Why are there always violence and wars in the Middle East?

Because of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.

What is the core reason behind this conflict?

Israel's ongoing occupation of Syrian and Palestinian lands.

Why does Israel occupy these lands?

Because it conquered them from the neighboring Arab countries in 1967. Of course, such a small country as Israel couldn't have defeated all the Arab countries repeatedly if it were not well backed by YHWH (America).

What do the Arabs want from Israel to end the conflict?

They want the land back in exchange for peace and friendly relations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative)

Why does not Israel give them back their land and end the conflict?

Because the Old Testament says that Israel shouldn't do so. Israel's role in the world is to conquer those lands that YHWH promised to Abraham. The OT says that Israel should slay all the males of the peoples who inhabit those lands; luckily though, Israel shows some modernism by not doing that literally.

What has this conflict done to the world?

-Ongoing wars in a region that is the West's number one source of oil.
-Development of terrorism. People in that region live under very unstable political conditions, and they have developed deep hatred to the West, especially the US (YHWH), such that they blame the US for all their misery. Terrorists are not poor or uneducated people, they are politically motivated, and the deep cause of their hatred to America is her perceived role as a sponsor of Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
-Development of lunatic regimes such as Saddam Hussein's and Islamic Iran, all claiming to be fighting off American-backed Israeli aggression.

What can America do to counter the threats of possible oil shortage, terrorism, and lunatic regimes seeking nuclear weapons?

There are two possible ways:

1-convince Israel to make peace with the Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative), and thus terrorists will no longer have an excuse to target Americans because of America's backing of Israel, and Iran will no longer have an excuse to develop nuclear weapons to fight off Israeli and American aggression. The inhabitants of that region will no longer have an excuse to hate America. The only reason Arabs hate America is America's backing of Israel, there is no other reason. Islam was never a reason to hate the west before the 1980's. Before the 1980's most Arabs were secular, yet they still hated America. Islam fundamentalism arose in the 1980's because of political frustration that was mainly due to the non-resolved Arab-Israeli conflict.

2-bomb out all the terrorists and evil countries, and when they come out again, bomb them again with more force.

Why does not America solve the problem peacefully rather than by bombing the evil countries?

Because many influential American citizens want to follow what the OT says, and this book says that Israel shouldn't give up land. American politicians cannot afford to make those citizens unhappy.


So if you can really understand what is going on in this world, you should understand that the cause of all the violence that has been going on in the Middle East and because of the Middle East is the Old Testament. Islam became a reason for violence only in 1980's, but the roots of conflict go back to much earlier times when few Arabs were religious.

Nonsense. Religion is the major root cause. Muslims are simply following their tradition by pursuing jihad against the infidel. It doesn't matter who it is, it just happens to be the US and Israel lately. They weren't seen as violent before the modern era because there wasn't much worldwide communication. Now that there is, they see all the non-Muslims everywhere and feel offended by our presence. We don't even pay them protection to live on God's Earth.

There is an article on Haaretz recently on the same topic:


Iran is not Nazi Germany - not with respect to its political regime, not with respect to its ideology, and certainly not with respect to its economic and military capabilities. Nor does Israel resemble the weak Jewish communities that lived in Europe at that time. But for all the differences, the Iranian regime has adopted the same total opposition to Israel's existence. It is therefore liable to slip into the same human mechanism that created the infinite hatred for Jews of the Holocaust era. And when Iran has nuclear weapons, it might be dragged, as Nazi Germany was, into mad aggression.

What can be done? No one can promise that the sanctions planned by the international community will persuade Iran to desist from its race for nuclear weapons, yet an attempt to destroy its nuclear potential militarily is liable to drag Israel into a drawn-out, exhausting war against the Iranian nation and its regional allies.

But there is another way to neutralize the Iranian threat, one that is both more appropriate and more moral - a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Last month, the Palestinian minister of the Waqf religious trust, Mahmoud Habash, made a speech that inspired hope at a public prayer session in Ramallah. In the presence of the Palestinian Authority's senior leaders, he lambasted Iran's involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Essentially, what he said was this: What do you have to do with us? We don't need your patronage. You are only making the conflict worse, instead of helping us and the Israelis solve it via the method now accepted worldwide - two states for two peoples. By encouraging Hamas' extremism, you merely provoke a harsh response from Israel and thereby distance the solution for which we all yearn. Not one single Iranian soldier has ever shed his blood for our people the way the soldiers of Egypt and Jordan did, yet these countries later signed peace agreements with Israel.

Peace between Israel and Palestine would neutralize the poisonous sting of Iran's hatred for Israel and shatter the political-imaginative mechanism that makes it see Israel as "the little Satan" that must be destroyed at all costs. A joint peace front by Israelis and Palestinians could cause the Iranian people to recoil from the madness that has taken over the religious leadership of this great and honored nation. Therefore, the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have a much greater impact than any Israeli or American military operation. That would only perpetuate this region's pain and suffering.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1148788.html

The problem is Israeli greed, since the very beginning they want all the land and will keep on and on, even beyond the borders of Eretz Israel, as long as the US protects them.

Just see Netanyahu, planting trees in the west bank promising to be there for ever and ever.

Robert Fisk has written a good [long and rambling but good] article, appropriately titled State of Denial (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/state-of-denial-robert-fisk-searches-for-peace-in-israel-1895568.html), on how intractable the whole situation is. And one point jumps out at me:


Michael Hoenlein, vice-chairman of the immensely powerful Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, ann- ounced that Obama's "engagement" with Syria and Iran had failed. Obama's administration had been "supportive" over Goldstone (i.e. gutlessly supine in criticising a report which it had not even read). Obama now realised it had to work with Israel. There was unanimous consent in the US Senate over Iranian sanctions. No-one mentioned settlements or colonies. I was reminded of Hannah Arendt's observation that the congress of World Zionist Organisation's American section in October 1944 would "embrace the whole of Palestine, undivided and undiminished". She went on: "This is a turning point in Zionist history... This time the Arabs were simply not mentioned in the resolution, which obviously leaves them the choice between voluntary emigration or second-class citizenship."

For Arendt, the Atlantic City congress reflected "the tremendously increased importance of American Jewry and American Zionism..." The result was to forfeit any chance of Arab interlocutors, "leaving the door wide open for an outside power to take over".

And it is worth quoting Arendt once more: "...the Zionists, if they continue to ignore the Mediterranean peoples and watch out only for the big faraway powers, will appear only as their tools, the agents of foreign and hostile interests. Jews who know their own history should be aware that such a state of affairs will inevitably lead to a new wave of Jew-hatred; the anti- semitism of tomorrow will assert that Jews not only profiteered from the presence of the foreign big powers in that region but had actually plotted it and hence are guilty of the consequences."

It is in a sad way as if Jews are condemned to repeat their own history, over and over and over and over.

move Israel to Mexico

Nonsense. Religion is the major root cause. Muslims are simply following their tradition by pursuing jihad against the infidel. It doesn't matter who it is, it just happens to be the US and Israel lately. They weren't seen as violent before the modern era because there wasn't much worldwide communication. Now that there is, they see all the non-Muslims everywhere and feel offended by our presence. We don't even pay them protection to live on God's Earth.

I don't know how would you be typically classified in the US, but you sound like a perfect Abrahamic fanatic. The same type I was describing above.

You need to know something, it is debated what exactly governs historical events-- whether it is class struggle, human's seeking of liberation, mere chance, etc. But no respected thinker, as far as I know, has said that religion changes the course of history or shapes society by itself-- it is the other way around: religion reflects society. For example, because Christians launched the Crusades and eradicated the Native Americans, only the naive would conclude that Christianity teaches genocide. Similarly, because the Old Tastment is basically the story of a series of massacres, only the naive would conclude that Judaism teaches genocide. It is the other way around-- people shape their religion. American pioneers needed the land the Natives had, so they stole it from the natives and justified that by whatever moral or religious excuse. They needed slaves, so they justified slavery by religious and moral excuses. The Jews committed massacres against many peoples, so they justified that by saying that God had wanted them to massacre the peoples, etc.

The Mid Age Muslims were much more tolerant and peaceful people than any Christians of the time. You should know that if you have whatever scientific knowledge of history-- not some folk tales.

I hope you think about it and develop a more sophisticated perspective than what you currently have. The problem is that you people read the Bible too much, and the Bible isn't really the kind of book that would make you an intelligent person, as it was written by barbarians 3000 years ago.

Nonsense. Religion is the major root cause. Muslims are simply following their tradition by pursuing jihad against the infidel. It doesn't matter who it is, it just happens to be the US and Israel lately. They weren't seen as violent before the modern era because there wasn't much worldwide communication. Now that there is, they see all the non-Muslims everywhere and feel offended by our presence. We don't even pay them protection to live on God's Earth.

right because the decades long history of the west meddling in their countries has nothing to do with it?

The west "meddles" with lots of countries, and yet no one but the Muslims had the arrogance to portray this as a war against God. As you guys say, most Muslims are peaceful people living peaceful lives, so what's their problem? OBL is a wealthy Saudi who benefited tremendously from US dollars. Ironically, it was oil wealth from western nations that enabled their radical teachings to be spread all over the world. What does the politics of Israel have to do with a rich Saudi? Religion. That's all. The Jews reversed to a small degree, the spread of Muslim territory, which Muslims feel is an inevitable trend in their domination of the world.

Just look at the history of the spiritual mentor of modern jihadism, Sayyid Qutb, his negative views against America were only partially political:


Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were primitive and "shocking", a people who were "numb to faith in religion, faith in art, and faith in spiritual values altogether". His experience in the U.S. is believed to have formed in part the impetus for his rejection of Western values and his move towards radicalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1950s {wiki} (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb)

Among other things, he disliked our dancing, our obsession with lawn care, our lack of true appreciation for art, and our secular values. You would be fooling yourself to think that modern Islamic radicalism is merely a practical way to combat western political influence. It is my view that the purpose of Militant Islam is to wage jihad in order to rid the world of Jahiliyya, or ignorance of devine law. This serves as justification to attack, not just the west, but fellow Muslims who they feel have lapsed into moderate tendencies.

move Israel to Mexico

That is not a bad idea. Move Israel to Mauritania of only 3 million people. Move them to Israel. The world pays for the move. Problem solved.

Nonsense. Religion is the major root cause. Muslims are simply following their tradition by pursuing jihad against the infidel. It doesn't matter who it is, it just happens to be the US and Israel lately. They weren't seen as violent before the modern era because there wasn't much worldwide communication. Now that there is, they see all the non-Muslims everywhere and feel offended by our presence. We don't even pay them protection to live on God's Earth.Like many people, you are failing to understand the ethos that pervades Iranian culture. They think of themselves as a belligerent. They are a very proud culture. They will not live peacefully in a world where they are taking orders from a Western power.

The only way that you can negotiate with the Iranians is by treating them as equals. Any other system will fail.

They are Persian first, Muslim second.

Iran is not even ARAB, let alone "palestinian", and they are thousands of kilometers from Israel. And yet they are the most "offended" and most active in fueling the terrorism/ genocidal campaign against Israel. This is just cynicism. All they're interested in is regional hegemony. Political hegemony (i.e. over resources) and religious hegemony (exporting their damned Islamic Revolution to the region and beyond).

This is nothing to do with Israel. It's only used as a rallying point. Iranians don't give a flying fuck about "palestine" and "palestinians". It's their corrupt revolutionary fascist government, and their base - the most illiterate and fanatic segment of the population - the ones who ride around the cities on scooters killing anti government protesters.

Hani - about those "answers" you wrote to your own questions, it's a load of crap. You have been influenced by anti-Semetic and anti Zionist propaganda all your life, and it shows.

EDIT:
If all of the world's terrorism problems and Islam problems have Israel at their core, then it's a grievance over Israel's actions over the decades. You're blaming Israel for things the Arabs are responsible for. They're responsible for rejecting the 2 state solution offered in 1947, they're responsible for attacking Israel many times over the decades with a genocidal war (didn't end up being a genocide because they failed...), they're responsible after their loss for not integrating the refugees into their faux-countries but keeping them out like in District9, like cockroaches, radicalizing them, while at the same time trying again and again to do that same ol' dance of genocidal wars - overt and covert. They are responsible for wars, terrorism, and despicable propaganda (Holocaust denial, blood libels, etc.) instead of peace talks. All this shit started before there even was an Israel, or before 1967. So you see Hani, you're just a cynical shit talker... most likely. Either that, or as I've said, you've been exposed to anti Semetic and anti Zionist propaganda all your life so all you are saying stems from that beautiful context... in which case you are earnest, not cynical, but still very very wrong.

Mark Rudd has said it best:


If we look closely and critically at Israel today it’s possible to see the downside of nationalism, whether religious or secular. There is a well-documented continuity over the last almost forty years between the Labor Party and Likud in their policies toward the Palestinians and settlement in the Occupied Territories. I am heartbroken over the moral and spiritual costs of the Jewish State to the Jewish People. I challenge anyone who thinks of me as a traitor to my people or a self-hating Jew, both of which I’ve been called, to visit Palestinians in the West Bank or East Jerusalem for as little as one-half day. Every Jew needs to see the misery and humiliation which our Jewish nationalism and racism have wrought. These are not Jewish values, or at least my Jewish values.

Nor does the Jewish state guarantee Jewish safety and survival. My father was a military man and as such was always pessimistic about the long-term survival of Israel. He easily perceived Israel’s strategic weaknesses in both geography and demographics. The only way Israel has survived so far has been to ally with the sole remaining imperial power in the world. But all empires fall, as Jewish history so clearly tells us. Maybe they should have allied with China.

This year I visited Israel with my family for the first time. I learned that far from being culturally retro, which is the way I used to think of it—a small, socialist, anti-materialist nation—Israel is really an avatar, way ahead even of California. Israel is America’s future: militarized, racist, religio-nationalist, corporate, riven with so many internal splits and hatreds that only the existence of a perpetual enemy keeps the nation from exploding. If we don’t organize to stop the current direction in this country, thirty years from now we will be Israel.

http://www.markrudd.com/?about-mark-rudd/why-were-there-so-many-jews-in-sds-or-the-ordeal-of-civility.html

The west "meddles" with lots of countries, and yet no one but the Muslims had the arrogance to portray this as a war against God. As you guys say, most Muslims are peaceful people living peaceful lives, so what's their problem? OBL is a wealthy Saudi who benefited tremendously from US dollars. Ironically, it was oil wealth from western nations that enabled their radical teachings to be spread all over the world. What does the politics of Israel have to do with a rich Saudi? Religion. That's all. The Jews reversed to a small degree, the spread of Muslim territory, which Muslims feel is an inevitable trend in their domination of the world.

Just look at the history of the spiritual mentor of modern jihadism, Sayyid Qutb, his negative views against America were only partially political:


Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were primitive and "shocking", a people who were "numb to faith in religion, faith in art, and faith in spiritual values altogether". His experience in the U.S. is believed to have formed in part the impetus for his rejection of Western values and his move towards radicalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1950s {wiki} (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb)

Among other things, he disliked our dancing, our obsession with lawn care, our lack of true appreciation for art, and our secular values. You would be fooling yourself to think that modern Islamic radicalism is merely a practical way to combat western political influence. It is my view that the purpose of Militant Islam is to wage jihad in order to rid the world of Jahiliyya, or ignorance of devine law. This serves as justification to attack, not just the west, but fellow Muslims who they feel have lapsed into moderate tendencies.

Sorry but you are a big time ignorant. The man you're quoting was executed in Egypt in the 1960's and very few people felt sorry for him. His executioner, Nasser, a socialist, is still regarded a hero. The Jihadist ideas that man preached were never popular before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980's. His followers in the 1950's-60's were derided and systemically persecuted in the Arab countries. Socialism was much more common among the youth of that time than his ideas. You simply don't know what you are talking about. You are a bigot.

Iran is not even ARAB, let alone "palestinian", and they are thousands of kilometers from Israel. And yet they are the most "offended" and most active in fueling the terrorism/ genocidal campaign against Israel. This is just cynicism. All they're interested in is regional hegemony. Political hegemony (i.e. over resources) and religious hegemony (exporting their damned Islamic Revolution to the region and beyond).

This is nothing to do with Israel. It's only used as a rallying point. Iranians don't give a flying fuck about "palestine" and "palestinians". It's their corrupt revolutionary fascist government, and their base - the most illiterate and fanatic segment of the population - the ones who ride around the cities on scooters killing anti government protesters.


Oh really? It is funny because I wake up everyday and hear Iran and Hizbullah talking about wiping Israel out, but I have never heard them say the same about any other Middle Eastern country. Iran has excellent relations with all anti-Israel groups (Palestinian, Lebanese. etc) and supplies them with millions of dollars. Iran does not recognize Israel but they have normal diplomatic relations with all other countries in the region, and they always declare that the Arabs are their brothers, but they declare that they intend to eradicate Israel. So yes it is clear that the Arab Israeli-conflict has nothing to do with it but it is just Iran looking for hegemony in the region.

I am sorry but this is stupid. You could have said the same about Nasser's Egypt or even Assad's Syria-- all these countries were looking to have regional influence and boss some other countries around, but it only takes a fool to actually believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict had nothing to do with what was going on. If it weren't for the Arab-Israeli conflict, no one of these regimes could have been able to justify its existence. If the conflict wasn't there, Ahmadi-Najjad could not have been able to talk everyday about wiping out Israel, and Hizbullah couldn't have been able to strike Israel. If this conflict wasn't there, corrupt political regimes that feed on the idea of fighting off Israeli aggression couldn't have existed, and thus terrorist groups could not have existed.

By the way otheadp, you talk about what the Arabs did but you never try to understand why they did it. It is a big story and I don't want to discuss it here, but I wonder how would Americans of the 1960's have felt if they saw the Soviet Union invade their country and establish a communist Russian-only country in the state of Massachusetts. I doubt that most Americans would have acted differently than the how Arabs acted towards Israel.

The Arabs revolted against the Ottomans in 1918 seeking to establish a free Arab country, but they were invaded by Britain and France and their imagined country was broken up against their will into the current countries. The Jews came to Palestine under this Western occupation, and they sought to establish a Jewish country in a land that had less than 10% of Jews. The Arabs saw this as though the Western occupiers were trying to colonize in their land and kick them out of it. If you read all the Arabic literature before the 1980's, you will find that it was never a Muslim-Jewish issue to the Arabs-- it was a native against Western colonizer issue. The Arabs have never accepted the Israelis as "Jews," but they still see them as European colonizers (which is what they are) who were brought into their land under European occupation, and whose presence has been sustained there by America. The theme of Muslim against Jewish only emerged in the 1980's when religious fundamentalism arose.

Palestine is in the heart of the Arab world and it is a sacred land. I doubt that any other nation would have reacted differently than the Arabs. What is worse is that Israel continues to be open to immigrants who can acquire Israeli citizenship automatically in Israel just by showing up, because they are "Jewish," while the native Palestinians who were displaced when Israel was established are not allowed to go back to their homes. This is really frustrating for any Palestinian, Arab or Muslim; and it is the reason why people such as Nasrallah of Hizbullah or Ahmedi-Najad of Iran have been able to gain popularity in the Middle East, because people there do not see a fair alternative to what those people are offering.

Sorry but you are a big time ignorant. The man you're quoting was executed in Egypt in the 1960's and very few people felt sorry for him. His executioner, Nasser, a socialist, is still regarded a hero. The Jihadist ideas that man preached were never popular before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980's. His followers in the 1950's-60's were derided and systemically persecuted in the Arab countries. Socialism was much more common among the youth of that time than his ideas. You simply don't know what you are talking about. You are a bigot.

What I said was true, he was a major spiritual philosopher behind many modern jihadists, including Osama Bin Laden, which only proves that such groups are not only politically motivated but religiously motivated. I wager that religion is also a major motivator of Iran's arrogant attitude towards western nations, and it's probably the source of your own blindness regarding this aspect of Islamic culture. Militancy was a part of Islam since it's foundation. It was born in blood, torture, rape, and the pursuit of empire.

By the way otheadp, you talk about what the Arabs did but you never try to understand why they did it. It is a big story and I don't want to discuss it here, but I wonder how would Americans of the 1960's have felt if they saw the Soviet Union invade their country and establish a communist Russian-only country in the state of Massachusetts. I doubt that most Americans would have acted differently than the how Arabs acted towards Israel.

...
That did happen in a sense, it's called Cuba.

Sorry but you are a big time ignorant. The man you're quoting was executed in Egypt in the 1960's and very few people felt sorry for him.

This might be so, but you have not given any evidence thereof. (And please refrain from calling other posters either ignorant or religious fanatics, when you have yet to support your own thesis.) Even if your thesis were correct, I would simply point out that Hitler experienced initial unpopularity also.


His executioner, Nasser, a socialist, is still regarded a hero.

Not by the Brotherhood, or by religious conservatives.


The Jihadist ideas that man preached were never popular before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980's. His followers in the 1950's-60's were derided and systemically persecuted in the Arab countries. Socialism was much more common among the youth of that time than his ideas. You simply don't know what you are talking about. You are a bigot.

I reiterate: you will refrain from unjustifiably insulting the other posters here.

Now: Wahabbi attitudes strongly resemble Qutb's philosophy - at least as it regards us (non-Muslims, women, etc). Qutb was merely the latest flowering of old intolerances.

As for Israel, your viewpoint is a little skewed. There was some desire among the leadership to create a separate nation - what support this had among all Jewish immigrants never being shown on this forum - but you must also realize that there would have been little faith on their part of a friendly reception by Arabs, unless you feel that cramming Middle Eastern Jews into tiny ghettos and periodically thinning their numbers with pogroms is an example of "good faith dealings". As it was, attacks on them began long before 1948, even as they bought land at exorbitant rates. There appears to be a great rhetorical ignorance on this issue.

I also had a go at your explanations, with another perspective thrown in:

*************************************************

Why are there always violence and wars in the Middle East?

Because of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.

What is the core reason behind this conflict?

Israel's ongoing occupation of Syrian and Palestinian lands.

Why does Israel occupy these lands?

As a buffer against invasion, which has been attempted several times because of core intolerance of the idea of a Jewish state in the otherwise solidly Islamic Middle East. It creates a fundamental conflict in religious sensibilities. This is illustrated by the continuing religious references to the conflict.

What do the Arabs want from Israel to end the conflict?

They want the land back in exchange for purportedly peace and friendly relations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative) The inevitable outcome of this Initiative, however, would be the demographic swamping of the Jewish state, and civil war in which the Arab powers surrounding Israel would promptly send their forces to "arbitrate" against the Jewish inhabitants of Israel.

Why does not Israel give them back their land and end the conflict?

Because the Initiative would lead to their utter destruction.

So if you can really understand what is going on in this world, you should understand that the root cause of most of the violence that has been going on in the Middle East and because of the Middle East is the intransigence of Palestinian leadership regarding the equal treatment of Jews. The roots of the issue go back for literally hundreds or even thousands of years of religious thought.

Oh really? It is funny because I wake up everyday and hear Iran and Hizbullah talking about wiping Israel out, but I have never heard them say the same about any other Middle Eastern country. Iran has excellent relations with all anti-Israel groups (Palestinian, Lebanese. etc) and supplies them with millions of dollars. Iran does not recognize Israel but they have normal diplomatic relations with all other countries in the region, and they always declare that the Arabs are their brothers, but they declare that they intend to eradicate Israel. So yes it is clear that the Arab Israeli-conflict has nothing to do with it but it is just Iran looking for hegemony in the region.

I am sorry but this is stupid. You could have said the same about Nasser's Egypt or even Assad's Syria-- all these countries were looking to have regional influence and boss some other countries around, but it only takes a fool to actually believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict had nothing to do with what was going on. If it weren't for the Arab-Israeli conflict, no one of these regimes could have been able to justify its existence. If the conflict wasn't there, Ahmadi-Najjad could not have been able to talk everyday about wiping out Israel, and Hizbullah couldn't have been able to strike Israel. If this conflict wasn't there, corrupt political regimes that feed on the idea of fighting off Israeli aggression couldn't have existed, and thus terrorist groups could not have existed.

Iran has excellent relations with the Assad regime in Syria, with Hamas, and with Hizballah in Lebanon. That's about it. The only thing they have in common is their hatred of Israel, other than the Shiite Arabs in Lebanon. The rest of the Arab world can't stand Iran, and despite everything, doesn't want to join hands even for the purpose of destroying Israel. Actually, I was told by a few Iranians that they feel superior to Arabs. They are very proud of their thousands-years-old culture, former empire, inventions, scientific and mathematical and many other achievements, etc... while they think of Arabs as tent dweller barbarians. My one good Iranian friend constantly tells me "Iran and Israel should join to fight the Arabs"... it took me a while to understand why.

Just look at the animosity between Iran and Egypt, who if I'm not mistaken, still don't have their ambassadors in the other's country... Iran and Saudi Arabia who pretend to tolerate each other in the open for stability's sake, but are having a convert war in Lebanon, Yemen and other places for decades now. Iran and the Gulf Arab countries - with Iran threatening the latter's sovereignty and to overthrow their governments with the local Shia populations there, as they think that these emirates are nothing but Iranian provinces. Iran and Iraq during Saddam (8 year war) - Iran and today's Iraq, where Iran is funding radical militias and threatening the moderate government as they try to set up a Lebanese Hizballah style model. I can go on...


Palestine is in the heart of the Arab world and it is a sacred land.
It's become "sacred land" after over 60 years of propaganda. That is multiple generations of people who have never set foot there, or have even heard about it pre-1947, growing up with this propaganda, so the current and inertia of the thing keeps making "palestine" the so-called heart of the Arab world.

Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the Qur'an even once (all it says that Muhammad went to "the far place", not "al-Quds"), and yet "palestine", a word that can't even be pronounced by Arabs, is the heart of your world? You know, there were Jewish tribes in Mecca and Medina (at least in one of those places), before Muhammad's armies massacred them, yet you don't see Jews claiming those places to be their heart, do you... you know why? Because Jerusalem is the heart of the Jewish world.

I quite agree with otheadp here: Jerusalem really ought to be the heart of the Jewish world, not the Christian one and not the Islamic one. Largely on basis that it's their only heart. I don't see them running about and claiming the pyramids, alleged history notwithstanding. And could I legitimately claim that much of Europe is sacred land to Christianity? Of course not: 'we' (Christians) came much after the original religions or mythologies of that place. Perhaps a church of special note, a monastery here and there, shrines and that huge Mary in Spain I think it is. Similarly, it's absurd to call Palestine sacred only in terms of Islam, which I believe is how Hani is proposing this point. I would sooner see the religious rights (if such a term can be conceived) of all three religions safeguarded in Palestine, but if any claim of originality is to be honoured it would necessarily be the Jewish one. (Perhaps we could bargain for Bethlehem.) By the same token, could I claim Stonehenge as sacred Christian land? Of course not; it's irrational and expansionistic/imperialistic.

So if you can really understand what is going on in this world, you should understand that the root cause of most of the violence that has been going on in the Middle East and because of the Middle East is the intransigence of Palestinian leadership regarding the equal treatment of Jews. The roots of the issue go back for literally hundreds or even thousands of years of religious thought.

You and yours always go its the palestinian intransigence well fuck yeah they aren't going to just bend over and let them selves be fucked. Maybe they'd be willing to deal if the propossed deal wasn't how much we going to take. The root is their land was taken from them illegally by force with no compensation.

move Israel to Mexico

that just transfers the problem it doesn't fix it.

You and yours always go its the palestinian intransigence well fuck yeah they aren't going to just bend over and let them selves be fucked. Maybe they'd be willing to deal if the propossed deal wasn't how much we going to take. The root is their land was taken from them illegally by force with no compensation.

I take it that you're totally unaware that the Jews actually BOUGHT the land in Israel - and sometimes at exorbitant prices. (As usual - lots of talk and NO knowledge.):shrug:

You and yours always go its the palestinian intransigence

Me and mines would like to know whether you understand the condition of Jews in Palestine prior to 1948, or even prior to 1917. It certainly wasn't the only factor...yet, I have yet to see you acknowledge it. In point of fact, I don't believe it was only that - which you don't seem to understand - but I do believe it was a major part of it, and one rarely acknowledged in general, and never acknowledged by you. And "yours", presumably.


well fuck yeah they aren't going to just bend over and let them selves be fucked.

Define "fucked". Jewish migrants appear to have brought jobs and prosperity before it all went to open violence; I'm told there was significant Arab migration into the area although this latter point has been debated.


Maybe they'd be willing to deal if the propossed deal wasn't how much we going to take.

Well, as you point out, you're not part of the "we". Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

But which proposed deal did you mean? I assume you refer Partition in 1948 since it was clear that the Jewish and Palestinian communities could not in fact live happily in a Final...I mean, one-state solution? And why, pray tell, were Jews forced back into tiny ghettos and viciously suppressed for the, say, 1400 years prior? Because the Arabs of a millenium ago realized that, like the Terminator, "they'd be baack"? Remarkably foresight, I'm sure: or perhaps self-fulfilling prophecy. Or perhaps just not being assholes would have sufficed. You don't seem to want to take it up with the Ottomans, who approved the land purchases. Why not?


The root is their land was taken from them illegally by force with no compensation.

I think Read-Only has you here; we've both made the point about land purchases, which were also opposed and led to escalating violence. Clearly there was no even arguably illegal seizure prior to 1948, but you don't want to address that. Why not?

Now, having said all that, I don't believe that anti-Jewish hatred was the norm of Arab society, although in a quantitative sense I have no idea and in the simplistic sense of the sociality of an earlier era it was pretty likely, really.

I take it that you're totally unaware that the Jews actually BOUGHT the land in Israel - and sometimes at exorbitant prices. (As usual - lots of talk and NO knowledge.)::

Try again:

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2011/apartheidisraelpossibil.png

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2011/apartheidisraelpossibil.png

And thats only the Mandate Israel, Mandate Palestine is 100% Palestinian owned.

You're a homeowner aren't you? I wonder how you'd feel if you ended up not only homeless but stateless

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-12/gaza_44299855.jpg

Try again.

Your second citation illustrates that the dual-possession issue arises after 1949. In other words, after the war had been fought.

Which makes what difference to ownership deeds within Israel? Considering that Israeli High Court has upheld the ownership of the 10% lands privately owned by Jews?

Like the Maoris and the Indians, one day, the Palestinians will get their rights too.

Which makes what difference to ownership deeds within Israel?

It sets the stage for their fairness in dealing with native and immigrating Jews. And it more accurately illustrates the complete set of complications to the simple, biased story you're trying to present.


Like the Maoris and the Indians, one day, the Palestinians will get their rights too.

They had them, at the expense of the Jews, for some time. Did Middle Eastern Jews not also deserve rights, or does justifiable revolution only work the one way?

There's SAM again trying to divert a given topic to discuss something completely different. Why don't you open a new thread discussing the legality of property rights during and after the British Mandate in Palestine. Don't ruin this one. Mmmmmkay? Don't forget to include the part where a bunch of Arab states kicked out half a million of Jews from their midst as they confiscated their properties and businesses. In another thread. Thanks.