Priscillian, from an Israeli point of view, the ME conflict is about nationalism/land, not religion.
zigger

Agree with Zigger.
The ME conflict is a 'post 1948' conflict on land, legal right, etc..
and have nothing to do with religion.
I grew up in Egypt (Majority muslims) and jews used to own most successful retail business and media all around north Africa.

Jews lived in all middle eastern countries for the last few thousands
yeasr including Medina (in Saudi Arabia) during the time of Prophet Mohammed.

Ash

Zigger,
I've heard this before and it is a valid point, but is not Israeli national identity so closely entwined with Judaism that the two become almost inseperable?.
Israel as a nation exists:-

a. Because of unerring belief in literalist scripture that places Jews traditionaly at this location.

b. The Balfour declaration eminating from the British Empire that had 19th Century Christians firmly believing that there was an actual historical tie between Jesus (as a Jew) and England.
Hence a series of questions by William Blake in his famous poem:-

" And did those feet in ancient times, walk upon England's mountain green?.

And was the Holy lamb of God on England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the countenance divine, shine forth upon these clouded hills

And was Jerusalum builded here, among these dark Satanic Mills?

I recommend Barbara Tuchman's book "The Bible and the Sword" for an insightful look at this question.

c. The strong support of America via its influencial Jewish lobby group.

d. The Holocaust, which produced an overwhelming desire for a secure homeland for Eurpoean Jews.

All of these reasons for existance have their bases in religion.
Israel is correctly called the "Jewish state".
Israel calls itself a democracy, albeit one that would only exist in the context of being a "Jewish democracy". Could you imaging a really secular Israel? or one dominated by, say, Catholics?

I'm not saying any of this is good or bad, just that to descibe the conflict as based on nationalism is not really that accurate.

Posted by Priscillian, "I'm not saying any of this is good or bad, just that to descibe the conflict as based on nationalism is not really that accurate."

I agree!

When Jews constantly recite the Torah and the poetry with reference to Jerusalem as the beloved homeland, it is more than territory and nationalism that divides these cultures. I ask what is the prayer of the wailing wall?? My own Orthodox relatives speak out against the secularisation of Israel.

It is a pity they cannot be as aimable as Abraham who allowed Lot to choose his parcel of land with courtesy. (Note a parcel of land is now called a Lot)

I do not want to criticize the Jews too much as I really love their culture and admire their history and tenacity. I went to a high school in Melbourne that was primarily Jewish (around 90%). I made some good Jewish friends then and today have long term Jewish friends who have stuck by me through thick and thin.
I get annoyed by people who accuse others who criticize Israel or Zionism as being anti-semites. Nothing could be further from the truth with me. I am not anti-semite, the opposite is true. I do however have a problem with literalist religion of any sort.
In the Melbourne Age today (Sat 3rd) Page 16 in an article by Ed O'laughlan.

" The religious Zionists of the settler movement believes that God convenanted the Jews with an exclusive right and religious duty to inhabit all the territories between the Nile in Egypt and the Euphrates in Iraq"

Now either this statement is factual or it isn't. My understanding is that this accurately descibes one belief of the Zionists. This kind of religiously based tosh is what I am talking about. If such a belief is not only stupid in logic but demonstrates a ridiculous adherence to literalist ancient claptrap that renderes a disinterested observer breathless. Most commentators today feel they must pussyfoot around the root cause of the problems in the middle east but a reading of history will enlighten us all the the facts.

When anti-views are expressed about a powerless minority it usually triggers alarms bells and vigilance within this same minority. Is this an accurate understanding of what David Knoll is on about? Who is powerless and who is the minority and how is time, religion and history used to define these qualities?