>>The Arabs consider themselves one people (there have been dozens of Pan-Arab movements). They consider themselves more Arabs than they do Jordanian, etc. Again you are think of the region and the people the way you want it to be and not what it is.<<

Which Arabs have the view? Certainly not all of them. Did the (alleged) Saudi Arabs who bombed the mosque, and who claim to be al-Qa'ida, regard themselves as "one" with the Iraqi Arabs they killed?

Pan-Arabism is an ideal. It has *never* worked practically - either before or after the lifetime of Muhammad.

>>The Arabs were saying ALL Jews had to leave. And they meant those that had been there way before some the Arabs in Palestine.<<

As I said, in retrospect, I think it was a mistake for the Jews to move to Palestine in the first place. The problems of the Middle East could have been averted if the Jews *had* left, as the Palestinians requested.

Now, leaving would not make much sense, just as it would be illogical to non-Native Americans to leave the U.S. How would one define a Native American anyway? My friend is 1/5 Choctaw, but he thinks of himself as Irish Catholic. Would he still be included?

IMO, the best solution would be to transform Israel and the Palestinian territories into a single secular state - one in which Jews and Palestinians would have equal (not proportional) parliamentary representation. Unfortunately, my proposal is totally unrealistic.

>>And my opinion of your IMO is you and those that think like you bring wars.<<

That makes no sense to me. The wars in the Middle East, and continuing violence in that region have nothing to do with me and my views. They are largely the result of political Zionism.

>>Horrible wars. You give others the wrong attitude and that brings wars.<<

What attitude? Inclusiveness?

>>By your standards the Serbs were right in their opinion that the Bosnians and Kosovo had better leave.<<

Entirely different context. However, I think that my proposal (nonproportional representation) could have worked there, too.

>>The "active principes" (so the God-which acts, the God-in-power-action, and all gods are known as an "active god") are male.<<

Usually, yes, as in the mystic relation between Shiva and Shakti in Kashmiri Shaivism.

>>But in the opposite the "non-active-principles" are female.<<

Of course, both principles are often assumed to be operative in both sexes.

>>All this are explanations and metaphors in the "duality" we live in :-) But they are not menat physically male or physically female.<<

Yes. I anticipated your comment.

>>This we have to know and to understand. It is only for to categories things in our world who is dual.<<

IMO, this world is dual. Nondualism (advaita) is an attribute of the next world - the condition of life after death.

>>In this duality we act and think. So there is good and bad, above and berow, hot and cold, high and low, gods and devils, negative and positive poles in electric and magnetism ....<<

Yes. However, those opposites exist - on that particular level. They are not, IMO, maya (illusion), to use the Sanskrit Indian term.

>>Also the highest ONE - if this ONE will come down has to go in this dualtity. and when the highest ONE comes down the highest ONE is coming in the dual forms of LIGHT and WORD ....<<

Yes. That is the usual Radhasoami (surat shabd yoga) viewpoint.

>>All wordly organizations are for might or money or prestiges or for some other "EGO-reasons" and so on, but not for the help to others for they also may find the "living God within".<<

You think that *all* organizations exist for selfish reasons?

>>So you see: I´m also not membership of the wordly organization who is working for my "living Master".<<

You are not a part of Thakar's organization?

>>But it is a really hard job :-)

Maybe it is in the nature of a female body and mind not to act openly as a "living Master".<<

I suspect that there will be female prophets, avatars, etc. in the future, but that is just my personal opinion.

>>It is also said, that many of the disciples have reached the same quality as the "living Master".<<

Meher Baba distinguished between those perfect masters (men-god) who function as gurus and those which do not. (I have a good friend who is a disciple of Meher Baba.)

>>Also in Bible it is said by Jesus: "You can be like the Master, but not above" :-) [John 13.16}. So it is really possible as male and as well as female "to be like the living Master" but not working as a living Master :-)<<

I believe that one can reach the station of what I call a "lesser Prophet" through what is called in Arabic, 'irfan. It roughly translates as gnosis - mystical knowledge.

>>I fully agree with this teachings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá which surely is based onto the teachings of the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh.<<

Yes. `Abdu'l-Baha's clarified or interpreted the teachings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

>>All human beings do have the both qualities within: female and male qualities. And so: Where is the real difference ?" :-)<<

IMO, there is no difference - on the spiritual level. In the next world, there will be no gender or sex. As I suggested before, this world is dual. The next world is nondual.

>>Now, he wants to blame someone else for conditions there.<<

Would the bombing have occurred when the Ba'thists were in charge? Whatever Saddam's faults, and they were indeed plentiful, he succeeded in holding his country together.

If the bombing is not the fault of the occupying force, then whose fault is it?

>>Mark, Two Americas? Not where I come from! The business of America is business. Always has been.<<

The business of any population has to be business.

>>The Allmighty Dollar is the magnet that draws hordes to our shores and leaves the rest of the world in envy.<<

I don't know about the rest of the world. The U.S. has the largest GDP but *not* the highest standard of living or highest average income.

>>We are the most generous nation in the history of the world and we are roundly despised in return.<<

That is a part of the American mythos, but not grounded in fact. The U.S. gives a smaller proportion of its wealth to the developing world than *any* other industrialized/postindustrialized nation.

In many European countries, foreign aid is frequently a campaign promise. Imagine if a candidate made such a promise in the U.S.?

>>If you're going to be poor anywhere in the world, the U.S.A. is the place to do it.<<

You mean in the only industrialized nation without either national health insurance (sole payer system) or socialized medicine?

>>If our nation is to be faulted, it is for our forebearance with such ingrates. I thank God everyday that He saw fit to have me born an American!<<

There is much that is great in the U.S. However, the Amurekan side of the culture war keeps it well hidden.

>>I've seen how the rest live and there is no adequate comparison. Think about it and count your blessings!<<

Our wealth is on the backs of the rest of the world.

>>They do now. But what rights did they [Native Americans] have in 1825?<<

That is why I wonder why the Israelis have not learned from history. Using current terminology, Native Americans were "terrorists." Does that mean those of First Nations peoples who attacked the colonists were wrong? No, they were defending themselves and their way of life - just as are the Palestinians.

>>Our country has had two centuries to decide how best to treat the natives whose territory we occupied, and we took a long, long time to get to this point.<<

Yes, but why haven't the Israelis learned from that history? Denying the right of return to a population which demands it only works when one cages that population (as with the West Bank wall, now being constructed) or threatens it with violence.

Most Israelis are from American and European families anyway. They should know better.

>>Israel's policy on dealing with Palestinian residents within its territory is still in its infancy, by comparison.<<

There is no justification for that policy to be in its infancy.

>>Israel has only held those territories for 35 years, most of them while she was still in a state of war with her neighbors. You can't reasonably expect them to formulate and adopt a peacetime policy overnight.<<

I can and do expect them to do that - immediately - and on the terms given by the Palestinian Authority, not those of the Israeli government.

>>I would also suggest that, if Native Americans outnumbered Caucasians, our policies would not be so benign. Native Americans didn't even get the right to vote until 1921.<<

And in some states later than that.