History of the Middle East

The answer you are likely looking for is: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but this is incomplete. There are more than just three monotheistic religions in the Middle East. Other Middle Eastern monotheistic faiths include: Baha'i, Druze, Yarsan/Ahl-e-Haqq, and several other religions with a few thousand followers. Additionally, all of these titles are broad headers with many intrareligious distinctions. For example, Coptic Christians have their own Pope, while Maronite Christians are in communion with the Holy See.

Islamic Perspective on Monotheisms

Christianity used to be monotheistic, but not any longer for they now believe in 'three' rather than One

But from an Islamic point of view, Judaism is no longer monotheistic either, for they have a lot of anthropomorphism in their scriptures and they associate partners with Allah by rejecting the laws brought by His Last messenger Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), which associates their own customs with His prerogative to be worshiped as He directs.

All the Christians don't believe in Trinity. Many Christians still believe in One Almighty God.

Answer 1

According to the Bible and Qur'an, Israel is the home of Jews.

In 1948 the U.N offered to split Israel into 2 parts through UN Resolution 181. 1 for the Arabs and 1 for the Jews to live in Peace.

Jews agreed, Arabs didn't.

War...

Jews won.

Discussion about Arab Rejection of UN Resolution 181

More importantly is the reason by the Arabs didn't agree. The land was not evenly split. The Jews got more land than the Arabs. The Arabs should have gotten more due to their higher population compared to the Jews. Also, the land quality in terms of farming and in habitability was different. The Arabs got marshes and wastelands with no water, while the Jewish people got more fertile lands.

(although this Add On has nothing to do with why the Jews should have Israel, it helps explain why the Arabs didn't want them to have it other than the fact the land was promised to them by the British at the time)

Answer 1

According to historical, religious, legal, and political grounds, the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine at least partially, if not entirely, belongs to the Jewish people.

1) Historically: The Jews have an undeniable presence in the land from at least 700 BCE until 70 CE and this is proven not only by the Biblical account, but from Assyrian Ruins, Babylonian documents, Hellenistic inscriptions, and Roman volumes. Jews had a continuous presence in the land from 70 CE until the present day (even though they were nowhere near the majority) even though they were forcibly deported from the territory. The fact that they survived, as opposed to the Arameans or Hittites who were similarly exiled does not illegitimate their claims. For more on the history, please see the Related Question.

In addition to the population-part of the historical claim, Jews have physical ruins and cities that are very sacred to them in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine. The city of Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Jewish Bible. The city of Nablus used to be the Northern Metropolis of Shechem. Hebron was the first capital of Ancient Israel whence Saul ruled and David ruled until he conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Even more recent sites like Masada document the Jewish presence and struggle to persevere.

2) Religiously: The Jewish claim to have a connection to the land of the British Mandate of Palestine is firmly grounded in their religion. Jews as early as the Babylonian exiles wrote about returning to the land because God had promised it to them. According to the Pentateuch, God promised Abraham that piece of land. (This promise is even acknowledged in the Qur'an 5:20-21 and 17:104.) Many Jewish Holy Sites are in Israel such as the Kotel Hama'aravi (Western Wall).

3) Legally: By international law, the Ottoman Empire took the territory from the Seljuks and Abbassids by internationally recognized conquest. The territory was ceded to the British as a Mandate by the Ottomans as a term of surrender in World War I. (Even though the British had promised the territory to both the Arabs and Jews during the War, neither promise is legally binding.) According to the terms of the Mandate, even though the British were in control, the League of Nations had official jurisdiction. In 1947, the British gave direct authority to the League of Nations' successor, the United Nations, in accordance with the terms of their Mandate. The UN passed the 1947 Partition Plan that gave both a Jewish State and an Arab State the Right to Declare Statehood. The fact that the Arabs decided not to immediately declare such a state does not make the Israeli declaration any less valid. (It is important to note that Palestine did declare statehood on these grounds in 1988, which further cements the legality of this view.)

4) Politically: Jews invested a lot in building the political and physical infrastructure of the land even before they had control. Jews built farms, trained military brigades, created political parties, studied government, and defended themselves. This created a system that was able to repel the Arab Attacks in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9, secure expanded borders in the Six Day War of 1967, and hold those borders in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Israelis were actually able to exert control over this territory.

Of course, this list is not exhaustive, but should capture the sentiment of the question.

There are plenty of abstract ideas for resolutions, but so far nothing has come too close to actually resolving the conflict for an extended period of time. It's a complicated situation that probably requires many resolutions over a long time.

Answer 1

The Bottom Line is that both sides have a number of important and difficult concessions to make in pursuit of peace and the majority on each side are not willing to concede as much as they should. One of the best proposed solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is the Geneva Initiative which provides for a comprehensive resolution of each side's major issues. However, this Initiative requires a number of major concessions from each side, some of which are very painful. See the link below for more information.

Answer 2

If you look at the number of "initiatives", "peace plans", "road maps" and other projects called to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, you will find that this number exceeds 50. It means that all the politicians, historians, sociologists, think tanks have been for almost 70 years thinking about how to establish peace between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis - but the current situation demonstrates that their formidable efforts have failed. It means that the approach to the problem based on the concept that the peace between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs is possible in the foreseeable future is based on the wrong premise.

In order to solve a conflict, the analysts should first answer two basic questions:

1. Who are the true main actors in the conflict?

2. What are those main actors´ principal true goals?

The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israel is a small part of the much bigger conflict between Arabs and Israel, and of course nobody can find a solution to the small conflict without solving a bigger one of which the smaller is a part. And Arab leaders are not interested in solving the conflict and establishing peace with Israel. This conflict helps them explain to their people why their life is so hard and insecure; it´s because Israel together with America and other "imperialists" rob Arabs of their natural resources. Arabs blame Israel of all their misfortunes, problems and woes, Israel is the personification of the World Evil in the eyes of the common Arab public- and a wonderful scapegoat for Arab leaders. And they will not let Palestinian Arabs, who are not self-sufficient economically and are heavily dependent on the economic and political support of Arab countries make peace with Israel.

The goals Arabs pursue are simple: to destroy Israel and divide its territory between Egypt, Jordan, Syria. Nobody is going to give any "Palestinian State" to Palestinian Arabs; Egypt occupied Gaza almost 20 years, from 1948 to 1967, and Jordan in the same years occupied Judea and Samaria ( what the West calls "West Bank") and Jerusalem. And in all these almost 20 years neither Egypt nor Jordan did not move a finger to create some "Palestinian State". Moreover, Palestinian Arabs did not claim it and were quite content living under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation. So, Arab leaders are using Palestinian Arabs as a cannon fodder in their endless attempts to destroy Israel- but without the risk of the direct military clashes with Jews that were so disastrous for Arabs in their previous wars against Israel.

And they will go on using Palestinian Arabs in this role in future. If it were not so, 300-million Arab world would have absorbed 750,000 Arab refugees from Palestine as a 8-million Israel has absorbed 800,000 Jews- refugees from Arab countries. If Arab leaders have not done it yet and there are no signs they are going to do it in future, then they need Palestinian Arabs exactly in the quality of refugees, without rights and without perspectives; such people are very easily manipulated and are a good weapon. And they will not let totally dependent on them Palestinian Arabs sign any treaty with Israel if this treaty does not serve Arabs´ political goal of final destruction of Israel.

Israeli leaders understand this Arab game and categorically refuse to be a part of it. So, all talks about "one-state solution" are just a vibration in the air because Israel will not agree to commit a national suicide and accept the "solution" which will in ten years make Jews a minority in their own country. So, a one state solution is unacceptable for Israel.

And the "two - state "solution is unacceptable to both Israel and Arabs, because for Israel it means the deterioration of its military capacity to fight off an Arab attack in case of a war and the division of Israeli capital Jerusalem, which was for Jews a cultural, political and religious centre during the last 2,500 years- and for Arabs it means the necessity to officially recognize Israel and its right to exist. In order to evaluate the chances Arabs will agree, let´s look at Egypt. This country signed a Peace Treaty with Israel in 1979-and was immediately branded as a traitor by all the Arab world. But after the military defeat Egypt suffered in the Yom Kippur war of 1973 Egypt did not have any other options to get back Sinai. So, the Peace Treaty was signed, Egypt got Sinai, Israel and Egypt established the diplomatic relations, Israeli tourists started to visit Sharm el- Sheikh and Kurgada… This idyll continued 30 years. But 30 years later the iron fist of president Mubarak opened up and the Egyptians got the chance to say what they really thought. And they said it! Almost 80% of Egyptians say the Peace Treaty with Israel must be cancelled.

Let´s not forget we are talking about the country that is considered "moderate" and even "pro-Western". The hatred to Jews and Israel in other Arab countries is by no means less than in Egypt. So, the chances that Arabs will without any force major situation agree to recognize Israel and stop planning its destruction are very slim.

So, these two last starry-eyed inventions of the Western Liberals,"one-state solution" and "two state solution", will follow the sadly famous "road map", "Beilin initiative", "French peace plan", "Russian initiative" and about three dozens of their unsuccessful brothers, sisters and cousins from different countries of the world. And both Israelis and Arabs know this but they will politely arrive to the White House, they will listen, seriously nodding, the full of high - flying words about peace and living side by side in harmony speech of President Obama or whoever will be at that moment the President of the USA, they will pose for a traditional shake hands - and then they will return back home and in less than a month will inform USA that the sad fate, insurmountable obstacles and the crafty designs of the enemies of peace have made all their efforts to implement the wise decisions of the President of the USA futile.

We have seen this comic cartoon at least 20 times in the last 20 years.

In this situation, there are only two realistic perspectives for solving the conflict.

1. In the course of the war between some Arab states, for example, Syria or Egypt and the Jewish State, Israel uses the chance and pushes Palestinian Arabs from all the territory of Judea, Samaria and maybe Gaza, making them flee to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon or wherever they can. Of course, there will be a public outcry and a lot of accusations of "ethnic cleansing", but there is no doubt that if Israel gets in a situation of the war for survival, it will do it like it did it in 1948. However, Arab countries understand this and try to avoid the direct military conflicts with Israel.

It leaves us with just one realistic option, i.e.

1. The International Community initiates the plan of moving Arabs - non citizens of Israel - from all the territories of Israel including Judea , Samaria and Jerusalem. By force? No, of course not. By paying them for leaving.

Why Arabs, and not Jews? Well, first because there are only 1.2 mln Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem and about1.1 mln in Gaza, i.e. approximately 2.3 mln Arabs to move - against 8 mln Jews. Moving 2.3 mln people is much easier than moving 8 mln. And not only much easier, but also much cheaper. Second, Jews will simply refuse to leave . They've created quite a successful State, with the diversified economy and the GDP per capita(PPP) higher than in Italy and just $5,000 lower than in the United Kingdom. Why should they leave? And what would it cost to make the idea of leaving interesting to them?

But Arabs say they will never leave their motherland ( how can a motherland of Arabs be in Palestine, and what is Arabia then - are the questions Arabs prefer not to hear), that they will better die than emigrate… Yes, of course they say it, together with the terrible stories about how they love death more than they love life and about how they are "the native population of Palestine" - but in English, at the public forums and conferences. But in Arabic, average Arabs say something very different.

A survey conducted among the Palestinians in Nov. 2004 indicated that only about 15% of the Palestinian population resident in Israeli administered areas (Judea and Samaria) would reject outright an offer to emigrate.

By contrast, almost 40% would be ready to emigrate even without any form of the compensation, if only some country agrees to accept them. And over 70% would be happy to leave on the condition of receiving some form of material compensation as an inducement to emigrate permanently from the areas currently under Israeli administration (see the Related Links below) .

Another poll carried out by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion showed that only about half of the Arab population says they wish to remain in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In reply to the question: "If the possibility of immigration to the West were open to you, would you immigrate or stay in the country?"

55.3 % said "I would stay"

38.3 % said "I would immigrate"

6.3 % said" I don't know"

(See Related Links for more)

Poll No. 168 Nov 03, 2009

So, some 50%-70% of Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza would be ready to immigrate if only some country/ies opens the door to them and if they get some financial compensation. 2.3 million Arabs who live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza make some 450,000 families. Supposing the amount of the compensation being at $20,000 per family, we shall have the price of ending the conflict: $9 bln. It´s a lot of money? Well, yes, it is. But the West pays annually billions of dollars in direct financial and indirect humanitarian aid to Arabs in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and this amount is also quite comparable to the costs of the project of saving the endangered species, where one single program of saving green and loggerhead sea turtles costs $153.8 million. I am very positive about both green and loggerhead sea turtles, they are nice, cool and very sociable and I wish them luck and prosperity. But still, I think that the life and prosperity of 2.3 million people should cost at least the same as the life and well-being of sea turtles.

Read more at the Related Question below

Answer 1

Kabob, rice (lots of it)...saffron is used quite often in the rice, which makes the rice yellowish.

Most of the dishes consist of chicken or beef, and some vegetables.

Answer 2

Middle Easterners eat a wide variety of foods. The most common grains are rice and bread. They eat a disparate number of vegetables like carrots, parsnips, zucchinis, and similar. As concerns meat, they primarily eat chicken and lamb, although they occasionally eat beef.

Turkish: There are many different kinds of foods such as: lamb chops, Turkish kebabs, yayla çorba (plataue soup), köfte (turkish meatballs), döner (slices of meat in a sandwich), pilav (rice), shish (grilled meat or chicken), and many many more.

In terms of specific dishes there are Zeytinyagli Biber Dolma (Stuffed Green Peppers In Olive Oil), Laz Boregi, Izgara Bulgurlu Kofte (Grilled Kofte With Chiles), Tomato and Onion Salad (Soganli Domates Salatasi), Rice Custard (Sutlac), Potato Balls - Patates Koftesi, Kirmizi Mercimek Koftesi (Red Lentil Burgers), Stuffed Eggplants (Patlican Dolmasi), Hamsili Pilav (Anchovy Rice),and Coban Salatasi (Shepherd's Salad).

Israeli: Israelis eat a lot of felafel and hummus, pita, baba ghanoush, taboule, etc. Israeli salads are also quite popular. Since Israel has a huge emigrant population from Eastern Europe, there are a number of Eastern European dishes, like chicken shnitzel that are also relatively common.

Arabs: Arabs use wheat breads, couscous, barley, and rice as starch bases. Fruits, beans, and nuts (like dates, apricots, apples, olives, chickpeas, lentils, pistachios, almonds, walnuts etc.) figure prominently in Arab cuisine are often used to sweeten and flavor the various starches. Since meat and seafood became more common, Arabs tend to eat lamb, chicken, numerous varieties of fishes and shellfish.

Probably the most base food of the Arab World would be bread, but almost no Arab eats bread exclusively.

The most common food in Egypt is "Ful" (فول) which is crushed fava beans. It has a similar appearance to humus, a similar consistency to mortar, and is eaten with bread or rice. Egyptians also eat a variety of kebabs, typical Levantine humus, pita, and baba ghanouj, moussaka, pastilla, dolma, tahina salad, shwarma, and seafood along the Mediterranean coast.

Iran: Persians eat much of the same food, especially when it comes to the aperitifs and the kebabs, but they also have unique dishes. There is the famous Fesenjun, which has chicken or meatballs placed in a pomegranate and walnut sauce. There is also Ghormeh Sabzi, which has chicken marinated in an herb stew. Fish is also quite common along the coasts in Iran.