The Definition of War

[Cassandro]

"War" is a messy term that includes a number of contradictory situations. For example, the conflicts in the Middle East have included everything from national declarations to personal vendettas. This has muddied the definition of the continuing hostility between Arabs and Jews in that region.

Traditionally, War meant a clash of organized military forces over control of specific territories. This allowed for an ultimate settlement between the warring parties. However, the current war between Israel and some of its neighbors has a unique twist wherein the control of territory has not been the principal objective. Rather, it has been a flexible line of demarcation indicating areas of active and passive conflict.

This leads to consideration of unorthodox possibilities for ultimate settlement. One idea is to create an internationally supervised economic development zone in Gaza to address the dysfunctional living conditions of the people who live there. However, this is unlikely to produce a lasting political/religious settlement of this enduring conflict.

Another idea is the formation of a joint structure for governance of the entire territory. This might involve the recognition of individual subdivisions which would exercise local authority within a federal constitutional framework similar to that of the United States. (It should be remembered that each of the original 13 Colonies retained its own established political and religious institutions after Statehood.) Given the histories of the two dominant religions in this region, it might be necessary to create dual legislative bodies (one political and the other religious) similar to Britain's Parliament and House of Lords.

What do you think of this idea? I am trying to conceptualize an arrangement wherein all parties would have a vested interest in mutual cooperation rather than unending conflict.

 

[Shusha]

"War" is a messy term that includes a number of contradictory situations.

"War" is no longer considered legally permissible except in cases of self-defense, and, some will tell you, though this isn't actually found in international law, and only vaguely defined by those using the term, "resistance".

However, the current war between Israel and some of its neighbors has a unique twist wherein the control of territory has not been the principal objective.

It is not so much about territory, per se, as it is about sovereignty (particularly national sovereignty, but also religious sovereignty). Allow me to explain what I mean by "sovereignty". Sovereignty, in the sense I am using it, is the ability for a distinct collective of people to establish and control a communal living space which reflects their values, aspirations, and identity. Since the dissolution of Empires, this has typically been done within physical territorial boundaries. (It doesn't have to only be that way, see some Canadian/Aboriginal treaty agreements, but let's not wander too far just yet.) The control of physical territory is relevant to this discussion, but sovereignty is the obstacle.

Here's why. More than 100 years into the conflict, neither side sees a path through to full sovereignty for the other side. Palestinian Arabs utterly reject any sort of sovereignty for the Jewish people and jump through all sorts of hoops to establish a justification for this rejection. Israelis, generally, accept the idea of sovereignty for these self-defined collective Palestinian Arab people but don't believe that Palestinian Arab people are currently capable of achieving the necessary pre-conditions to establish a viable sovereignty, the most significant of which is to live in peace with your neighbors. You see how these two embedded ideologies collide, yes?

One idea is to create an internationally supervised economic development zone in Gaza to address the dysfunctional living conditions of the people who live there.

"Internationally-supervised" is notorious for its lack of functionality and its failure of commitment. There is no reason to believe that anything "internationally-supervised" would be effective. And, of course, it fails to address the fundamental problem - sovereignty. For both peoples.

Another idea is the formation of a joint structure for governance of the entire territory. This might involve the recognition of individual subdivisions which would exercise local authority within a federal constitutional framework similar to that of the United States.

Yes. This is the "Emirates solution". Did you have specific ideas on how this might work? Which powers would be local, and which powers would be federal?

The most common iteration of this "solution", that I've seen and engaged with, is full sovereignty for Israel (as in they would, at least initially, be the federal power) and with limited, very local, sovereignty for the Arab Palestinians. Do you think you could convince both sides?

 

[toomuchtime_]

"War" is a messy term that includes a number of contradictory situations. For example, the conflicts in the Middle East have included everything from national declarations to personal vendettas. This has muddied the definition of the continuing hostility between Arabs and Jews in that region.

Traditionally, War meant a clash of organized military forces over control of specific territories. This allowed for an ultimate settlement between the warring parties. However, the current war between Israel and some of its neighbors has a unique twist wherein the control of territory has not been the principal objective. Rather, it has been a flexible line of demarcation indicating areas of active and passive conflict.

This leads to consideration of unorthodox possibilities for ultimate settlement. One idea is to create an internationally supervised economic development zone in Gaza to address the dysfunctional living conditions of the people who live there. However, this is unlikely to produce a lasting political/religious settlement of this enduring conflict.

Another idea is the formation of a joint structure for governance of the entire territory. This might involve the recognition of individual subdivisions which would exercise local authority within a federal constitutional framework similar to that of the United States. (It should be remembered that each of the original 13 Colonies retained its own established political and religious institutions after Statehood.) Given the histories of the two dominant religions in this region, it might be necessary to create dual legislative bodies (one political and the other religious) similar to Britain's Parliament and House of Lords.

What do you think of this idea? I am trying to conceptualize an arrangement wherein all parties would have a vested interest in mutual cooperation rather than unending conflict.

Before trying to find a solution, it would be wise to try to define the problem. In this case, the problem is that the Muslims have never been willing to live in peace with Jews.

" From the early years of Islamic civilization, Muslim jurists, basing on Qur’anic directives, devised an elaborate hierarchy in which monotheistic non-Muslims, such as Christians and Jews, would be “protected” at a low level and tolerated as second-class citizens. Guidelines for their treatment were embodied in the “Pact of ‘Umar.” Limitations on the status of non-Muslims included discriminatory clothing regulations and occupational restrictions. Non-Muslims were required to pay a poll tax (jizya) as well as discriminatory taxes on agricultural produce."

“Ornament of the World” and the Jews of Spain

At times tolerant, at other times intensely intolerant, Spain’s intergroup relations formed a fragile coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Although often tenuous, the coexistence of diverse languages, peoples, and religions produced an extraordinary symbiosis and distinctive...

www.neh.gov

This was the situation in all the Muslim states, Jews were second class citizens subject to persecutions and humiliations in all Muslim states but not in the areas controlled by the British and French, and the Arabs were outraged. In 1947, when the UN was trying to find a way for the Jews and Arabs to live in peace, the Arab states demanded all of Palestine being given to them and refused to offer any guarantees for the welfare of the Jews. In other words, the Jews would again be second class citizens subject to all the abused Muslims had heaped upon them for the past 1400 years. When the UN refused the Arabs threatened to kill all the Jews unless they submitted to becoming second class citizens in Palestine.

War of Extermination​

An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom‘s editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, “A War of Extermination,” the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):

Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing… saying:

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine’s Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.

“This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …

Azzam's Genocidal Threat

Of the countless threats of violence, made by Arab and Palestinian leaders in the run up to and in the wake of the November 29, 1947 partition resolution, none has resonated more widely than the warning by Abdul Rahman Azzam, the Arab League's first

www.meforum.org

On May 14, 1948, the Jews declared the new state of Israel in accordance with the UN's partition resolution and the Arab states and the Arabs living in Israel immediately attacked the new state and were soundly defeated, and even after Israel offered to allow all the Arabs who had left during the war to return if they agreed to live in peace with the Jews, none of them accepted the offer.

Today, the Arabs, with a few exceptions, and some other Muslim nations remain committed to attacking Israel until it has been conquered regardless of the cost and have never shown any interest in any other outcome.

Until the Arabs decide to live in peace with the Jews, there is no solution to this conflict.

 

[Cassandro]

Yes. This is the "Emirates solution". Did you have specific ideas on how this might work? Which powers would be local, and which powers would be federal?

I think it would have to be negotiated and be more specific than the US Constitution.

The most common iteration of this "solution", that I've seen and engaged with, is full sovereignty for Israel (as in they would, at least initially, be the federal power) and with limited, very local, sovereignty for the Arab Palestinians. Do you think you could convince both sides?

Before the US Civil War, states had the power to secede from the Union. I think that power should be specified in any arrangement. In terms of federal power, the state of Israel could be assigned the power (and cost) of national defense. Other powers could be assigned to other states to ensure they have a seat at the table.

 

[Shusha]

I think it would have to be negotiated and be more specific than the US Constitution.

It's great to think that, but can we try to think it all the way through?

Here's a quick overview (not comprehensive) of the various powers held by the Federal and Provincial governments in Canada:

Federal: national interests; regulation of international trade; national defense; criminal law; citizenship; shipping, sea coasts, inland fishing;

Provincial: education; health; property and civil rights; natural resources; local issues (policing, roads, public spaces).

Shared: immigration; agriculture

What might be the makeup of a federal government which ensures full sovereignty for the Israelis, limited sovereignty for the Arab Palestinians, protection for minorities, full human, civil, and religious rights for both peoples?





And I think this is painfully relevant:

Before trying to find a solution, it would be wise to try to define the problem.

Until the Arabs decide to live in peace with the Jews, there is no solution to this conflict.

How does one share sovereignty with a collective that not only rejects your claim or right to sovereignty, but uses violence to try to remove that sovereignty from you?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's great to think that, but can we try to think it all the way through?

Here's a quick overview (not comprehensive) of the various powers held by the Federal and Provincial governments in Canada:

Federal: national interests; regulation of international trade; national defense; criminal law; citizenship; shipping, sea coasts, inland fishing;

Provincial: education; health; property and civil rights; natural resources; local issues (policing, roads, public spaces).

Shared: immigration; agriculture

What might be the makeup of a federal government which ensures full sovereignty for the Israelis, limited sovereignty for the Arab Palestinians, protection for minorities, full human, civil, and religious rights for both peoples?





And I think this is painfully relevant:

How does one share sovereignty with a collective that not only rejects your claim or right to sovereignty, but uses violence to try to remove that sovereignty from you?

Hating Jews is almost a definition of Islam, so imo there is only one way to bring this situation to the point where negotiations might yield a result, and that is to defeat the so called Palestinians so completely and refuse to allow them to rebuild until they give up all hope of ever defeating Israel by any means or opt to simply leave the territories. As long as the Muslims remain hopeful of someday defeating Israel, ceasefires are just pauses in a war that will last for decades.

 

[Shusha]

Hating Jews is almost a definition of Islam, so imo there is only one way to bring this situation to the point where negotiations might yield a result, and that is to defeat the so called Palestinians so completely and refuse to allow them to rebuild until they give up all hope of ever defeating Israel by any means or opt to simply leave the territories. As long as the Muslims remain hopeful of someday defeating Israel, ceasefires are just pauses in a war that will last for decades.

Yep. I hear you. I don't have quite so pessimistic an opinion about Islam as a whole, but certainly can't find fault with your argument about the more local issue. I was watching a video yesterday where a prominent Arab "Palestinian" asserted that the Jewish people are an "invented" people and as such had no rights to, well, anything. That's ... um ... rich. The world would benefit (and Islam would benefit) from a Renaissance which eradicated extremism from within and a more sophisticated interpretation of the texts.

 

[San Souci]

"War" is no longer considered legally permissible except in cases of self-defense, and, some will tell you, though this isn't actually found in international law, and only vaguely defined by those using the term, "resistance".

It is not so much about territory, per se, as it is about sovereignty (particularly national sovereignty, but also religious sovereignty). Allow me to explain what I mean by "sovereignty". Sovereignty, in the sense I am using it, is the ability for a distinct collective of people to establish and control a communal living space which reflects their values, aspirations, and identity. Since the dissolution of Empires, this has typically been done within physical territorial boundaries. (It doesn't have to only be that way, see some Canadian/Aboriginal treaty agreements, but let's not wander too far just yet.) The control of physical territory is relevant to this discussion, but sovereignty is the obstacle.

Here's why. More than 100 years into the conflict, neither side sees a path through to full sovereignty for the other side. Palestinian Arabs utterly reject any sort of sovereignty for the Jewish people and jump through all sorts of hoops to establish a justification for this rejection. Israelis, generally, accept the idea of sovereignty for these self-defined collective Palestinian Arab people but don't believe that Palestinian Arab people are currently capable of achieving the necessary pre-conditions to establish a viable sovereignty, the most significant of which is to live in peace with your neighbors. You see how these two embedded ideologies collide, yes?

"Internationally-supervised" is notorious for its lack of functionality and its failure of commitment. There is no reason to believe that anything "internationally-supervised" would be effective. And, of course, it fails to address the fundamental problem - sovereignty. For both peoples.

Yes. This is the "Emirates solution". Did you have specific ideas on how this might work? Which powers would be local, and which powers would be federal?

The most common iteration of this "solution", that I've seen and engaged with, is full sovereignty for Israel (as in they would, at least initially, be the federal power) and with limited, very local, sovereignty for the Arab Palestinians. Do you think you could convince both sides?

Only one problem-There is no such "Race" as "Palestinian". They are just Arab Terrorists.

 

[Shusha]

Only one problem-There is no such "Race" as "Palestinian". They are just Arab Terrorists.

The whole concept of "race" is what? Outdated? Irrelevant? Nonexistent?

They are a people who have, over time, developed a national identity. I don't care what that national identity is based on. It is real for them. The problem I run into is when a national identity is based SOLEY on the rejection of another national (ethnic, religious, cultural) identity. As soon as the Arab "Palestinians" sort THAT out, we have made the first step towards peace. But that also means that WE must stop rejecting their identity.

 

[Cassandro]

It's great to think that, but can we try to think it all the way through?

I already did: Combine the best features of (US) Constitutional and Parliamentary governments.

What might be the makeup of a federal government which ensures full sovereignty for the Israelis, limited sovereignty for the Arab Palestinians, protection for minorities, full human, civil, and religious rights for both peoples?

Limited sovereignty of all member states, with the right of secession.

How does one share sovereignty with a collective that not only rejects your claim or right to sovereignty, but uses violence to try to remove that sovereignty from you?

The collective would be all the member states. I assume at least four.

 

[Shusha]

I already did: Combine the best features of (US) Constitutional and Parliamentary governments.

Limited sovereignty of all member states, with the right of secession.

The collective would be all the member states. I assume at least four.

I'm sorry, you will have to provide a little more information for me to understand what you mean.

What are the "best" features of the US system (keeping in mind I am not American and do not have any knowledge of the US system)?

You are imagining four separate Emirates? What would these be?

Each with limited sovereignty? What would their sovereignty be limited to or by? What powers would they have? Who would hold the remaining powers?

Each would have the right to secede, as in become fully sovereign States at any time? Unilaterally?

 

[Cassandro]

I'm sorry, you will have to provide a little more information for me to understand what you mean.

Everything would have to be negotiated and approved by all parties, but the US Constitution would be a good starting template.

What are the "best" features of the US system (keeping in mind I am not American and do not have any knowledge of the US system)?

State sovereignty with specified powers delegated to the federal government.

You are imagining four separate Emirates? What would these be?

I imagine at least two northern (including Israel) and two southern (to equalize populations).

Each with limited sovereignty? What would their sovereignty be limited to or by? What powers would they have? Who would hold the remaining powers?A

A written constitution would have to be ratified by all states. All powers not delegated to the federal government would be retained by the states except military and foreign affairs, which would be delegated to the state of Israel.

Each would have the right to secede, as in become fully sovereign States at any time? Unilaterally?

Each state would have to right to secede upon payment of compensation to the remaining states. However, the state of Israel would retain defensive control of the original borders.

 

[Shusha]

This remains incredibly vague. I don't know how you can even decide whether a proposal is viable without having some idea of what the proposal is beyond: negotiation and some division of powers. Didn't we do that already with the Oslo Accords? How is that working out? Hey, we should negotiate a settlement agreement between Israel and some specific Arab peoples doesn't seem exactly like any kind of mind-blowing new idea.

State sovereignty with specified powers delegated to the federal government.

Yes, we've been over this. There would be a federal government (a State, presumably the State of Israel) and some number of individual Emirates. The powers of the State would be divided between the State (federal powers) and the Emirates (limited local powers).

Which powers would be federal and which would be emirate? I believe you've said the State would be responsible for international security, and foreign affairs (meaning? Trade? Banking? Currency management? Immigration? Citizenship? Border Control? Seaports? Airports?)

Emirate powers would be what? Let me throw out a couple of examples.

Health. Let's assume that health care came under the purview of the individual Emirates. What if, for the sake of argument, one of the emirates had a vastly superior health system, as measured by, say, longevity and infant mortality? Let's say that there are various reasons for this, including, say, greater budget expenditure, or subsidized education for medical professionals, or greater investment in to research. Would that be fair to the other Emirates? What would be the remedy to this? Would individuals be able to move their residency from one Emirate to another specifically to seek health care?

Education. Again assuming this is the purview of the individual Emirates. What if one of the Emirates decided on an educational curriculum based on values significantly different from, or detrimental to, the other three Emirates? Would there be a mechanism in place to oversee shared educational values?

Policing. How would inter-emirate policing work? With both crime and terrorism?

Religious sites. Would the holy sites be regulated federally or locally be each Emirate?

Natural resources. How would natural resources be shared and regulated?

I imagine at least two northern (including Israel) and two southern (to equalize populations).

Okay. So, why four? They would each be a mixed population of Jewish and Arab? What are we equalizing in the population? Are we aiming for a roughly 50/50 mix in each Emirate? Or are you thinking that each Emirate would be predominantly one or the other?

Each state would have to right to secede upon payment of compensation to the remaining states. However, the state of Israel would retain defensive control of the original borders.

Compensation for what, exactly? How burdensome would this "compensation" be?

If a Emirate secedes, and has an international border, how would it be possible for the State of Israel to effectively control that border in the territory of another sovereign State? Would the seceding State be required to cede territory for border control and security?

Look, I'm not at all opposed to an Emirate solution, in principle. But we need to work through it in a practical way to see if it is viable for the people who will actually be living there. And I'm really, really looking here for a reason why the Arab Palestinians would take this solution, where they would have limited local power, but no real sovereignty. I mean, I can see why this would work for them on a practical level, but how would you convince them?

 

[Cassandro]

This remains incredibly vague. I don't know how you can even decide whether a proposal is viable without having some idea of what the proposal is beyond: negotiation and some division of powers. Didn't we do that already with the Oslo Accords? How is that working out? Hey, we should negotiate a settlement agreement between Israel and some specific Arab peoples doesn't seem exactly like any kind of mind-blowing new idea.

Yes, we've been over this. There would be a federal government (a State, presumably the State of Israel) and some number of individual Emirates. The powers of the State would be divided between the State (federal powers) and the Emirates (limited local powers).

Which powers would be federal and which would be emirate? I believe you've said the State would be responsible for international security, and foreign affairs (meaning? Trade? Banking? Currency management? Immigration? Citizenship? Border Control? Seaports? Airports?)

Emirate powers would be what? Let me throw out a couple of examples.

Health. Let's assume that health care came under the purview of the individual Emirates. What if, for the sake of argument, one of the emirates had a vastly superior health system, as measured by, say, longevity and infant mortality? Let's say that there are various reasons for this, including, say, greater budget expenditure, or subsidized education for medical professionals, or greater investment in to research. Would that be fair to the other Emirates? What would be the remedy to this? Would individuals be able to move their residency from one Emirate to another specifically to seek health care?

Education. Again assuming this is the purview of the individual Emirates. What if one of the Emirates decided on an educational curriculum based on values significantly different from, or detrimental to, the other three Emirates? Would there be a mechanism in place to oversee shared educational values?

Policing. How would inter-emirate policing work? With both crime and terrorism?

Religious sites. Would the holy sites be regulated federally or locally be each Emirate?

Natural resources. How would natural resources be shared and regulated?

Okay. So, why four? They would each be a mixed population of Jewish and Arab? What are we equalizing in the population? Are we aiming for a roughly 50/50 mix in each Emirate? Or are you thinking that each Emirate would be predominantly one or the other?

Compensation for what, exactly? How burdensome would this "compensation" be?

If a Emirate secedes, and has an international border, how would it be possible for the State of Israel to effectively control that border in the territory of another sovereign State? Would the seceding State be required to cede territory for border control and security?

Look, I'm not at all opposed to an Emirate solution, in principle. But we need to work through it in a practical way to see if it is viable for the people who will actually be living there. And I'm really, really looking here for a reason why the Arab Palestinians would take this solution, where they would have limited local power, but no real sovereignty. I mean, I can see why this would work for them on a practical level, but how would you convince them?

We are not the parties who would negotiate these details. But on a broader basis, you seem to envision a Greater Israel containing internal emirates with limited autonomy. This reminds me of American Indian reservations and might be a hard sell to the local Arab populations.

I envision a voluntary confederation of individual states which would grant specified powers to a central authority. Due to their history of conflicts and practical considerations, the state of Israel would have to be granted exclusive authority over national defense and foreign relations. The other powers could be more flexible and subject to greater autonomy if desired.

 

[Shusha]

We are not the parties who would negotiate these details. But on a broader basis, you seem to envision a Greater Israel containing internal emirates with limited autonomy. This reminds me of American Indian reservations and might be a hard sell to the local Arab populations.

I envision a voluntary confederation of individual states which would grant specified powers to a central authority. Due to their history of conflicts and practical considerations, the state of Israel would have to be granted exclusive authority over national defense and foreign relations. The other powers could be more flexible and subject to greater autonomy if desired.

Explain the difference between "internal emirates with limited autonomy" and "central authority with emirates having greater autonomy".

Then convince me that the Arab population would understand the benefits of the latter and accept it.

 

[Cassandro]

Explain the difference between "internal emirates with limited autonomy" and "central authority with emirates having greater autonomy".

Then convince me that the Arab population would understand the benefits of the latter and accept it.

I think it comes down to whether any confederation would be voluntary or imposed by Israel and other countries.

 

[Shusha]

I think it comes down to whether any confederation would be voluntary or imposed by Israel and other countries.

Okay, sure. How do we convince the Arabs that this Emirate system is the MOST beneficial to them, such that they would give up sovereignty?

 

[Cassandro]

Okay, sure. How do we convince the Arabs that this Emirate system is the MOST beneficial to them, such that they would give up sovereignty?

Money. Lots of it.

 

[Shusha]

Money. Lots of it.

You mean lots of money like the billions of dollars that was spent on terrorism, tunnels, weapons, and the invasion? That lots of money?

 

[Captain Caveman]

"War" is a messy term that includes a number of contradictory situations. For example, the conflicts in the Middle East have included everything from national declarations to personal vendettas. This has muddied the definition of the continuing hostility between Arabs and Jews in that region.

Traditionally, War meant a clash of organized military forces over control of specific territories. This allowed for an ultimate settlement between the warring parties. However, the current war between Israel and some of its neighbors has a unique twist wherein the control of territory has not been the principal objective. Rather, it has been a flexible line of demarcation indicating areas of active and passive conflict.

This leads to consideration of unorthodox possibilities for ultimate settlement. One idea is to create an internationally supervised economic development zone in Gaza to address the dysfunctional living conditions of the people who live there. However, this is unlikely to produce a lasting political/religious settlement of this enduring conflict.

Another idea is the formation of a joint structure for governance of the entire territory. This might involve the recognition of individual subdivisions which would exercise local authority within a federal constitutional framework similar to that of the United States. (It should be remembered that each of the original 13 Colonies retained its own established political and religious institutions after Statehood.) Given the histories of the two dominant religions in this region, it might be necessary to create dual legislative bodies (one political and the other religious) similar to Britain's Parliament and House of Lords.

What do you think of this idea? I am trying to conceptualize an arrangement wherein all parties would have a vested interest in mutual cooperation rather than unending conflict.

All human conflicts are detailed in the Encyclopedia of Wars. I was looking tonight to buy a copy but the price suggests otherwise -

Encyclopedia of Wars (Fact on File Library of World History) by Charles Phillips/ Alan Axelrod: Brand New Hardcover (2004) | Revaluation Books

ISBN: 9780816028511 - Hardcover - Facts on File - 2004 - Condition: Brand New - 1502 pages. 11.50x9.00x3.25 inches. In Stock. - Encyclopedia of Wars (Fact on File Library of World History)

www.abebooks.co.uk

93% of wars were not religious based -

And of the religious wars, Islam beats all other religions.