Hi, genessa. I dropped the ball on this post. My comment about a second Jewish savior (messiah) is because I made the point that they have already saved themselves. They have power and wealth and a protector in the USA. You are right, I don't know much about Judaism, but lately I've found there is great disparity in the Jewish community. Secular Jews, secular humanistic Jews... Please enlighten me on the Jews not believing in "that kind of saving". If you mean like resurrection, I know it's not that kind.

@GROG lol power and wealth. i'm poor! where's my cut? there are rich jews to be sure but there are more rich nonjews. jews as a group do not have any more wealth and power than nonjews. charles koch isn't jewish!

the other kind of saving: jews do not believe anyone can die for their sins, or save them from their sins, and there certainly is no original sin in judaism. in judaism one takes responsibility for one's own actions. even god can't forgive someone for sins other than against god. only the sinned-against can do that. so the concept of someone else saving them is alien to judaism.

g

Oil? That may be the reason it continues now, but that is questionable. And, it’s not about greed, either unless the ownership of Jerusalem is consider greed.

Quite simply, the problems started with the formation of three closely related religions, with the crusades, which ignited the conflicts between Christians and Muslims and for other reasons. Jews were a “problem” through out the dark and Middle Ages and suffered during pogroms, the Inquisition, etc.

Not once during the times ending with the Holy Roman Empire, and beginning with the start of Islam, all the way through the end of the 1800s was greed arising from oil ever a reason for the conflicts between Christians and Muslims. Oil was not discovered in the Middle East until 1908 (in Iran).

The conflicts were about religion and the control of land, primarily Jerusalem which is considered the birthplace of key figures of each of the three religions.

While they are a factor, but not the only factor, greed and oil were not factors before 1900 and really aren’t the primary reason now. Oil was not discovered in Israel until 1955, seven years after Israel was recognized as a country.

@Rob1948,
except for israel attacking & killing palestinians while stealing their land things were pretty stable in the ME for decades. then the US started replacing dictators after 911 gave them the excuse they were waiting for. i don't think it was a coincidence that the dictators that were replaced just happened to rule oil rich countries.
Afghanistan was attacked even though all the attackers in 911 were saudi arabians. the democratically elected leader of egypt was replaced b/c he wasn't considered malleable enough.
so over 500,000 people, almost all civilians, have been killed in the ME in the last 20 yrs or so.
the US & its allies used religion to stir up unrest & supplied the opposing factions with weapons & propaganda it all came down to money which=oil. it also helps their cause that the new dictators are friendlier towards israel.
the former replaced dictators were strong enough to keep the other religious nut cases in check. The US ended that.

@callmedubious the British, after WWI, meddled further, dividing the Middle East into various countries without regard to natural socio/political divisions. They “allowed” Jews to settle in the Palestine after WWII. That started the conflicts. Things were not really stable in the ME before that.

Yeah, Afghanistan was attacked. For a reason. The Taliban were harboring and allowing those Saudis who were affiliated with Al Queda to train in Afghanistan. Oddly enough, they were not doing so in Saudi Arabia. Also, the Taliban were running roughshod over the country in the wake of Russian occupation (yes, I am aware that the US helped fund and arm Afghanis including those who were Taliban).

As for Egypt, this is Al Jazeera’s take in what happened to Mubarak. AJ is fairly even handed and no shill for the US. (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/01/201112515334871490.html)

As for the West using religion to stir up the ME, th countries and religious factions in the ME needed no help to do that themselves. But, since that is your assertion, how about pointing us to valid links that back your assertion up.

@Rob1948 ,
you must be aware of the divide in the Islam religion. Saadam was a Sunni & was outnumbered by the Shiites. he might have kept order brutally but there were no great uprisings with consequent mass killings under his dictatorship.
the US backed the shiites.
don't bother getting back to me with more propaganda/BS.

[theglobeandmail.com]

@callmedubious Yes, no mass killings under Saddam. /sarcasm. Let’s not include his gassing of Kurds on multiple occasions. And, heaven forbid we include his war with Iran or his gassing of Iranians during that time. And, let’s ignore Saddam’s unprovoked attack and takeover of Kuwait. That was, by the way, about oil. Of course, countries in the West were not involved there until Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was completed.

Sunni and Shia have warred off and on and, for the most part, it has never been about oil or greed.

@Rob1948,
you are truly a brainwashed idiot. i won't be seeing any of your drivel again.