Iran leader: Move Israel to Europe

[Keith Wheeler]

Texas - that is true to a degree (i.e., 1948), however look back about 30 years earlier. Up to and through World War I, the area that is Israel today was controlled/owned/occupied by the Ottoman Empire, which chose sides badly in that war. When the Empire fell and Germany et al. lost, the land became a Mandate under Great Britain's control. There NEVER was any autonomous sovereign entity called Palestine. .... In 1967, they tried again and failed again, losing more land to Israel, i.e., The West Bank, Gaza and Golan.

Israel should give back those lands the same way we should give back California, Texas or everything west of Jamestown, Virginia.

Ron

And let's not forget friends, that Jews were moving to "Palestine" not only before 1948, but before WWII, and before WWI! If you were a wandering soul in the mid 1800s and went to that debated chunk of land, you'd find...guess what, Jews! And some nomadic bedouins. And some Arabs, Arabs that didn't align themselves with being Palestinian. Go back another 100 years, or another 1000 and you'd find...Jews. Yeah, yeah, I know , "but CNN said the Jews only moved there starting in 1948".

Some stuff that CNN doesn't tell you:

Ok, sure, some Arabs were forced out of Israel in '48. But at the same time many Jews who lived in neighboring Arab states were under death threats to leave. Many Palestinians were given the choice to stay, but the Arab nations did not give that option to their Jewish citizens (well, it "you stay, you die").

Not all Israelis are Jews. Those Arabs that chose/were allowed to (depending on what you believe) stay in Israel have Israeli citizenship. Prior to the Iraqi elections, the only nation in the mid-east where an Arab woman could vote? Israel.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the "League of Nations Mandate" predate the supposed 1948 Euro-exodus.

But the Arabs didn't want them there? If so, why did the Arab mayors of Gaze, Jerusalem, and Jaffa (as well as other Arab owners of large land tracts) all voluntarily sell land to Jews prior to 1948?

The 1937 British Peel Comission stated that (with regards to land purchased by Jews from Arabs) "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when purchased". Ah. Maybe they were jealous that they did nothing with the dunes and swamp and the Jews were productive? And remember people, at the time of this report, the Brits weren't exactly the Jews best friends...but they were something we don't see much of today: honest.

No independent state of Palestine has ever existed.

Ok, so I'm a Jew. And I'm defending Israel. But I'm not handing you a bunch of "we're the chosen people" rhetoric. I'm giving you facts. And the fact is that in Jews were there long before 1948; this situation did not just pop into being in 1948.

I'm sure that a scant 14 million people hold sway over the world. (heavy sarcasm). The situation remains unresolved because it has become a trump card and a way for corrupt Arab leaders to play their people (and the rest of the world). The reasonable Arab (and Muslim, they aren't the same thing) leaders (Egypt, Jordan) have learned that Israel is a reality and have decided to move on.

I'm amazed at how many people who froth at the mouth when some lazy or biased journalist gets their gun "facts" wrong repeat such tired and incorrect myths about this situation.

Please folks, do some _real_ research on this, and I'm not talking the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- the fraudulant document that gave us the conspiracy that the Jews run the world and if you don't buy a Ford then you're under their control.

Maybe this is too much like work....so I'll say Shabbat Shalom and good night.

 

[RS2]

Keith

Well and accurately put.

Shabbat Shalom,

Ron

 

[shootinstudent]

And let's not forget friends, that Jews were moving to "Palestine" not only before 1948, but before WWII, and before WWI! If you were a wandering soul in the mid 1800s and went to that debated chunk of land, you'd find...guess what, Jews!

In 1947, which group, Jews or Arabs, represented the majority of the population, and by how much?

 

[RS2]

In 1947, which group, Jews or Arabs, represented the majority of the population, and by how much?

From MidEast Web http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm
"Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries. By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times. Analysis of population by subdistricts shows that Arab population tended to increase the most between 1931 and 1948 in the same areas where there were large proportions of Jews."

Ron

 

[Keith Wheeler]

In 1947, which group, Jews or Arabs, represented the majority of the population, and by how much?

You know, you're right. I think we should give the west back to the Indians/Native Americans. They were the majority when we started exploring their land. So give it back, that or teach them to turn their children in to bombs. They are poor, dispossed, and living in "refugee" camps. Makes sense by your arguments, no?

In 1947 the Jews represented the majority that wanted to work within the framework of international law. I'm sorry the Palestinians "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". It's sad, there are a lot of suffering Palestinian people, and a bunch of rich Arabs who could help their poor Muslim brothers, but don't want to because it'll stop their reason for bitching. Two nations that allow Palestinians to be citizens: Israel and Jordan.

As soon as the UN partition resolution was announced, many (some 30,000 of the more wealthy) Arabs left the area. A lot of them assumed there would be a war and the Arabs would win, and then they'd move back. Leading up to the war some Arab leaders encouraged this. The 150,000 Palestinian Arabs who stayed inside the UN boundaries were given full citizenship in Israel.

But hey, I've read some of your other posts. Nothing we say, no facts we present will change your mind. The reality is that the Jews built a modern productive society out of wasteland. You know, El Al has pretty cheap flights to Israel. Why not go and check it out yourself?

 

[RS2]

Keith,
Your points, once again, are spot on. What occurred in 1948 was well planned, if poorly estimated, by the surrounding Arab nations. They told the "Palestinians" to stay put and wait for them to come and push the Jews into the sea. Once Israel prevailed, the indiginous Arabs remained as the basis for continued threats to Israel's survival. Had the Arabs accepted the UN Partition plan, they would have had no further reason to seek the destruction of Israel. Thus, the plan was rejected and the indiginous Arabs remain the excuse to support the actions of al-Qaida, Iran and all others dedicated to the annihilation of Israel.

BTW, the article I linked above pointed out that the Arab population pre-1948 actually increased, primarily in areas developed by Jews, expressly because of the profound improvements created there by Jews.

Also, I forget to add a sarcastic smiley to my statement above (Israel should give back those lands the same way we should give back California, Texas or everything west of Jamestown, Virginia), but I do trust the sarcasm was sufficiently obvious.

Ron
(Also a Jew with a gun)

 

[Cousin Mike]

You know, El Al has pretty cheap flights to Israel. Why not go and check it out yourself?

I like living That's why.

j/k Keith, and I think you and shootinstudent both have valid points. Unfortunately, both the Palestinians and Israelis do terrible things to eachother to a point that it's impossible to justify one side or the other without a personal bias coming into play. I guess the question then becomes not who is right or wrong, but how to fix the mess in question. We can argue facts all day, but none of that will change what really happened, and none of us know the entire story or the entire history of the people of the region.

Having studied Islam for years, and considering converting, my opinions would be biased in favor of the Muslims. You being Jewish, you will unconditionally support the Israeli's. And the facts we choose to site for our arguments will be biased accordingly. Christians and Athiests will chime in for both sides occasionally, but just because the majority thinks one way or the other, does that make them right? Maybe if so many people weren't caught up in the history of the region, and ignoring the present situation in favor of a historical debate, the place wouldn't be in the mess it is in. I still don't see why if both sides come to a fair, reasonable agreement on land, policy, etc., why Muslims and Jews could not live together in peace.

If blacks and whites in America could do it after 200+ years of slavery, and another 100+ years of segregation, etc (I wonder if I'll get flamed just for bringing that up )... If South Africa could do it after Apartheid... Then Israel and the Palestinians could do it after the Intifadah. It's not impossible, if both sides want peace more than land or power. Think of all the wind lost to the sails of the extremist Muslim cause if Israel and the Palestinians come to a fair, solid peace agreement. There would be no Iran situation to discuss.

Thing is, extremists on both sides have an interest in keeping this whole thing going, and as long as they keep electing extremists into their govt., this isn't going to end. It's up to both parties involved to elect moderate leaders and representatives that can agree to move forward without some religious, personal, or political agenda.

Just my $0.02

 

[Fletchette]

Thanks for the excellent information.

My opinion is that conquered land is legitimately owned land. That doesn't mean war is always right...or wrong. It just means that after the smoke settles and the map is drawn, that is where the borders are. If it wasn't, we would be re-hashing every conflict since the dawn of history (althoguh some people are).

This doesn't lend itself to an easy solution for contemporary conflicts however. Conflicts are a fact of life.

 

[ghost squire]

The reality is that the Jews built a modern productive society out of wasteland.

This isn't related to the argument, and no matter your answer I'm not going to throw it back in your face, this is an honest no strings question:

How is the Israeli economy doing? Is it true that the survive only because of donations from nations and people? What are they producing, what is the basis of their economy?

Just thought I'd ask since there are so many informed people here.

 

[pauli]

How is the Israeli economy doing? Is it true that the survive only because of donations from nations and people? What are they producing, what is the basis of their economy?

here's what the cia world factbook has to say:

Israel has a technologically advanced market economy with substantial government participation. It depends on imports of crude oil, grains, raw materials, and military equipment. Despite limited natural resources, Israel has intensively developed its agricultural and industrial sectors over the past 20 years. Israel imports substantial quantities of grain, but is largely self-sufficient in other agricultural products. Cut diamonds, high-technology equipment, and agricultural products (fruits and vegetables) are the leading exports. Israel usually posts sizable current account deficits, which are covered by large transfer payments from abroad and by foreign loans. Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, which is its major source of economic and military aid. The bitter Israeli-Palestinian conflict; difficulties in the high-technology, construction, and tourist sectors; and fiscal austerity in the face of growing inflation led to small declines in GDP in 2001 and 2002. The economy grew at 1% in 2003, with improvements in tourism and foreign direct investment. In 2004, rising business and consumer confidence - as well as higher demand for Israeli exports boosted GDP by 3.9%.

 

[shootinstudent]

You know, you're right. I think we should give the west back to the Indians/Native Americans. They were the majority when we started exploring their land. So give it back, that or teach them to turn their children in to bombs.

Well...that was certainly an answer, but I was interested in your picture of the actual numbers, so I will ask again:

In 1947, who was the majority in the land that is now Israel, and by how much?

RS2, that's a good table you posted, thanks.

 

[carebear]

Also important, beyond raw numbers, is what did those living in the area consider themselves at the time?

Just because someone was of "Arab" origin in the Mandate area at the time does not mean they were "from" that area, that they were in fact legally landed at the time, nor that they would have considered themselves part of an autonomous community now called "Palestinian".

As discussed, the term itself originally described an area, not a nation or people. To post facto say "I declare you are Palestinian Arabs" to make the numbers look overwhelming is questionable. A more accurate description would break that monolithic "non-Jewish" group into their own claimed affiliations, thus skewing the "national character" of the region at the time.

for example, the Saudi Arabs count the Bedu as "Saudi's" for purposes of national population calculation, the Bedu would not agree. Their first response would be their tribal and religious affiliation.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

Well...that was certainly an answer, but I was interested in your picture of the actual numbers, so I will ask again:

In 1947, who was the majority in the land that is now Israel, and by how much?

If you are talking about the UN partition of 1947, the land that was to be Israel had a majority of Jews, if you are asking about the entire British mandate area the majority were Bedowens(sp?) of modern day Jordan. In the Palestine area there were 85,000 Jews in 1917 and by 1947 approx 600,000 compared to 1,000,000 arabs of all sorts. The land was divided by who lived where for the most part.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

Maybe if so many people weren't caught up in the history of the region, and ignoring the present situation in favor of a historical debate, the place wouldn't be in the mess it is in. I still don't see why if both sides come to a fair, reasonable agreement on land, policy, etc., why Muslims and Jews could not live together in peace.

I am fairly certain if the Arab populations would give up on trying to whipe Israel off of the map that peace would come a whole lot easier.

 

[carebear]

Bedouin

 

[Fletchette]

Maybe if so many people weren't caught up in the history of the region, and ignoring the present situation in favor of a historical debate, the place wouldn't be in the mess it is in. I still don't see why if both sides come to a fair, reasonable agreement on land, policy, etc., why Muslims and Jews could not live together in peace.

I am fairly certain if the Arab populations would give up on trying to whipe Israel off of the map that peace would come a whole lot easier.

I am not so certain. Israel is only one issue between the Muslim world and the West. I am not intending to bash any Muslims, but I DO think that there would be tension on other issues. For example, Osama did not attack the U.S. because of Israel, but rather because U.S. troops were in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Israel is only one issue between the Muslim world and the West. I am not intending to bash any Muslims, but I DO think that there would be tension on other issues. For example, Osama did not attack the U.S. because of Israel, but rather because U.S. troops were in Saudi Arabia.

Sadly, I have to agree. I don't see any quick solution to the extremist Muslim movement, but an honest agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would sure knock some of the credibility out of the whole thing. I think this is one of those problems that is going to have to fizzle out slowly over time, but an extremist of any faith would have problems with what "American culture" is percieved to be around the world. Peace in Israel would be an amazing first step though. As for Bin Laden, he has also jumped on the "Palestinian bandwagon" as I like to call it, although he also attacked us for the reasons you cited, among others. My opinion, he attacked us because he has enough money to.

Speaking of Bin Laden, weren't we trying to kill him or something?

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Well...that was certainly an answer, but I was interested in your picture of the actual numbers, so I will ask again:

In 1947, who was the majority in the land that is now Israel, and by how much?

RS2, that's a good table you posted, thanks.

Well, as Ron had posted the information you requested, I didn't see why I need respond with mere numbers, but rather to debate the apparent underlying reason why you asked for them. Either you asked the question as a prelude to a particular point, or it was rhetorical. Either way you were answered, your added attitude just what I've come to expect from your posts.


CousinMike:

Thank you. It is nice to know where people stand on issues. I do not blindly support Israel 100%, and honestly I only studied the deeper history of the situation because pro-Palestinians rarely seem to come up with a political solution or a compromise, rather they just say "Israel has no right to be there".

The world is full of positive examples of former enemies coming together and building new, better worlds. Europe comes to mind. This is something, as Jew, that is very important to me. There is a Jewish concept of "tikkun olam" -- repairing a broken world (rather than spending all of one's time worrying about the next). The one major stumbling block I see to this, and I hope I am very wrong, is that Muslims do not want peace with Jews. I'll admit, I don't know as much about Islam that I'd like to. It's been a challenge you see. I've tried to befriend Muslims without success. (knew a few while working on my engineering undergrad). I've got friends of many other faiths, but with Muslims have only been met with smug arrogance. So I can only base my opinions on what limited resources I have (yes, I could go and study more, but here's where I'll be brutally honest -- there's only so much time and that doesn't top my priority list). Here's why I think the situation is so difficult to resolve:

Whenever I try to research the question of Islam and Judaism, this is what I find--

(from http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=3980)

The Qur'aan is replete with the descriptions of the Jews. They have
repeatedly violated the orders of Allah Ta'ala. They are also known to
murder many prophets, in particular, Zakariyyah (Alayhis salaam).
Thereafter, Allah still bestowed them with a great prophet, Moosa (Alayhis
salaam) who liberated them from the oppression of Fir'awn.

They were instructed by Musa (Alayhis salaam) to fight the nation of Amaliqa
and regain their land. They responded to him, 'You and your Allah go and
fight, we will remain seated here.' When they were trapped in a valley for
forty years, Allah Ta'ala bestowed them with food and fruits from heaven but
they said, 'That's not enough, they want other foods.' When Moosa (Alayhis
salaam) went to the mount to speak to Allah, the Jews in his absence,
committed Shirk and started worshipping a calf. All that in total
inconsideration of Allah's favours upon them.

Moosa (Alayhis salaam) predicted to them the coming of Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). That was clearly stated in the Tawrah but
they openly denied that. The above are just a few from an infinite list of
their disobediences and violations of Allah's orders. Due to their
disobedience, Allah Ta'ala said, 'Disgrace and need has been set on them.'
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, 'Verily this (the Jews) are a
dirty nation. We do not need them.'

"infinite list of disobediences" "a dirty nation"

I know of no other major religion whose holy book and holy men specifically attack another group of people in such a repeated manner.

Perhaps these sorts of comments are as important to Muslims as the ticky details of Leviticus are to most Christians. Perhaps. But I've never been personally able to determine this. If however, this is a "basic tenet of faith", then it kind of strikes me like the communist manifesto (and other derranged documents) -- "I have the secret to a utopia! A peaceful world where all will be happy! First we kill everyone who disagrees with us..."

I hope I'm wrong. But I've never been able to get real answers, only rolling eyes.

Please do not interpret this as me saying "all Muslims are killers" or "all Muslims hate the Jews". That's irrational. I am probably far too open minded. I believe most people are people -- they want to live their lives, raise their children, and be "good". And as a Jew I believe that if non-Jews live a good life, they are "cool" in the eyes of G-d. That's good enough for me.

 

[shootinstudent]

Keith,

I asked you the question as I did because you were implying with the post I responded to that Palestinians were unimportant in the region, and that they didn't themselves see any real claim or connection to that land. I'd hoped you would elaborate your idea of what the situation was including the relative numbers, since for me to start debating the point without you doing that could easily have turned into me accusing you of painting a picture that you did not in fact wish to paint.

If you read through the '48 UN debates, it is clear that the Palestinians recognized their distinct character (they speak a dialect that is different from their neighbors; one Palestinian can recognize another through speech immediately), and indeed, they believed they had been promised a Palestinian state. Their claim to the land was, at a minimum, every bit as strong as any claim laid by the founders of Israel (who were, for the most part, immigrants into Palestine...which the Arabs, for the most part, were not.)

I think it's unfair to characterize the Palestinians as the group that didn't want to work through international law. They didn't like the partition plan, but they voted on that...and they also weren't the main perpetrators of violence against international observers. My understanding of the situation is that the Palestinians rightly believed that British and UN troops would either favor or at least protect them, and wouldn't protect the Israelis. Hence, it was primarily militant Jewish Immigrant groups who attacked the international troops, in order to drive them out. Once out, the chunk of land that was supposed to be Israel doubled in size...with absolutely zero discussion of that being anything other than permanent, despite the fact that it wasn't what the partition plan included.

I think if we can learn their side of the story, we'll be more willing to ignore the radicals and search for a solution that is fair. If we pretend today that the Palestinians have no reason to be enraged by their situation, then we end up saying "oh, they're just crazy" and not bothering to try any peaceful solutions...which seems to be the case with most of the history of Israel-Palestine dealings.

Whenever I try to research the question of Islam and Judaism, this is what I find--

The view is far from uniform. There are some who think that Jews must be guaranteed freedom under Muslim rule, some who think that they should be separate, some who argue for secular governments....and there are even Muslim zionists, who think that the Koran and traditional scholarship prove that Israel and the Jews have a divine right to statehood. (See www.amislam.com for that view.) Just as is the case in your religion, there are a wide spectrum of views, some more inclined to violence and some more inclined to peace.

 

[carebear]

I think if we can learn their side of the story, we'll be more willing to ignore the radicals and search for a solution that is fair. If we pretend today that the Palestinians have no reason to be enraged by their situation, then we end up saying "oh, they're just crazy" and not bothering to try any peaceful solutions...which seems to be the case with most of the history of Israel-Palestine dealings.

It has been difficult to "ignore the radicals" because every time meaningful progress is made toward some sort of compromise by right-thinking people on both sides, the radical Palestinians start blowing innocent people up which draws a military response from Israel which polarizes the two camps again.

The distinction is that even the most "no land for peace"-minded Jews don't go anywhere near that far when their interests are threatened. And when they (in very uncommon and scattered incidents) have, they've been, on the whole, arrested and punished.

If the Palestinian people want to move forward to peaceful coexistence they need to get out of the "conquered peoples" warfare mindset and start cracking down in-house on their extremists. Which they've been doing the past few years and has opened the door to real progress.

As long as they condone any "Israel has no right to exist" thinking or demogoguery within their politics that progress isn't going to continue.

 

[shootinstudent]

If the Palestinian people want to move forward to peaceful coexistence they need to get out of the "conquered peoples" warfare mindset and start cracking down in-house on their extremists. Which they've been doing the past few years and has opened the door to real progress.

As long as they condone any "Israel has no right to exist" thinking or demogoguery within their politics that progress isn't going to continue.

I agree with that, definitely. The violence has only hurt the Palestinians more, and more importantly to me, it's been in most cases in the form of criminal and evil attacks on women and children at school bus stops.

I simply say, look at the other side: As much as "Israel has no right to exist" stops the Palestinians from entering a real peace process, "Palestinians never were a people! This is all a modern farce!" ignores the Palestinian's legitimate claim to the land, and that kind of thinking doesn't help the Israelis to participate earnestly in the peace process either.

 

[carebear]

Very true.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

My understanding of the situation is that the Palestinians rightly believed that British and UN troops would either favor or at least protect them, and wouldn't protect the Israelis. Hence, it was primarily militant Jewish Immigrant groups who attacked the international troops, in order to drive them out. Once out, the chunk of land that was supposed to be Israel doubled in size...with absolutely zero discussion of that being anything other than permanent, despite the fact that it wasn't what the partition plan included.

There were no international troops only British troops and they were siding with the Arabs for the most part by arming and training Arab troops. Jordan had what was considered the best trained and equiped army in the region, training by the British and weapons from the British. Britain also had a treaty with Egypt which was equiped and trained by the British.

This conflict was not confind to what was palestine or just the Jews and Palestinians but Arabs from all surrounding area as well. Yes certain Jewish groups attacked some British instalations because the British were selectively disarming the Jews while openly training the Arabs.

The day after the Bristish withdrawl, May 15, 1948 not only the Palestinians attacked Israel but Jordan,Egypt,Lebanon,Syria,Iraqi, Saudi Arabia as well as support from several others all claiming they were going to drive the Jews into the ocean. It was not until 1967 a couple of wars later and thousands of attacks from its neighbors that Israel took all of what was Palestine.

A side note that know one ever wants to mention was that there was never to be a Palestinian home land. As soon as the British left, Jordan claimed the entire area as its own and held half of it for 20 years with every arab nation going along with them and most of the world ok with it, Just take a look at most maps from 1948 to 1967 and you will see the west bank as part of Jordan

 

[Cousin Mike]

Please do not interpret this as me saying "all Muslims are killers" or "all Muslims hate the Jews". That's irrational. I am probably far too open minded. I believe most people are people -- they want to live their lives, raise their children, and be "good". And as a Jew I believe that if non-Jews live a good life, they are "cool" in the eyes of G-d. That's good enough for me.

I'll try my best to explain this one Kieth, but just for clarity I never took any of your comments that way. It's good to know that at the very least you want to understand the other side. Apologies for assumptions that you always support Israel, as I don't always support Muslims in their little antics. That was silly of me. I'll try to answer, but I'm not going to quote the Qu'Ran or anything. I'd be here all night. I'll keep it as simple as possible.

As for the way you have been treated by Muslims, I'm sorry to hear that. The religion forbids racial or religious bias towards Jews, Christians or other Muslims. All 3 religions come from Abraham, and the most simple way to put it is to say that the true view of Islam is that there is only one religion - Submission to God - monotheism. Literally, in Arabic, "Islam". "Submitter (to God's will)" literally translated is "Muslim" - so really we consider all 3 religions to be one religion. Muslims are forbidden to act that way towards other believers.

The things you've experienced are quotes taken out of context from the Qu'Ran, combined with the innovative books of Hadith and Sunna (words and actions, loosely translated), books written by scribes about the traditions and sayings of the prophet Muhammed (ironically, the prophet forbade these things from being written down, and warned of the dangers of such writings leading to compulsion in religion) that were also taken out of context, and in lots of instances fabricated. Sadly, these innovations have been mixed with the religion almost completely in lots of places, and are responsible for the different sects in Islam, and the root of extremism.

Muslims who subscribe to this mindstate claim to have 2 problems with the Jews (mainly... there are other things, but once again we'd be here all night). The "they slew the prophets" thing (Jesus), and the acceptance of the Talmud as the source of law over the Torah. Muslims see this as accepting the laws of men over the laws of God, basically. The same things are said about Christians, changing the words and message of Jesus, idolatry, etc. So some Muslims use this as a high horse from which to look down on others, not knowing that the Hadith and Sunna they follow is in itself the same thing.

It's all self righteous religious crap, and sadly to say after years of Catholic school and studying religion on my own ever since, I can honestly say no religion is without it. The classic example being "Only people of (insert name of religion here) faith get to go to Heaven." Christianity also has a long history of vicious anti-semitism, but Christianity is about 550 years older than Islam. 550 years ago, being a Jew in Europe wasn't that great of a deal either. My opinion is that the religion needs it's time to grow. Judaism is approaching 6000 years old, give or take? Christianity is almost 2000 years old. Islam is barely a 1400 year old religion, but also the worlds (and the US') fastest growing religion. One thing history shows is that religion in it's early days is often insanely violent, and in short I think that's what the Muslim world is experiencing now. Sort of an identity crisis IMO.

I will almost certainly convert to Islam myself. One of my 2 best friends is Jewish. We talk about religion all the time. We talk guns, politics, everything. We agree on most things, and will probably always be friends. He asked me to come to temple for a ceremony for his son. I'm going. Some Muslims might not like that. Think I care? It all comes down to the individual. No religion is without it's BS and extremists, unfortunately. I, like you, think that being a good person and living a good life are all that really counts, no matter what your religion is. I also think we are in the minority. Lots of people put all their stock in their denomination, and not enough in themselves as individuals.