To give but a small practical illustration of this - you cannot understand current ME politics unless you understand the conflict between Sunni and Sh’ia. This conflict did not start as a theological split, but rather is about the correct line of descent of authority from the Prophet following the Caliphate of Ali - approx. 700 AD. The two lines have been fighting about it ever since.
Such matters are likely to be viewed in Europe “just like” the cionflict between Protestants and Catholics - which of course it resembles only superficially. In contrast, most NAmericans are unlikely to understand it at all.
Heh, you are adopting my theory in part (“your perception of how it is different is very american”)?
I’m not “american”. I’m Canadian - though that’s not , I grant, all that different. Hence my use of “N. American”.
As for the rest, it is difficult to debate with a blank denial. Is there any “conflict” in “america” that resembles the significance of the Sunni/Sh’ia split?
Israel was founded, specifically and intentionally, as the restoration of an ancient state. How could anyone say that ancient states are irrelevant, especially here?
The thing is even with the cessation of hostilities between Arabs and Jews, Israel will still have left a very long legacy of conflict in the Middle East (Not entirely it’s fault) How will this be overcome?
I doubt those Islamists will stop haranguing the Israelis even if peace broke out in Palestine.
I can say it as the neighbours problems and even their very identity has no thing to do with any neighbour of the ancient israel, and since you did not found any state based on kingship or priesthood, but on democracy, and in fact a state based on modern ethnic identities, I say it and the problems are not signs of great ancient conflict except the ancient conflict of humans fighting for resources.
and for malthus, I do not need lessons on Shia and Sunni and I am not European, only living there
What we’re saying is that there will be war, and then there will be peace, and then there will be war again, for ever and ever, amen. And not just here in the Middle East - you really don’t think that the current peaceful pause Western and Central Europe is currently going though is anything other than a freak anomaly, right? Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes.
I said that your issues are not about some special repeating ancientness of the middle east and that the state of israel is not ancient but a modern idea and form and spirit and its conflicts are for modern reasons, not any thing special.
That is all.
So, to be very clear then, you’re arguing that anti-Semitism is not a problem in France even though 45% of all French citizens in the most recent survey said they believed it was “probably true” that “French Jews are more loyal to Israel than to France” and that 35% said that it was “probably true” that “Jews have too much power in the business world”?:dubious:
Second, you’re also insisting that anti-Semitism is not a problem in the UK even though 48% of all British citizens think it is “probably true” that “British Jews are more loyal to Israel than the UK”?:dubious:
I’m sorry, but you seem to be attempting to either A)deny reality or B)dramatically redefine anti-Semitism rather than admit that it is pretty clearly a problem in Europe since France and the UK were two of the least anti-Semitic countries in Europe.
Fundamentals don’t change but details do. For 300 years between 1500 and 1800 the history of North America was the story of jockeying for position between European powers. For the 200 years since then I hasn’t been. That was a change.
In the same way, although there will be cycles of war and peace forever in the Middle East, they won’t always be about the constellation of forces that motivates them today. For one thing, it won’t always be the “Middle East,” which locates it with respect to a very historical (and perishable) European perspective. Someday it might just be a fairly unremarkable portion of a greater whole, or a peripheral area to some other locus of control, or no longer even an internally consistent entity. (It probably actually isn’t one, it’s just the perception from far away that makes it so.)
The premise of this thread is not “how will history end?” but “how will this particular phase of history be replaced by something else?”, and that is a valid question.
You can quote perhaps where this argument of the straw man was made or do you continue to prefer your habit of making allegations unsupported on your own suppositions?
I have not said any one thing about the state of anti-semitism or not in France nor the United Kingdom. I have stated that the fantastical predictions of a certain poster are those commonly seen coming from the extreme right in Europe and from Americans who know little of France or Europe, and make repitition of partial claims.
The actual data of the emigration from the Western european countries does not support these claims.
They continue to be made by the same kinds of parties that talk of the Eurabia figment of imaginations and who think that it is still funny to make race jokes and use racial languages.
the subject of anti semitism and american thoughts on that in europe is another subject for another thread.
this is no different than many other places and the parties who invent ancient histories for the conflicts that are in fact modern.
and it is why certain Israeli and related discources invent stories to deny the ancient roots of those who are now called Palestinian arabe to the land.
It is all the disocurse of modern conflicts with disguises to justify modern claims.
Nobody denies the ancient roots of Arabs in the region. And correct me if I’m misunderstanding, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Are the Palestinians an ancient nation? Or a modern nation? You seem to be saying both, depending on whether you argue that the Jews are an ancient or modern nation.
Meh, you are completely misunderstanding my point - which is that each area has to be understood in terms of its own particular history.
The notion that the ME conflict simply has to end in one of the ways familiar to our particular moment in time in Europe and N. America - mostly, our experience with the American West, European Colonialism, WW2 and the Cold War - with some sort of apocalyptic “solution” is simply a projection. Each situation has its own dynamic and its own pressures and issues. Those applicable to the Israel situation, in particular, are not the same as those particular to European colonialism and the like, and IMO it is a major mistake to think that they are.
Although you aren’t saying it, your concerns appear rooted in zionist or anti-zionist claims about “who has more ancient ties to the land? - Jews, or Palestinians?”. I’m not at all concerned with that issue.
So, you explicitly said “no” anti-Semitism was not a problem in Europe and blamed such charges on the “rhetoric” of “americans(sic)” who were ignorant of “France.”
Sorry dude, but you’re the one who is stupidly insisting that anti-Semitism isn’t an issue in France even though more than a third of all French citizens think “Jews have too much power in the business world” and just under half believe that “French Jews are more loyal to Israel than to France.”
To those of us who don’t try and deny reality you’re clearly wrong.
That doesn’t however mean that anti-Semitism in modern day Europe is comparable to Nazi Germany or the modern Arab world. It just means it’s a problem and it’s asinine to try and deny it exists or it’s not something to be concerned about.
Similarly, anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe is also something to be concerned about but that doesn’t mean that Muslims in France or the UK have to worry about being rounded up into concentration camps.
You are wrong about the reasons for the continuing conflict. Note that the Arabs held the Eastern part of Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967. They could have easily made it the capital of a Palestinian state if they had wanted. There was no serious push to do so.
Similarly, the “right of return” is another excuse for continuing conflict as opposed to the real reason. Consider that in 1948, the Arabs could have had their own Palestinian State and there were no “refugees” at that point. There was still conflict.
Consider also the residents of the Jerash refugee camp in Jordan. It is known as “Camp Gaza” because its residents are descendants of Arabs who fled Gaza in 1967. Now that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, there is nothing stopping these “refugees” from being returned to Gaza. And yet they are not.
Because the conflict is not really about the “right of return” or Jerusalem.
The crux of the conflict is that the Jews want there to be a Jewish state in the Middle East and the Arabs want there NOT to be a Jewish state in the Middle East.
The conflict will end when one side is completely and utterly defeated.
I’m Canadian - though that’s not , I grant, all that different. Hence my use of “N. American”.