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.

 

 

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."

[/QUOTE]dont be so generous brother.  dont underestimate israel.  their 'not again...' philosophy is very dangerous[/QUOTE]

You know what our phiosophy is? La Ilaha illa Llah Muhammadun Rasul Llah. Match that.

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.

Edited by Ginghis