Carol, you wrote:
... I've provided quotes from quite a few other people as well. It's you who have chosen to ignore them. There is no shortage of quotes from many, many people who were there in the thick of what was going on at the time that are in complete agreement with Prime Minister Sharett's diary. You choose to ignore these people as well, because you think that if you ignore them collectively and only address them one by one, you can prove they don't exist. Well they do exist. I've posted several of them right here in this thread.

I have noticed that you have selected quotes 'in space' in other words you rip certain quotes out of any contextual references, and you have no 'other' quotes (from comparable Arab sources, diaries of leaders, broadcasts, interviews, etc.) for balance. This is comparable to what I've seen on anti-semitic websites where they quote some horrendous sounding section of the Talmud to demonstrate the perfidy of the Jews, at the same time the hatred that they espouse is implicit.

Carol you wrote:
... What the Arab League attempted to do in the 1940s was to preserve some of the Palestinian homeland for the Palestinians. But that wasn't why Israel provoked the 1967 war.

The United Nations attempted to preserve Palestinian homeland in the 1940s, but the Arabs chose to invade the part allocated to Jews. The manner of preserving Palestinian homeland in this sense was an elimination of Jews (many of whom were Palestinians themselves).

The 1967 war was provoked by Gamal Abdul Nasser and his allies in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan.
                      - - - - - - - - -
What this has to do with "Muslim" violence is debatable. The Arab-Israeli wars have been just that. . . Israel is a multi-ethnic society with Jewish, Muslim, and Christian citizens.
                      - - - - - - - - -
Perhaps, Carol, you siezed on Arab-Israeli wars as a way to beat the initiator of the thread over the head. Laudable though this may be, the thread could more properly have been redirected by concentrating on the subject, Muslim violence. You could have pointed out that the broad majority of Muslims are like the majority of everyone else...what is going on is a repeated attempt by a well financed and populated minority of people who are using terror as a tactic against their own people with a view toward igniting civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites and polarizing the Muslim majority elsewhere in the world. It is a war for control and it is an attempt to exert this control globally.

Interesting follow up topics flow from this: That Muslims are obviously being manipulated for political as well as religious reasons. If we look to the past we can see where other religions have gone through similar periods. When you can convince individuals to turn themselves into guided missiles you have a cheap and fearsome weapon. What is the appropriate response to this in the West?

Does Muslim violence generates enough fear to feed the ambitions of political rightists in the west? Does it call for political reformations in the Middle East?

I'm impressed that despite almost two weeks of destruction in the arrondissement of Paris that for the most part the violence there is seen not as Muslim violence, but as class/ economic violence. This would indicate that a lot of leaders are maintaining their ability to discriminate between motivations.

Has terror ever worked as a tactic?

Tactics matter. The violence of Al Qaeda may very well rehabilitate the European and Arab view of America in the Mid-East, and convince people that American intervention was timely.

You may argue that Muslim violence is a reaction to imposed authority from the West. But is this correct? Saddam's entire rule was a Stalinist exercise in terror. Al Qaeda is an amorphous, internet savvy to export this terror to the rest of the world.

If the battlefield is indeed the world, isn't it legitimate and even rather clever to provide a focus point in a place like Iraq?

Have a nice weekend.