Greetings and Peace to all.

Ok, I have a confusion and the only way to clear it is to make my own definition.....I think!

i wouldn't take it too far into the past... you would need a history professor for that.  the way i usually start it is from the first occupation of palestine by Zionist: 1948

Before that there was peace btw everyone in palestine... there was no problem at all.  just until some jews gathered into a Zionism organization with their slogan: "A land without a people for a people without a land"

that slogan was thier force to occupy palestine...i'm sorry but i just can't understand how these jews overlooked the 8 million palestinians living there at the time. 

So after that first attack- they confescated property, tore down houses to make room for thier establishment... just pushing palestinians out of the way.  slowly the # of palestinans deminished down to i think just 1 or 2 million right now living in palestine/israel.  the rest are refugees living in neighboring countries like Lebanon, syria, egypt...

then you get the rebellion from the palestinians (forming groups like hamas) you get rebellion from neighboring countries (Hizbollah, syrian mellitia).. then you get more rebellion from Israelis, .. then you get the killing and the suicide bombing...

then things have gotten so big that the issue of who's land it was in the first place was never brought up anymore.. now the issue is who made the first blow and the israelis are fighting 'terrorists' who could be a threat to attack and bla bla bla...

 if you want to talk about the Israelii issue, i think you should give a brief overview of Palestine's peaceful past, arab's generosity, simplicity.. and then a 180 degree change once the Zionists took over thier lands in 1948.  from then on, there was battles and things only got more mysterious and the truth has been burried.  amerian media doesn't show even an ounce of truth of what's actually happening.  Also what's worse they portray arabs as heathens. 

you then have to give them a different perspective of what's going on than what they see on cnn or fox news.  

allah knows best.

Thank you,

I must admit that I have asked this question of several others today and I am awaiting their answers. Scholars (political science professor and a history professor), Clergy, Jews, and yourselves. I work at a University.

 Do others of you agree that 1948 is a good place to start? In the past when I tried to limit the discussion to 1948, I was reminded of Haganah, and Stern and the resistance of 1920 and 1921. Each time, there is an explanation from the past of why the present situation exists. While I am sure I would also like to have the last word or throw the last punch my heart and mind groan with the endlessness of our present situation.

Sometime when I examine this question, the Jews appear to be bad house guests who have totally abused their invitation. Other times it appears that they are totally abused people tossed about and stuffed into a box. It all depends on where I start in history.

Here is what happened in the 1948 War:

In May 1948, Israel became an independent state after Israel was recognised by the http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations.htm - United Nations as a country in its own right within the http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/middle_east_1917_to_1973.htm - Middle East . If relations in pre-war http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/palestine_1918_to_1948.htm - Palestine had been fraught with difficulties, these difficulties paled into insignificance after Israel became a state in its own right. Immediately on being granted its independence, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab nations. If Israel had faltered at this first hurdle, she would have ceased to exist as a state regardless of what the http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations.htm - United Nations had decreed.

Before World War Two, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/haganah.htm - Haganah had been, from the British viewpoint, a terrorist organisation that used violence to defend the http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/jewish_agency.htm - Jewish Agency . Haganah attacked http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/palestine_1918_to_1948.htm - Palestinian Arabs and aspects of British rule in Palestine. By the time Israel had gained its independence, Haganah was effectively the army for Israel. Many members of Haganah had gained military experience during World War Two � ironically fighting for the same British military that they had been attacking before the war.

Israel was attacked on the same day it gained its independence � May 14th. The armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq attacked Israel. With such a combined force attacking Israel, few would have given the new country any chance of survival.

In fact, Israel had internal problems regardless of what was happening on its borders. The regular army had to be used to disband Irgun and the Stern Gang. Both of these had been classed as terrorist organisations by the British in pre-war http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/palestine_1918_to_1948.htm - Palestine . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/david_ben.htm - David Ben-Gurion , Prime Minister and Defence Minister wanted the Israeli army to remain non-political and using a combination of diplomacy and force, he removed both groups as a threat. The leaders of both groups were arrested but members of them did join the army. At the height of the 1948 War, Israel�s army numbered 100,000.

Though the attack on Israel was a surprise one, Israel was surprisingly well equipped at a military level. The country had a navy and many in her army were experienced in combat as a result of World War Two. Israel had also bought three B-17 bombers in America on the black market. In July 1948, these were used to bomb the Egyptian capital, Cairo.

The Arab nations that attacked Israel faced one major problem. There was nothing to co-ordinate their attacks. Each essentially attacked as a separate unit rather than as a combined force. However, the Israeli Army was under one single command structure and this proved to be very important. Israeli victories came on all the war fronts.

The Arab nations involved negotiated their own peace talks � a further sign that they were only united by their desire to attack Israel. Egypt signed a peace settlement in February 1949, and over the next few months Lebanon, Jordan and Syria did the same culminating in peace in July 1949. Iraq simply withdrew her forces but did not sign any peace settlement.

As a result of their military victory, Israel was able to expand the territory given to the state by the http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations.htm - United http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations.htm - Nations . However, this could only be at the expense of the Arab population that lived in these areas.

In the summer of 1949 there was no obvious leader in the Arab world who could head a campaign by the Arabs. Egypt seemed the most likely leader if only because of her size. However, the Egyptian Royal Family was far from popular and it was in this setting that http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/gamal_abdel_nasser.htm - Nasser rose to power. The scene was set for almost perpetual conflict between the Arab nations and Israel that culminated in the http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suez.htm - 1956 , http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/six_day_war_1967.htm - 1967 and 1973 wars.

The 1948 war, which the Israelis referred to as the "War of Independence", claimed 6,000 Israeli lives � but this was only 1% of the nation�s population. The boost the victory gave to the Israelis was huge and put into perspective the 6,000 lives lost. Ironically, those nations that had attacked Israel in May 1948, only lost slightly more men � 7,000. However, the damage to their morale was considerable.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/israel_and_the_1948_war.htm - http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/israel_and_the_1948_war .htm

I have asked the same questions you are asking, Ginghis, but I have not received an answer on the subject.  I mentioned previously that I traced the entire timeline of the Middle Eastern countries, and asked when was there a time of peace.....a time devoid of war and fighting.  I am still waiting for an answer.  I ask this because perhaps we can learn something from this time period (if there was one....what happened to end the fighting for a period of time in this area of the world?)  I would still like to know the answer.

God's Peace,

Welcome, Ginghis, from me, a non-Muslim, and good question.  It seems that, in discussions of this type, we quite often are tracing fractals or are following the trunk of a tree only to discover that it is the limb of yet another one.  To switch metaphors, perhaps there is no fixed target.

That said, to my view, I should think that one of the relatively fixed key points, but not the starting point (as there might not be one), is the Balfour Declaration.  Even though Hans Kung might not be considered the world�s expert on the matter, he is nevertheless a preeminent theologian who seeks ecumenical dialogue between and among the three Abrahamic Traditions and, if and when I have his book to hand, I shall try to quote a section of his work, Judaism Between Yesterday and Tomorrow.  In that book, as I perhaps imperfectly recall, Kung refers to problems inherent within the Declaration(s) and which were there from the outset. 

Best regards,

Serv

Thank you Patty, solid information.

Amalhayati2, I take from your response that the way present day Isreal was inserted into the middle east is a root cause.

I am seeking an Islamic perspective here. I don't think I get it from the Media. Maybe seeking a root cause is not productive. Maybe, here and now, and discusions of the future would yield more peace and optimism.

Is there any win win scenario you can think of that would allow people that have taken up arms to go home and be happy?

�I take it from your comment that you [Servetus] believe the roots of this conflict are in religion?�

Not necessarily, Ginghis, although, as we all know, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to disentangle religion from politics, especially in the Middle East.  I don�t discount the role of religion in the conflict, though, to be sure, and am even now trying, in my own admittedly flawed way, to address such issues as the provocatively titled �Christian Fanatics Support Israel� in the Current Events forum.  If you are interested and able, please consider joining those discussions as well.  Boxing gloves are sometimes advised (it is politics, after all).  At any rate, you will be welcome. 

Serv

Ref:   http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5998&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5998& ; ; ;PN=1

Addendum:

Ginghis, here are excerpts from Hans Kung�s book that I referred to above.  I did mention the futility of tracing fractals, and, appropriately enough, what I had forgotten, before revisiting this work this morning, was the relation between the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement which preceded it (neither of which seems particularly, or at least directly, related to religion).  Anyway, Kung, as you might know, can be verbose and thus to cut to the chase (and to what I consider the crux of the matter), I liberally abbreviate with ellipses (sorry, then, if it sounds a bit like a CD skipping somewhat randomly about):

�� As early as 1916 the British government had made a secret agreement (the Sykes-Picot agreement) with the French over the partition of the Holy Land, which excluded the territory west of the Jordan from Arab territory � In 1917 [Chaim] Weizmann received from Lord Balfour � the official declaration that �Her Majesty�s Government� viewed with favour the establishment of a �national home� for the Jewish people in Palestine � This so-called Balfour Declaration � contains an addition which should not be suppressed.  For the Declaration states at the same time: �it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine� � It was on this precise point that the conflict was to focus � [By 1924] it had long since become evident that the position put forward in the Balfour Declaration was essentially a contradictory one.  It made a decisive contribution towards Palestine becoming one of the most contested lands on earth.  For experts on the situation and leading Zionists knew one thing which was underestimated by many who took a stand in the spirit of European nationalism and colonialism.  Palestine was not the �land without people� into which the �people without land� could simply move � England and France had arbitrarily divided up the whole of the Near and Middle East �breaking the British pledge to the Arabs! �by sometimes arbitrary frontiers and �zones of influence� � And what about the British government?  Having promised Palestine to the Arabs and the Jews during the First World War, in the face of these fronts it increasingly manoeuvred itself into a hopeless policy.  How could it both further the new Jewish home and defend the rights of the old indigenous Arab population at the same time?  That could not work out in the long run ��

Enough.  One of the reasons why I, an at times beleaguered Yank, appreciate these excerpts is because over all responsibility in this case is shifted from America to the broad and worthy shoulders of Britain (and France) as the ultimate culprits.  But seriously, I do think, as must Hans Kung, that the Balfour Declaration (and Sykes-Picot) is a relatively fixed point from which to view current problems.  Again, though, please note the adverb in this case, �relatively.�  

Best regards,

Serv

Ref:  Kung, Hans, Judaism between Yesterday and Tomorrow, Continuum Publishing Company, 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY, 1995, pp. 288-293

Ginghis,

I am currently writing a paper on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  I have found the roots of Zionism extend farther back than 1948.  In my opinion, 1948 is the completion of a long process that gave birth to this demon.  There are a number of international factors that lead to this conflict.  However, a "root" cause is more or less a phantom.

The land known today as Israel has changed hands many times.  The Jews have not had control of this land from around 735 BCE.  Its been controlled by the Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Caliphates, Crusaders, Muslim rulers again, Ottomans and the list goes on.  The Philistines, Jews and Christians of the area have all been caught in the middle.

I would say, the interference from external powers has been the leading cause of hostilities rather than the internal struggle.

If I had to narrow it down to a few key events, I would start with these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah

Not to mention, I've found evidence that Faisal the First of Iraq (or at the time Greater Syria) was working out a deal to allow some jews to relocate to his kingdom.  This invitation (according to some of the sources I've read) was altered to take the land from him. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement

Here's an article on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq

I guess according to who you're audiance is, you may relay this topic at their level of understanding.  for instance, I, an history-unsavy individual, would get a bit confused when speaking in language of amendments, declarations, Lords and Ladies.  All these names and titles become opaque to me and all i can properly digest (you could tell my field is biology) is a more or less accurate picture of the history.  I'm really good at understanding the present situation and how it became though.  :)

This discussion is very exciting to me, thank you all.

From others I have asked the same question.

I have had another person say each conflict should be treated as an entity unto itself. He says the bombing of an Islamic family a few weeks ago is the trigger to this present conflict. Up to that point things were moving towards peace. One other person says it is a question of birth right and brings up the question of origin. I have had one person suggest the root cause is Islam itself. He says its nature is intolerant of differences.

Just in this short discourse we are putting root cause in many different places.

The Balflour and Sykes documents have a taint to them.

Ok, we have a few historical references posted. Do me a favor and let us examine "root cause" in terms of human nature if that is allowed. Based on some statements, "we got along fine before 1948" something happened to good will when a state was declared.

Is revenge a word that can be applied to this discussion?

It seems as if those that have taken up arms are saying "we are mad as hell and we arn't going to take it anymore"

I think revenge could be a word used.  Eye for an eye....problem is no one can seem to remember who blinded who first.

Another factor in the ongoing struggles are stubborness and racism. (Ignoring religion a moment, due to precident that the religions can coexist)

There has been a great deal of propaganda on both sides.  Jews painting Arabs as bloodthirsty killers hellbent on world domination in the western media.  Arabs painting Jews as filthy swine deserving of death because of some ancient slight by the Jews to the Prophet.

Hatred and Racism are human emotions, they lack any divinity.  We are to hate evil, but we are to forbid evil.  You cannot meet evil with evil.

So, I propose to remove religion from the equation and focus on the race and political basis of the conflict. 

The Palestinian peoples have been made second class citizens in their homeland by settlers from Europe with ancient ties to the land that changed hands many times after their ties were cut.  Jews today are generationally removed from the actions in the first part of the 20th Century.

Can you blame the young jewish woman who was born in Jerusalem but her grandmother narrowly escaped death in Poland 66 years ago? 

Can you blame the young palestinian boy who just wants to be able to go to school without having to answer to racist soldiers?

These young people are victims of much greater forces than themselves.  Both are fighting for their way of life and probably don't really care about what happened 58 years ago. 

Racism is playing a very large roll in this attack.  I have seen video of a small girl telling her interviewer that jews are swines and pigs and being praised by the woman as the future of Islam.  I've also seen pictures on this site of Israeli girls signing bombs to be dropped on Palestinians and Lebanese.  These people are teaching their children to hate.

So, what motivates people to teach such hatred to their children?

Yeah, I saw that picture of the young girl signing the bomb. She was smiling. That drove a spike of despair into my utopian optimism.

Maybe it is self preservation, they say it is the most driving of human motivaters. I say that self intrest is near the top also. To some in this world that translates to material gain, to others it is spiritual integrity, or just plain integrity. It also seems like before we can have some self esteem we have to measure it against another way of life.

To our biologist participant the analogy of foreign bodies might spark a thread.

Ginghis wrote:   Greetings and Peace to all. Ok, I have a confusion and the only way to clear it is to make my own definition.....I think!   I have heard the phrase "Root Cause" of this current middle east war, used and defined by the Media, Rice, Perez, a Hezbollah spokesman, the Syrian Ambassador and several of my co-workers. They are all different, all of them. Every time I try to have a discussion with someone, and make a point about what's happening now, they go farther back in history and say, "well look at what happened here".   If you were given the task of teaching me about the Israeli, Arab conflict, where would you start in history?   Why there?   Is there such a thing as a "root cause" that people can agree on?

Although Israel has occupied this land, there is no excuse for no dialog to the conflict. There are many issues sorrounding this but, the main point is that Israel cannot be moved so, there needs to be global dialog in a positive direction that can give the Palitinians their land back. At least to 1968 borders. However, niether side wants to partake in a positive dialog. The hate for Jews is now beyond repair and the only action now is a violent one. 3 generations have now been bred to hate Jews. We cannot remove that hatred with dialog.

Our current situation is now claiming more hated but, this time not for Jews.

Ginghis wrote:   This discussion is very exciting to me, thank you all. From others I have asked the same question. I have had another person say each conflict should be treated as an entity unto itself. He says the bombing of an Islamic family a few weeks ago is the trigger to this present conflict. Up to that point things were moving towards peace. One other person says it is a question of birth right and brings up the question of origin. I have had one person suggest the root cause is Islam itself. He says its nature is intolerant of differences. Just in this short discourse we are putting root cause in many different places. The Balflour and Sykes documents have a taint to them. Ok, we have a few historical references posted. Do me a favor and let us examine "root cause" in terms of human nature if that is allowed. Based on some statements, "we got along fine before 1948" something happened to good will when a state was declared. Is revenge a word that can be applied to this discussion? It seems as if those that have taken up arms are saying "we are mad as hell and we arn't going to take it anymore"

I want to direct your attention to what Israfil wrote in the "Media Bias" (topic a couple topics below this one on the list).  he brings up an integral point that was brought up before in an article i read.  He talks about the role of the Right wing Christain authority in the American Govt. in this Israeli aggression.

here is the excerpt by Israfil:

"... I'll tell you why the news media or American government are siding with Israel. This has nothing to do America but American policy which in this case is promoted by the Right Wing Christian groups that are very much influential to the President of the United States. Most Right Wing Christians are promoting this (both directly and indirectly) self-fulfilling prophecy which they wish for Israel to annihilate its enemies that being the neighboring Muslim countries which eventually would lead up to the Messianic arrival.

So of course most of the media will promote seemingly objective news to the people making the sounding of the news more inclined towards Israel than others. However all news media are subject to criticism. Al-Jazeera is not objective whatsoever either. Any media which represents an ethnic group or nationality is subjective. The only objectivity in the media is what is being reported not the cause of it"

Amalhayati2, applying your your quote to the the concept of root cause I can draw 2 conclusions.

1. The media reports are misleading and it would be impossible to make a good decision or have right thinking by allowing media reports to be considered fact.

and/or

2. The right wing Christians are an external agitator with an agenda and should be considered a part of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

If you could have your way Jocky, how would you solve this?

I really don't think we can turn the clock back. Even in this post we can't agree on how far to turn it back.

Personally I would turn Jeruselem into an international city, under no one nations/peoples rule, and pour money into all of the surrounding areas for economic and infrastructor developement. I would assume that all people can be trusted and deal with breeches of that trust on a case by case basis.

does anyone else have a magic wand idea?

Even i think that the major cause of the fight is the religion....but again to make it the only reason for such kind of a battle is not justified.. and yes if the religion would have been the main cause, then the scenario would surely have been quite different........

talking about the question of the past that should be taken in consideration to move back... yes there should be a proper scalee for that...if israil goes too back to say that palestine is our state....then i say that spain belongs to muslims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ginghis wrote: Amalhayati2, applying your your quote to the the concept of root cause I can draw 2 conclusions. 1. The media reports are misleading and it would be impossible to make a good decision or have right thinking by allowing media reports to be considered fact. and/or 2. The right wing Christians are an external agitator with an agenda and should be considered a part of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

yes both are points are implied.  American media is bias in the fact that it only tells a fraction of the story while deciding for us who's to be blamed. 

In the american media doesn't show the severity of the situation and neither does it tell that it's american weapons that israel is using.  "american arms used by Israeli hands". the media is psychologically dissuadeing. 

The persistancy to keep the agression going stems from the Right-Wing Christians leading the bush administration and in turn controling the American govt.  They are the force behind unyeilding to Lebanees massacre.  Although they don't state it, from an article i read here on islamicity forums their persistency stems from thier chritian belief that prophesizes the arival of the Messiah.

but all this is whta's going on at the present time.  you want to know in the past what has started all this fuss don't you?  so maybe talking about the affect of the media and the persistancy of the Right-Wing Christians takes us on a different angle... i don't think they are the 'root cause' of the Arab/Israel conflict. 

the root cause came just from the israeli's occupation of arab land. in 1948.  it's btw the israelis and arabs themselves. right-wing christians are just adding feul to the fire.

i wouldn't get too much into who/what/when/where/why before the comming of Israel's independence in 1948... usually the 'audiance' are not hisotry savy individuals.  I'd be consise about this.  the root cause was from the lack of land that Jews had (since they were exciled from Europe) and so they chose the holy land, that equally belongs to all Three Abrahamic Religions, but violently and unmercifully shoved the occupents out to make their settlements.  

yes religion has a factor in it but history is history and if you are asking about what happened (the root cause), we should just state the facts.  religion is in another realm of the topic where it gives excuses of why history was done.

Duende wrote: s666 wrote: "may not be brother, andalusia is a conquered territory.  muslims do not belong there. they are the invaders." For me, this is an example of what we still suffer from today: interpretations of history. Even though we are right in the midle of it, it's happening all around us, we are still unnable to have an objective view. New studies are suggesting the so-called 'Arab invasion' of Spain (not Andalusia, but Al-Andalus which was the Moorish name for the country,) was nothing of the sort. More like a settlement which simply expanded. We have all accepted the official history which has been given to us: Arabs invaded Spain, and this ended when the Catholic Kings expelled them. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain, alongside the less well known expulsion of the Jews (to this day known as Sephardies, with their own language and culture, and nostalgia for a lost Golden Age in Spain) which occurred at the same time, caused the worst economic crash the country had ever experienced which was why Ferdinand and Isabela hired Columbus to steal the riches from the Aztec and Maya kings. The discovery of America is still celebrated today as a peaceful and righteous achievement. It was in fact the result of daring seamanship: Columbus thought he had reached India by a new route and thus declared the natives to be 'Indians'. Imagine! They had no idea it was an entirely new continent, they were looking for spices and goods from India. They were looking for a new trade route. When they found the Aztec and Mayan riches: the Catholic kings ordered them to sieze them. So, from this example a mere 500 years ago you can get an idea of how difficult it is to find root causes for conflicts, and how difficult it is to get a clear view of history. As Napoleon said; History is nothing but an agreed upon set of lies. Today's media play a vital role in teaching the public, who have no other way of knowing, what is actually going on and why. However, as the current invasion of Lebanon shows us: the media are as biased and subject to persuasions of propaganda as everybody else is. In the end, people believe what they want to, whatever suits their own mind set and personal limits. In any case, Ginghis, please don't rely on quotes from Wikipedia, the entries there are as biased as the people who wrote them. Does Patty's quote mention the fact that Israel, up to today's Prime Minister, has been ruled by terrorists? Former army generals responsible for human rights massacres (Shabra, Shatila = Sharon- soon to be celebrated as an Israeli heroe as he shuffles off this mortal coil) and erstwhile members of terrorist cells (Begin). Here's an interesting slant someone posted on another forum. I don't know where he got this from, but it lends spice to the thinking: "The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, called Aliyah started in 1881. The Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs. There was no country of Palestine or Israel or Lebanon at this stage. There was no people called Palestinians back then. Palestine was a name for an region (not country) that extended in the north-south direction typically from Raphia (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman. The Negev Desert was not included. The idea of an independent nationality for Palestinian Arabs was greatly boosted by the 1967 Six Day War in which these lands were conquered by Israel; instead of being ruled by different Arab states encouraging them to think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, those in the West Bank and Gaza were now ruled by a state with no desire to make them think of themselves as Israelis, and an active interest in discouraging them from regarding themselves as Egyptians, Jordanians, or Syrians. Moreover, the natives of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip now shared many interests and problems in common with each other that they did not share with the neighboring countries."

Assalamu Alaikum,

Can anybody quote what famous historian, Thomas W Arnold said about so called Arab or Muslim invasion of Spain.

Peace

Excellent, Excellent!

Jocky, Translate the phrase please.

"La Ilaha illa Llah Muhammadun Rasul Llah"

Truely Duende I am reading history at an alarming rate, there is such a large amount of material addressing this subject. That is why I came to this forum and have created a couple of others in my work place and by email to selected schools of thought. I have elected to query current thinking and attitudes and motivations.

One thing has become clear to me. Muslim responses express restitution, expulsion, destruction, injustice, and determination. Jewish responses express conquest, destruction, homogeneous composition, self-defense, and determination. Third party responses express frustration, indefference, historical ignorance, arrogance, and an overwhelming desire for simple solutions.

It is far to soon and shallow for me to draw any conclusions, but I will say, I would hate to be trying to apply diplomacy and find an exceptable soultion to all parties involved. There is a noticible lack of goodwill in all directions.

I am totally impressed by the level of scholarly insight throughout this discussion. If there is such a thing as getting a "vibe" from disembodied text, I get the feeling there is a lot of passion fueling detailed study of the "root cause" in this controversial subject.

The discussion of hating Isreal but not Jews is eye opening and a distinction I have not heard before. So far it is one ray of light in a difficult situation. I wonder how common that thought is? I have experienced some name calling and disrespect in a few cases.

If you are intrested I can post a few of the replies I have received from others outside this forum.

Ginghis wrote: Excellent, Excellent! Jocky, Translate the phrase please. "La Ilaha illa Llah Muhammadur Rasul ullah"

Translation is "There is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

Peace

Well, this has been quite an adventure. I posed the same question in several places. This forum is the only place that worked at finding a root cause although we were unsuccessful at agreeing on any one. The very best I can do is say that history itself is most of the root cause. Both combatants and their supporters are well versed in history. If I may assume you guys would fall into the catagory of "Everyday People" and not someone who has to sort out these issues to the satisfaction of each side, the use of history to explain actions and attitudes is dominant. The same is true on the Isreali forum I visited. Although there was far less moderation in that discussion. Extremes were the norm both aggressive and passive. I attempted to compile my impressions each day and explain to my co-workers and wife what I was hearing. One of my co-workers has glassed over and just sits there respectfully and listens until I go away. Another, a true pacfist, just shakes his head and has concluded "they are never going to stop". Last night my wife put her hands in my face and said I don't want to hear any more, let them kill each other and maybe "I" can have some peace". My own attitude toward finding a root cause that would help permantly solve the issue has resulted in a poem. It favors no one except myself.

Sigh!

Rush Limbagh on root cause (7/29/06)

"As long as we are going to pussyfoot and patty-cake around, we're not going to get anywhere, we're not going to make any real progress.

We may delay the inevitable, we may get ceasefire after ceasefire after ceasefire, but we're not going to deal with the root cause of the problem. And as such, your kids and grandkids are going to be saddled with that at some point when they assume responsibility for the fate and future of the country."

Liberal Blogger response to Rush (Hullabaloo)

"So, the pictures of the dead are all phony, staged propaganda but the civilians need to be killed anyway in order to get to the root causes of the problem --- which I understand to be too many living arabs. If we don't kill them now, our kids and grandkids will have to kill their kids and grandkids later.

This blatant genocidal bloodlust has become de rigeur on the right now. It's on talk radio, TV and in the columns of respectable newspapers. They don't even pretend to be civilized anymore. Maybe it's just the SOS, but I've got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I don't ever remember this kind of stuff being openly bandied about like it's normal. And those who did, like Curtis LeMay, didn't have audiences of 25 million listeners to spew their bilge to.

But hey,what do we expect? Once you explode the taboo against torture, can genocide be far behind?"

Political Science professor

"You ask a very good and thoughtful question. It takes two to tangle and tango. If you want to go to root causes, maybe it goes all the way back to Joseph, who couldn't get along with his brothers and fled to Egypt. He later reconciled and I think his relatives moved there where they flourished and multiplied. Then they got Moses to lead them to the promised land, and the rest is history.

Another root cause is the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and of course the subsequent conflicts that have occurred since then.

You might want to read up on the history of the Middle East or the Arab-Israeli conflict. There are a ton of books.

If I were teaching a course about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I would probably go all the way back to father Abraham and his adulterous affair with Haggar and their son Ishmael, who was a thorn in the side of Israel, the "legitimate" heir. You see, it's all a family feud that we need to stay out of.......

I better stop here. I'm getting in over my head."

Jewish Wife

"Just an FYI. The Arab league wants nothing to do with Hamas and Hezbolah since they are Shiites (however that is spelled). It's 1,000 years and they are waiting to worship a person, which is supposedly against their faith to worship anyone. Also Hezbolah are Iranians who are not Arabs, but Persians. They took over Lebanon by force with help from the Syrians who are evil, but won't fight because they might get hurt. Hamas is comprised of Egyptian fanatics. Also another FYI - read Mark Twain and he will tell of the empty land i.e. "Palestine".

Me. "

Her Husband

"And from me.

Good summary of the Balfour and previous. Nice history lesson.

However, you might know that maybe that was part of a Godly plan to return the Jews to their homeland. 2,000 years of Diaspora seems like enough.

The part about the 'it being clearly understood that
nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of
existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine'

The Arabs living in Israel have more rights than any of their neighbors. Yes there is some discrimination, but they have the right to petition all the way to the Supreme Court of Israel and the do win there. The Arabs have mosques and are entitled to worship as they please. As are the Christians and the B'Hai (spelling may be off). I believe that portion is in place as referenced above.

I am convinced that either Islam will eradicate it's superiority complex or whither on the vine of history.

With denigration of other religions or cultures, then the only philosophy that would make sense to the Moslems would be to conquer all or perish. The alternate "reformation" of islam would be to see all religions as equal to be practiced in their midst. If Islam is truley superior, the it will stand on it's on in the arena of ideas with other beliefs.

Should they choose the former, the the decline will be bloddy and centuries in duration, but it will fall to a minority religion and culture. Should they chose the latter, then perhaps the world will be a better and happier place where we can start to think of a world at piece with itself on religious terms.

There is that hope."

s666 wrote: kashmiri wrote: if israil goes too back to say that palestine is our state....then i say that spain belongs to muslims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! may not be brother, andalusia is a conquered territory.  muslims do not belong there. they are the invaders.

Andaluse was invaded by foriegn elements prior to Muslims entering it. They entered at the invitation of a Christian. Andalus was Muslim for 700 years. The Catholic church, a foriegn power, was behind the removal of the Muslims, and also force converted everyone and threw out those who would not convert.

israel and palestine is quite a difficult question to answer.  what about starting from the old testament?

Lets start from there.

Israel was the northern kingdom. It is no longer around. It was destroyed by Assyrians. The Northern tribe was wiped out and has never been heard of again. This is proof that Gd's promises are "conditional". Unlike what the 20th century Zionists have preached to everyone in their propoganda. It is ok to find pork being sold on the Shabbat  in the market place, and to be a complete "athiest", but Gd did make a promise so it is "all good", according to the Zionists.

Israel is gone, and the modern state with the name has nothing in common.

If one is truly a Torah observant Jew, then they are still in the diaspora, and still must wait for a sign from Gd to return.

s666 wrote: Jockey wrote: I can bet my life on it: Israel will disappear within no time. Hizbullah is showing us today How vulnerable this defacto state is. dont be so generous brother.  dont underestimate israel.  their 'not again...' philosophy is very dangerous. The most dangerous person is the one who has nothing else to lose.

Israel exists due to one fact alone: The US dumps money and weapons into the "colony". In my opinion, the US should go back to its original teachings and intentions of the founding fathers, and practice non interference in the affairs of others, and hault all of the money sent to the middle east countries, and let all of the corrupt Arab regimes, and Israel, stand on their own. If they cannot, then they should not be in power.

Ginghis wrote: Political Science professor If I were teaching a course about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I would probably go all the way back to father Abraham and his adulterous affair with Haggar and their son Ishmael, who was a thorn in the side of Israel, the "legitimate" heir. You see, it's all a family feud that we need to stay out of....... I better stop here. I'm getting in over my head." No **it

A glaring disinformation and a major source of racist attitude amongst the western Christian (in fact it is a western religion) mindset (based on Galatians tract  by Paul�s sacrilegious  mumbo jumbo) about who is legit and who was not  legit of Abrahams sons Ishmael or Isaac!!!!

I did bring this point in another thread also. This kind of talk is not going to help the westerners.

They need to know and clear once for all, the rule in OT ---If a man slept with any woman, she would automatically become his wife the child would be in the old man�s inheritance no questions asked. Is� it a coincidence that close to 50% of the European and thereabouts in the good old USA, children born are out of wedlock. Think about �Brangelina� And there is no discussion of illegitimacy anywhere. What a hypocracy!!!!

Going further Ishmael was no where around Israel (Jacob) who was son of Isaac.

Has anybody given an honest thought that 12 sons of Israel were the issues from 2 wives (who were sisters>>> Leah�s kids by # of birth 1.Reuben; 2.Simeon; 3.Levi; 4. JUDAH; 9. Is sachar; 10.Zebulun and daughter Dinah>>> Rachel�s sons 11. Joseph & 12. Benjamin) and 2 handmaids (Leah�s hand maid Zilpah�s sons # 7. Gad; 8. Asher) Rachel�s maid Bilhah�s sons # 5. Dan and 6. Naphtali�(a grand case of polygyny  and say illegitimacy according to filthy, hypocritical western minds but not by divine laws that is legit even today if you are a true believer)

All 12 brothers and half brothers were the heads of what is known Israelites today. How many really survived the diaspora, that would be  a different thread.

 U may send this over to the professor, he may need some home work in this area

You  know the root cause, the reality is GWB and his cahoots believe that they don't ***t or worse>>>>  it doesn't stink.

Peace

peacemaker wrote: Duende wrote: s666 wrote: "may not be brother, andalusia is a conquered territory.  muslims do not belong there. they are the invaders." For me, this is an example of what we still suffer from today: interpretations of history. Even though we are right in the midle of it, it's happening all around us, we are still unnable to have an objective view. New studies are suggesting the so-called 'Arab invasion' of Spain (not Andalusia, but Al-Andalus which was the Moorish name for the country,) was nothing of the sort. More like a settlement which simply expanded. We have all accepted the official history which has been given to us: Arabs invaded Spain, and this ended when the Catholic Kings expelled them. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain, alongside the less well known expulsion of the Jews (to this day known as Sephardies, with their own language and culture, and nostalgia for a lost Golden Age in Spain) which occurred at the same time, caused the worst economic crash the country had ever experienced which was why Ferdinand and Isabela hired Columbus to steal the riches from the Aztec and Maya kings. The discovery of America is still celebrated today as a peaceful and righteous achievement. It was in fact the result of daring seamanship: Columbus thought he had reached India by a new route and thus declared the natives to be 'Indians'. Imagine! They had no idea it was an entirely new continent, they were looking for spices and goods from India. They were looking for a new trade route. When they found the Aztec and Mayan riches: the Catholic kings ordered them to sieze them. So, from this example a mere 500 years ago you can get an idea of how difficult it is to find root causes for conflicts, and how difficult it is to get a clear view of history. As Napoleon said; History is nothing but an agreed upon set of lies. Today's media play a vital role in teaching the public, who have no other way of knowing, what is actually going on and why. However, as the current invasion of Lebanon shows us: the media are as biased and subject to persuasions of propaganda as everybody else is. In the end, people believe what they want to, whatever suits their own mind set and personal limits. In any case, Ginghis, please don't rely on quotes from Wikipedia, the entries there are as biased as the people who wrote them. Does Patty's quote mention the fact that Israel, up to today's Prime Minister, has been ruled by terrorists? Former army generals responsible for human rights massacres (Shabra, Shatila = Sharon- soon to be celebrated as an Israeli heroe as he shuffles off this mortal coil) and erstwhile members of terrorist cells (Begin). Here's an interesting slant someone posted on another forum. I don't know where he got this from, but it lends spice to the thinking: "The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, called Aliyah started in 1881. The Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs. There was no country of Palestine or Israel or Lebanon at this stage. There was no people called Palestinians back then. Palestine was a name for an region (not country) that extended in the north-south direction typically from Raphia (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman. The Negev Desert was not included. The idea of an independent nationality for Palestinian Arabs was greatly boosted by the 1967 Six Day War in which these lands were conquered by Israel; instead of being ruled by different Arab states encouraging them to think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, those in the West Bank and Gaza were now ruled by a state with no desire to make them think of themselves as Israelis, and an active interest in discouraging them from regarding themselves as Egyptians, Jordanians, or Syrians. Moreover, the natives of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip now shared many interests and problems in common with each other that they did not share with the neighboring countries." Assalamu Alaikum, Can anybody quote what famous historian, Thomas W Arnold said about so called Arab or Muslim invasion of Spain. Peace

Assalam Aleikum.

There is an entire chapter dedicated to Spain. Anything in particular you are interested in?

Andalus wrote: peacemaker wrote: Duende wrote: s666 wrote: "may not be brother, andalusia is a conquered territory.  muslims do not belong there. they are the invaders." For me, this is an example of what we still suffer from today: interpretations of history. Even though we are right in the midle of it, it's happening all around us, we are still unnable to have an objective view. New studies are suggesting the so-called 'Arab invasion' of Spain (not Andalusia, but Al-Andalus which was the Moorish name for the country,) was nothing of the sort. More like a settlement which simply expanded. We have all accepted the official history which has been given to us: Arabs invaded Spain, and this ended when the Catholic Kings expelled them. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain, alongside the less well known expulsion of the Jews (to this day known as Sephardies, with their own language and culture, and nostalgia for a lost Golden Age in Spain) which occurred at the same time, caused the worst economic crash the country had ever experienced which was why Ferdinand and Isabela hired Columbus to steal the riches from the Aztec and Maya kings. The discovery of America is still celebrated today as a peaceful and righteous achievement. It was in fact the result of daring seamanship: Columbus thought he had reached India by a new route and thus declared the natives to be 'Indians'. Imagine! They had no idea it was an entirely new continent, they were looking for spices and goods from India. They were looking for a new trade route. When they found the Aztec and Mayan riches: the Catholic kings ordered them to sieze them. So, from this example a mere 500 years ago you can get an idea of how difficult it is to find root causes for conflicts, and how difficult it is to get a clear view of history. As Napoleon said; History is nothing but an agreed upon set of lies. Today's media play a vital role in teaching the public, who have no other way of knowing, what is actually going on and why. However, as the current invasion of Lebanon shows us: the media are as biased and subject to persuasions of propaganda as everybody else is. In the end, people believe what they want to, whatever suits their own mind set and personal limits. In any case, Ginghis, please don't rely on quotes from Wikipedia, the entries there are as biased as the people who wrote them. Does Patty's quote mention the fact that Israel, up to today's Prime Minister, has been ruled by terrorists? Former army generals responsible for human rights massacres (Shabra, Shatila = Sharon- soon to be celebrated as an Israeli heroe as he shuffles off this mortal coil) and erstwhile members of terrorist cells (Begin). Here's an interesting slant someone posted on another forum. I don't know where he got this from, but it lends spice to the thinking: "The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, called Aliyah started in 1881. The Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs. There was no country of Palestine or Israel or Lebanon at this stage. There was no people called Palestinians back then. Palestine was a name for an region (not country) that extended in the north-south direction typically from Raphia (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman. The Negev Desert was not included. The idea of an independent nationality for Palestinian Arabs was greatly boosted by the 1967 Six Day War in which these lands were conquered by Israel; instead of being ruled by different Arab states encouraging them to think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, those in the West Bank and Gaza were now ruled by a state with no desire to make them think of themselves as Israelis, and an active interest in discouraging them from regarding themselves as Egyptians, Jordanians, or Syrians. Moreover, the natives of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip now shared many interests and problems in common with each other that they did not share with the neighboring countries." Assalamu Alaikum, Can anybody quote what famous historian, Thomas W Arnold said about so called Arab or Muslim invasion of Spain. Peace Assalam Aleikum. There is an entire chapter dedicated to Spain. Anything in particular you are interested in?

Assalamu Alaikum,

Many years back, I read perspective of famous historian Thomas W Arnold on Spain that prevalent notion of "invasion" of Spain by Muslims was false. As far as I recall, he also wrote that King Ferdinand, in contrast, slaughtered Muslims en masse. He also forced them to convert in the process of their expulsion from 700 year Muslim ruled Spain.

Do you have any link to that chapter, Brother. 

Jazak Allah Khair. 

Peace

Ginghis wrote: Political Science professor "... If you want to go to root causes, maybe it goes all the way back to Joseph, who couldn't get along with his brothers and fled to Egypt. He later reconciled and I think his relatives moved there where they flourished and multiplied. Then they got Moses to lead them to the promised land, and the rest is history. ... If I were teaching a course about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I would probably go all the way back to father Abraham and his adulterous affair with Haggar and their son Ishmael, who was a thorn in the side of Israel, the "legitimate" heir. You see, it's all a family feud that we need to stay out of.......

you are in an islamic discussion forum.  your brought a biblical interpretation of our religious history. that's not what muslims believe happened.  you must first understand with what our book, the Quran, tells us about the history of Prophet Abraham and his sons.  then you will have the muslim's perspective. 

In the quran, there was never a problem with ishmael and issac. nor any secrecy btw sara and hagar.  On the contrary, Sara gave Hagar to Abraham.  and Joseph never 'fleed to egypt' because 'he couldn't get allong with his brothers'. 

young Joseph was thrown in a well by his jealous brothers only to be taken in later by a passing caravan that found him when they stopped to get a drink of water.

the story goes on in Chapter 12 of the Quran (sura 12). it's a pretty interesting story by the way.

Chapter 14 tells the story of Prophet Abraham.

If you want to go all the way back to the story of Abraham to find a 'root cause' you'll have to take into consideration the differences in what your book tells and what the Quran tells that we muslims believe happend.

Thank You Amalhayati2,

I simply asked the same question of many people. These are the answers I received. The term "root cause" is being bandied about as if if can be defined. Every root cause I have heard has been challenged and disputed. There is truly no place to start and understand why no solution can be found that all parties can agree on. History seems to have many intrepertations. How people think has been declared wrong. Where people live and their values have been declared wrong. Cultures have been rated better or worse than another. It is as if we are not all humans who want to have a good life.

I registered to this forum to get an Islamic perspective on the root cause. I no longer trust the media. I wanted to talk to people and learn todays feelings and motivations. Mostly what I get are justifications that perpetuate present actions and events. I have gained an understanding of why the conflict goes on and on, but I have not gained much understanding of why it started in the first place. I don't think we are capable of descerning that.

Some how at some time we have come to the conclusion it is our duty to be mean to those who are not like us.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Thank You Duende

Each side should be able to stand respected and honored for its history and achievments. Each side should be respected for their dedication to its beliefs. But as you say each side will have to except some compromise and most of that will be physical and geographic.

I wonder if there is any nation that has not committed to one view or another. Or even a person, who both sides can respect, that can say these are the lines and these are the rules, then each party will say in the name of peace, prosperity, and spiritual growth, we will abide and be responsible for our own actions. It is obvious that honor is a strong principle among the Moslems and the Israeli. Honor is a great basis for trust.

It is also obvious to me the US cannot be the broker.

"Some how at some time we have come to the conclusion it is our duty to be mean to those who are not like us."

Well Prof Ginghis, you hit the nail on the head: 

In the very begining of creation, when the Lord decread He will create human kind on earth, the angels were taken aback. They were shocked and ask Allah

 "...will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?"  He [Allah] said, "indeed I know that which you do ot know."  Quran 2:30

so don't be surprised -this is our nature. Even the Angels know us better than we know ourselves. 

:)

but in every occasion there is the oppressor and the opressed, the tyrant and the slaves, -the right is crystal clear from the wrong. 

now it depends on each individual where they stand.  don't get too overwhelmed by so many different oppinions. you don't want to fall into an abyss of enigma.  chose the one side that you feel good and think is absolutely right and submit yourelf to the Will of the Lord who knows all things.

Amalhayati2, I will never achieve the status of professor but I am a technician for a university. The hardest part of any repair is identifing the problem. In a piece of electronic gear there are thousands of parts. Many of them, when broken, display the same symptons. Replacing the broken part takes very little effort. Identifying the broken part takes experience, knowledge, methodical examination, and patience. In my world it is called trouble shooting. I cannot trouble shoot with a bias, my approach has to be with no preconceived notion. In the end a process of elimination gets me to where I need to be.

This may be a bad analogy, but it is where I am comfortable.

That's a great analogy.  And with that method you will find that the truth clearly standing out amid all this hubbub. 

but let me breat it down too: if you had two older children in their 20's, let's say one was 23 and the other was 25, and they got into an argument.  sibling rivalry.  you as their father came to diffuse the situation and want to know what happend... what was their 'root cause' that brought on this commotion?  do you go way back to when they were little kids and say to youself, 'well then, they faught bcz of such and such reason. so that's the reason behind the commotion of thier fighting now. the root cause of their argument now was because of that reason when they faught when they were 5 and 7.' 

 and when you go way back to prophet Abraham's time to figure out a cause for the Palestinian/Israeli issue going on now, that's what it seems like your doing.  i think that's farfetched. 

Before 1948, there was no big problem btw the two ppl. once Israel decieded to become an indipendent state over Palestinian territory, thats where all these problems arose btw retaliatoins/revenge/etc. 

Going too far back only relates problems that occur at that moment for a reason related to that time.  so don't take them out of context and try to match them.

if you reach way back to the time of Prophet Abraham or the Twelve Tribes to find a 'root cause' for the israel/palestinian conflict- you'll really put yourelf into an abyss of enigma.  it doens't need all that.

just ask a young man on what they think happened and the furthest they'll go is say something like 'well someone took the other's land and now there's fighting'.   that's just as good as a 'root cause' as anything else.  simple and understandable. 

Amalhayati2, That is a strong example. I would like to apply that right away. If we could get all parties to use that as a principle I believe there might be a way to reach an exceptable solution. Even I could make a wise decision in that situation. But no one allows that. In my search for a common ground people are all over the time line. Everyone wants to include/add the events that tip judgements in their favor. When I say 1948, some one says 1921, when I say kidnapping, some one says bombed family. Generally Moslems say look back, Israelis say look forward. I get the very clear impression that Israelies know what they did wrong and don't want to "examine" it or admit it. I also get the impression that Moslems won't be satisfied until they are able to turn the clock back and fix an injustice.

The pundits and politicians all slap their fist into their hands and say "I know the root cause". They don't, they only support their own bias.

I apreciate your research in this. your results are vital for ppl to observe and realize. You show clearly how something so evident could become discombobulated and messy when using unlimited historical data to decipher the cause.  

Historical data is definately needed, realative data of course.

I'd give your research a little twist: ask a little kid, from both sides on what they think happened.  Listning to a kid gives you the simplest reason (because they are still young and freash so-to -speak and haven't been fed any excessive information). and maybe it could be the best reason.

once you understand a general cause to the palestine/israeli issue,  you have a more or less accurate idea about it and that will provide a framework to do your reseach in.

then you may endulge into history to find the specifics. doing it that way, you won't get yourself entangled with irrelavent information.

:) 

Some practical results of this thread so far.

My wife and one of my daughters, (they have been reading it since we started and we have discussions every evening), have gained a more balanced understanding and speak of solutions in terms that take all humanity in consideration.

I have learned things with no media filter.

We have an election in a few months. I will be voting for my representive to the congress. I will be able to make a more informed decision and hopefully not send an ignorant person on my behalf.

The latest estimates of world population is around 6.5 billion. I know for sure 3 of us want to be fair about this situation...Sigh.....

George Galloway has spoken against the occupation.  incredible interview and fierce replies!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14391.htm - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14391.htm

Whoa!! It is just so cool when people don't lock-step.

"Who so would be a man would be a non-conformist."

More voices like that would force a fair and just solution.

Here may be a another "root cause". The power to manipulate public opinion and the agendas behind that manipulation.

A few questions.

If Moslems had the ability to make the ME look just the way they wanted (geographically), how would it look? Is there a map anywhere that depicts this?

Do the Jews have any claim to any land in the Middle East as far as Moslems are concerned?

Could Christian and Jewish religious centers be left intact and honored in a completely Moslem ME?

Ginghis wrote: A few questions. If Moslems had the ability to make the ME look just the way they wanted (geographically), how would it look? Is there a map anywhere that depicts this? Do the Jews have any claim to any land in the Middle East as far as Moslems are concerned? Could Christian and Jewish religious centers be left intact and honored in a completely Moslem ME?

good qestion!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain/ - http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain/

In the history of Islam (the pure, 'unpolluted' islam ie: less radicals and faceists), Jews and Chritians have lived in harmony with each other.  the 700+ years of Muslim Spain was termed the 'Golden Age' in history books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in _Spain

:)