Israel is not the cause of war; also, Islam amounts to following Muhammed, a violent man

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Jan 2, 2015 at 03:58

Hello, Prashant

This is an old thread; but I see that people like you and I are still interested in it.

What you said about "fundamentalism" being centered on Israel, and being the epicenter of violence in the world, is not true. Please recall the following:

During the period 1947-49, the Arab-Israeli conflict was not the only major conflict in the world. Others included (a) The Pakistani War of Independence -- a religious war, like the Israeli War of Independence. Several thousand people were killed, just as in Israel; (b) The Chinese Civil War, a far bloodier conflict than anything happening in the Midlle East at the time; (c) The Burma Insurgency, which began, like the conflict in Israel, with the nation's founding in 1948. It has continued as long as all the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and claimed more lives -- over 200,000. It, too, had a religious element, with the Christian Karan people fighting for independence from the Buddhist Burmese.

There were more conflicts during this period, such as the Indonesian War of Independence and others. Just a short time after the first Arab-Israeli war, conflict broke out in Korea, claiming over a million military and civilian killed.. The notion that the lack of peace in the world is in any way connected to the existence of Israel, simply has no foundation in fact.

I also want to note that "Fundamentalism" hasn't had that much to do with conflicts during the past century. There have certainly been many "fundamentalists" fighting recently, such as the Islamic Caliphate fighting Al Nusra. That conflict was an exception, though, instead of the rule. Nearly all conflicts involving "Fundamentalists" also involve "Non-Fundamentalists". Take the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, two recent wars the US was deeply involved in. Afghanistan had been the site of decades of warfare, before it started taking on a decidedly religious character. Al Qaeda, the most religious element in that fight, was actually created by the US in order to fight the very non-religious Soviets; and when we later found it necessary to drive AQ out of that country, we didn't combat this religiously-inspired group with another like it: We used the Northern Alliance, the group that had previously supported the Soviets, and was based not on religion but on language and tribal loyalty. Likewise, in Iraq we fought mostly not against religious insurgents, but against very secular Ba'ath socialists.

I won't belabor this point further. What I've said so far, ought to dispel some very popular but wrong notions about the Middle East and especially about Israel.

Going back to the OP by Prof. Pipes, I was impressed by David Cameron's use of the word "Extremism". He seemed to be insinuating that Islam itself was not at fault for the violence of Islamic radicals. "Extremism" is just an indication of degree, and a fuzzy indication at that. Apparently, much Islam is, according to Cameron, bad; but perhaps a "moderate" amount is good. Should we try to apply this to other groups? How about Born-Again Christians? They go about preaching the gospel, which irritates many people; but I don't know of any wars they've started lately. In fact, being "extreme" in their religion would not make them violent; it would make them exceptionally loving and easy to get along with. "Extreme" Muslims are violent, because violence is part and parcel to Muhammed's teaching, and because Muhammed himself was a military leader. It wasn't "extremists" in his group who were violent, but virtually all his followers; and today, Muslims who are extreme in their religion are violent because they want to emulate their violent leader.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".