I am seeking knowledge

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

Edited by Servetus

[Maybe seeking a root cause is not productive. Maybe, here and now, and discusions of the future would yield more peace and optimism.]

Tony Blair rightly said that the only way to resolve the conflict is by UNDOING it's root cause. Therefore, trying to discuss the future without looking at the past and correct the wrong that was done, will only lead to more and more cycles of bloodshed and violence.
From a Muslim perspective, Before discussing the root cause of the so called middle east conflict, we have to first discuss the root of the Muslims' problems alltogether as they are all related and interlinked, and they all share the same root cause. As Muslims, we dont look at ME conflict as a problem between us and Israel, It is only a Muslim problem and only Muslims can san solve it once they are ready...

 

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"

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.