I can't give you any brilliant answers... the oppression, hate and pain on both sides is destroying everyone. What a cost to be able to say I didn't start it.
I can say that I choose whenever I can to not participate in the mutual hate. I have friends who believe in Islam, Zoroastrianisms, Christianity, Judaism or the Great Spirit, etc and some are like me and choose to not hate and see value in each of us for our differences.
Some from all faiths seem to have hatred for other groups based on their own pain and the pain of their ancestors. It makes me sad because they alone have the ability to recognize the value their perceived enemy has. They alone can stop the cycle of hate.
This is not to say that we should not right current injustices. If someone is being oppressed then I will stand up for them regards of what they believe. I can't change the past but I won't allow it to continue in front of me.
I won't identify to a religion or group because I am not a religion or group or ethnicity. I am a person who will do my best as a human and if I make a mistake I will try to remedy it. Will you befriend me or do you want to befriend a nation, a religion or an idea.
2007-05-30 04:27:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I agree with you. And I believe that the average western citizen would be honored to sit down at a table, eat lots of good food, and figure out ways in which the conversation between our respective 'big families' can be made better and more productive.
But I would caution against the idea that the West and Southwest Asia are opposite eachother. Part of the problem the conversation must address is that we are both already subjected to the total system of global capitalist exchange - we are both in the same boat, economically - but we are on very different ends of the chain, and this raises some very profound and fundamentally moral questions of how to proceed appropriately in response.
Secondly, I would say that more and more, the West is coming to realize that the investments in the region we are made to protect - one in particular I'd rather not name - are the investments of the wealthiest few and not the everyday western consumer-citizen, and further, that protecting such investments is damaging to the greater good of those involved. The West, I hope, is beginning to realize that the richest on the planet have given the rest of us the raw deal, and that we should no longer honor those few and concert our energies by protecting the interest of the average, peaceloving citizen.
Also, I think it would be nice if all the Abrahamic faiths got together and excommunicated anyone who takes up arms in violence against the other.
2007-05-30 04:33:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by !@#%&! 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
As an Economist, the opposition comes from "Separation of Classes". All aggressive conflicts comes from the separation of classes where the rich are super rich, and the poor are super poor. The Middle East is a place where separation of classes is Historically a challenge.
First the region is in a desert. This creates a strategical way for rulers to hoard money. Slavery (originating from a barter society) was prevalent in creating wealth for those in the Middle East. As the Westerners biffed it ... so did the Middle Easterners. See slavery was more similar to a contract between the rich & poor. It was used to marry a rich man's daughter, for making up for a crime (theift), or for helping a poor person get onto their feet. So, slavery that accused men & women of unjust crimes and stole thier labor became a huge source of abuse to separtate the rich from the poor. In the Middle East, slave trading ended in the 1970's ... ah, well, on paper anyways. So, slavery was the foundation of wealth of the Sheeks.
Second, the Oil created a HUGE separation of classes. The rich middle-easterners have their white robes which takes 4-5 servants (paid) to maintain. Saddam Huissain & his family created the largest separation of classes the Modern world has seen ever. Crimes like his brother who stole 10 year old girls from their schools for his pleasure, and other crimes against Islam created discent amongst the people of the Middle East.
When they people rose against such tierniny, the wealthy started planting religious leaders to take the blame off themselves (being rich) and focusing the blame towards a common enemy, the Westerners. So, I see a misplaced hate created by the wealthy Shecks.
Those who practice Islam in countries like India, and Asia do not seem to have the same will to hate as those in the middle east. They are able to incorporate a peaceful living within multiple religions while maintaining their religious beliefs. So, again this leads me to follow my instincts that the "Separation of Classes" is the foundation of the conflicts occuring in the middle east. Yes, the poor in the middle east region are also poorer than the USA ... which is another source of bitterness.
The cure ... stabalize economy from destruction, create jobs (military, energy, and industry). Allow people to reach a dream of living where poverty doesn't prevail. Which if I'm not mistaken is the Bush's Administations "Mission Statement" that Congress wants to destroy.
2007-05-30 04:53:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Giggly Giraffe 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
You are wrong.
Historically the Middle East has been dominated by Middle Eastern Empires like Egypt, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire was quite powerful and constantly treated western Europeans poorly.
When that empire began its long decline it was only natural that others would take advantage of the decline.
What is currently named the Middle East is considered to be opposed to what is currently thought to be the West is all due to the unnatural hatred of Israel.
Israel is the only state with any Middle Eastern legitimacy because of its ancient age.
2007-05-30 07:22:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Cumjunkie Doner 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Get a life. Who says I am your brother, and who says I occupied your land. You must be a fanatic mus-slime!!!! Always complaining, and hating. You are so damn jealous your jealousy, causes all the hate, and destruction in this world.
2007-06-03 02:46:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by michelebaruch 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
But of historical revisionism there, huh? Were the Muslims minding their own business when they conquered Northern Africa and pushed their way into France?
2007-05-30 04:28:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Historically both westerners and middle easterners have tried to rule others. The horrors of war have gone in both directions. Please don't try to say m.e.s have never hurt anyone. I certainly wouldn't say that about the west. But dwelling on historical events of long ago doesn't help anyone. Our ancestors all made mistakes, some of them relatively recent.
The current general thought in the west is "live and let live". In other words, pay attention to yourself and your family to live how you want, and allow others to pay attention to themselves to live how they want. Don't try to force your views on them, and don't hurt anyone in order to live your life how you want.
The thought in the m.e. seems to be "live how I tell you or I'll kill you".
Please don't take that the wrong way; I DO NOT THINK MIDDLE EASTERNERS AS A WHOLE HATE OR INSTIGATE VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS. However, it is much, much more common for m.e.s to try to force their ways of life on others via violence directly in their communities.
This is what causes westerners to stick their noses into the situation. We don't want to rule the m.e. We want the m.e. to rule itself but to allow it's citizens to live their lives how they, individually, see fit as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else; that includes not killing your daughter because she loved someone of a different religion or burning your neighbor's house becuase he disrespected you.
Unfortunately, there are people and groups who push for other things that get in the way of our hopes for peace. That includes everything from governments to religious groups to individual nuts that want something in particular (oil, religious devotion according to their ideas, or banning of animal products).
Why do middle easterners reject the idea of letting each choose their own religion and way of life without hurting others who have a different opinion?
I think most people around the world want to just live their lives. If that were allowed, there would be peace. I don't see it happening any time soon though.
2007-05-30 04:31:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by MJ3000 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
All that happened back in the 17 and 1800...I say just leave them the hell alone and let them take care of themselves
2007-05-30 04:06:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by tha_man74 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
because we in the west are filthy rich. if they don't like it they should stop oppressing their people and start progressing towards democracy and freedom. we'll respect their opinions when they respect ours...
2007-05-30 04:11:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
9-11-01 We don't forget.
2007-05-30 04:19:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Joseph G 6
·
0⤊
2⤋