Don't mince any words, ISM. I am so sorry that I wasn't blessed with your amazing intellect.

Be that as it may, I would not have desire to sit in on any schooling which you might come down from your perch of wisdom and knowledge to offer to me and others in the vast uneducated masses of those who might disagree with you.

Please feel free to avoid conducting conversations with me in the future. Something tells me my quality of life will not be any lower.

granted, mousepod. But perhaps the conflict is usually put in those terms, because - unlike with the Russians or the French - - the Arabs have been fighting the Jews for century upon century.

In fact, while the conflict in the middle east used to be quite sectarian and nationalist, things have shifted quite a bit since the death of Yassar Arafat and the demise of nationalist organizations like the PLO.

Hamas and Hizzballah, on the other hand, are quite Islamist - - as are their patrons, Syria and Iran. It represents quite an ominous twist, I fear.

And I daresay the enemy is thought of as "jews" ... as everything is conceived of in religious terms ... and we plunge barbarically backward in time, holy frelling DoubleYou Tea Aich

never mind

If you "surrender" to someone and they demand that you follow them, you pretty much become them I believe.

So I ask: Is it better to be your enemy on their terms or on your own terms?

As Mousepod pointed out, it's not just about the Jews. Israel is a non-Islamic presence and it wouldn't much matter if they were Jews, Spaniards or Martians- they want them out. No doubt this makes the Christians in the area a bit nervous, but they're buying the radical's line that it's an Arab thing and hoping they aren't next. (Look at what the Islamic Arabs have been doing to people in Africa). Now, Iran is certainly financing the militias- but what if the radicals are successful? It's going to be a major cluster**** of civil wars then, because let's face it- Iranians aren't Arabs, they are Persians, and both Persian and Arab sides see the other as less than perfect. Even within the Arab groups, there are sub-groups wasting each other because of perceived superiority. Israel is merely a rallying point at this time, and a diversion. If they weren't there to project against and use in an inflammatory manner, then the rads would just turn their attentions to the next group of undesireables. Israel is not the problem here, it's the radical Islamics.

Radicals always exist. Everywhere and in every culture.

Mainstream support of radicalism is what waxes and wanes. As iSm pointed out, these conflicts mostly started out as nationalistic (arguments over sovereignty and geography) and have turned religious as the secular government leadership has fallen aside. I would argue this is because the nationalistic argument and the fundamental religious argument have come into alignment, but remove that alignment and the radicals will once again be on the fringe. The mainstream may not entirely condone the methods but tolerate it because the goals are the same. As soon as the mainstream and the fringe have different goals, it'll break down.

I wish that were true, Alex, but I don't think so. The radicals have far too much momentum to simply stop after they achieve so limited a goal, and the nationalists will be excited by the success and want to carry it further. I point to the Russian Revolution as an example- it began with a radical fringe, swelled with the populist involvement, then was taken over once again by the radicals once the primary objective had been achieved. Same goes for the French Revolution. This is one of the reasons the American Revolution stands out amongst others- we did not (although we came close) fall to the fringe element.

Another example would involve the invocation of Godwin, so I will not go there.

Doesn't make the point any less valid.

To be honest, I don't know how to feel on this subject. I feel numb. I'm just stunned at all this killing. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. Makes me sad. :(

WB brings up a very valid and oft overlooked point about Africa. What is the reasoning there, where the bloodshed has been far greater? There is international condemnation of it, no doubt, but where has the intervention been? 500,000 dead? I'll admit that it isn't all an Islamic thing, but much of it is Muslims killing Christians. While the tragedy of what is happening in Israel and Lebanon is very real, it is nothing close to what is happening/has happened in Africa.

Radical Islam does not go away if Israel simply ceases to exist, regardless of what the international community has to say about justification.