these was Egypt's demands for full sovereignty not just on the lands either side of the canal, and it's inclusion as a territorial sea (which most nations were happy to grant), but it's removal of international sea lane status, which most maritime trading nations definitely were not happy to agree to. See, at the time, the Suez Canal was seen to have the same status as an archipelagic sea lane - which means the country surrounding it has sovereignty, but they cannot impede neutral and friendly ships for any reason, unless they stop in the country. But if they are just transiting, they cannot be stopped or interfered with without cause (ie, a country cannot force customs dues on a ship transiting an international sea lane unless that ship is stopping in the associated country - in this case, Egypt). Now, Egypt argued that sea lane status could not apply to the canal. Britain and France said it absolutely did. So when Egypt started forcing their domestic laws on ships passing through, Britain and France invaded the canal area (although it was not a full invasion of Egypt itself, just the canal area) to "re-establish international law". Israel supported them, having recently seized the Siani Peninsula from Egypt to reopen the Red Sea sea lanes which Egypt had also closed. But then the USSR, in the UN, declared the action illegal, as part of their wider support to the pan-Arab nationalist cause (they were hoping to make some friends in so doing). The USA refused to do anything at all (a point which came back to bite them when they did the same thing in Panama a few years later) and the British and French were forced, under international pressure and UN sanctions, to withdraw. And so ended the last attempt to keep the Suez Canal open as an international sea lane. It is now, officially, an inland waterway of Egypt, and so the issues you are describing have become the reality there. And, of course, Israel gave back the Siani later as part of a perpetual peace deal with Egypt.

It's fascinating if you look at the Bronze Age Collapse, the level of civilisation and intercommunication that existed immediately prior, and the nation's that were impacted - unlike later civilisation collapses, this was total, absolute and worldwide. All the then-existing civilisations (note, civilisations but not all societies, as some societies remained intact due to their lack of civil development) suffered utter collapse over similar timeframes - all around 3500 years ago - and technological regression occurred at terrifying rates. It led to the Greek (Mycenaean), Mesopotamian, 1st Chinese, and Egyptian dark ages, it led to the destruction of several civilisations including in the Indus Valley, and the Hittite Empire (to such a level that the Hittites were seen as a myth between the age of enlightenment and when archiologists finally uncovered absolute proof of their existence in the early 20th Century). In Mesopotamia, the Akkadian/Sumerian states never recovered, but the collapse led to the rise of a new power there, the Babylonians. It also facilitated the rise of the Persians - previously they had been nomadic tribes, but the Bronze Age Collapse saw their social structures revolutionise to become a dominant power of the Iron Age. And not many people know this, but Afghanistan used to be the trade centre of the ancient world. Because of its shallow mineral deposits, particularly tin, it was crucial to technological development and economic expansion in the Bronze Age. It never recovered from its collapse, not even to the present day. The Bronze Age Collapse was unique, as other collapses really only affected certain regions of empires. But the lessons of the Bronze Age Collapse are incredibly important, but also terrifying as we look at our own times. "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us.