Досужие Мысли

Цыгане

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:20:21 GMT

Тут поймал себя на мысли что ни разу не видел в Израиле цыганских таборов... Хотя, как помню, на территории бывшего СССР их было довольно много. Вроде слышал что в Европе таковые тоже наблюдаются - а вот об их присутствии в мусульманских странах ни разу заметок не встречал...
Интересно, они избегают магометанские страны или я просто недостаточно осведомлён ?

An interesting picture

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:31:18 GMT

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MjU4ODMmbnI9Nw_3_3,00.html

Does it remind something ?

Маразм крепчал...

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:46:54 GMT

Давно ничего не сбрасывал в ЛЖ, но эта статья меня просто поразила...
Похоже у Европейцев совсем крыша поехала.

Для незнающих Английский, это про то как ЛОСИ в Норвегии являются причной глобального потепления.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

Digital Rights

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:51:30 GMT

DRM is short for Digital Rights Management. Let me skip my own explanation and direct you to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management if you want to know what it is.
Current post is "my answer" to contemporary debates over DRM. It is inspired by a recent memo by Steve Jobs (which can be found here: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/). Additionally, my initial thoughts started to appear after reading this http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html post about DRM and Windows Vista.

In short, I bet that DRM will fail. It will not deliver what record label companies expect - their total control over media (music, films, broadcasts, etc...). Although, given the immense resources that are thrown on DRM implementation, it can hold for a while. Eventually, it will either significantly relax "the grip" or it will become another extinct dinosaur of social-technological evolution.

In my opinion, Steve Jobs is, as usual, ahead of all the other industry. Using the statistics that he gives, only 3% of music on an iPod is actually purchased. Taking in account that iPod is the most popular music device today, this sounds like a doom for DRM.
Generally, DRM's idea is implementing a virtual "policeman" that follows each person's usage of digital media and enforces usage restrictions for that media. Which means that when you buy a music or a film, you actually buy a Trojan horse along with it. Let alone the intent of deliberately harming the material, as described in post about DRM and Windows Vista (given above). Consequently, thinking of DRM brings up the following:
1) DRM will be awkward, both the implementation and usage. Consequently users will be confused with what they can do and what they can't do. In many cases they'll find themselves disappointed, considering the money already paid, they'll surely be angry as well.
2) Interoperability of different devices from different vendors, given the overall complexity, will be problematic. This will harm user experience as well.
3) DRM idea is unnatural. It is an effort to emulate physical world concepts with virtual (computer) world. With some emulated concepts directly contradicting computer concepts (paradigms), like the restriction of copying, DRM will have a hard time struggling its way.
4) Following DRM restrictions, a price of a human error or a hardware failure, becomes much higher.
5) This all makes free (in many cases) content much more appealing: its usage paradigm is clear, it works everywhere, it has evolved along with the rest of computing platforms and it is native for them, given its wide proliferation, the price of a media loss (recovery) is still low.
6) Any protection (even unbreakable theoretically) has implementation shortcomings. With many skillful guys out there (particularly in Russia, China etc...), the content WILL be set free. Therefore the protection will only hamper legitimate usage while being just a small nuisance for pirates.

I believe, all of the above, is not new, probably, the list is even not complete (you are welcome to submit your points). The question is what should come instead of DRM ? How will record companies make money from free content ? I'll try to present some ideas. Probably they are not new too, and again, there can be even more better ideas.

Paid distribution of free content should be based on natural (human and computer) laws. It should resemble the guy that cells ice cream and beer at some remote tourist site for double the regular price. You can bring your own can/freezer, but it is much more convenient just to pay a few more (but not too much) bucks and save yourself the trouble.
1) People are lazy. If getting a specific content, from a legitimate source, is easier and it doesn't cost a fortune, people will do that. For instance, spending half an hour to get a song may be worth saving 20$. When a song costs ~0.1$, you'll probably give up 10 cents and use the remaining 25 minutes for something better than digging various pirate sites and "underground" networks. The same applies for "sharing" content among friends.
2) Universal availability. You can get that MP3 to you MP3 player, that you use in gym. On your way back from work you want to listen to it again, but you forgot to copy it to your mobile phone... With development of high bandwidth, wide proliferation wireless networks, getting content anywhere will not be just a dream anymore. If you already have bought the unprotected copy, the dealer should have no problem to transmit it to you again and again... Wireless carriers will only embrace this idea.
3) Central storage and backup. Keeping all of your music requires a lot of housekeeping: lists of disks, backup, updates, etc... For some small fee, ALL content OF YOUR CHOICE can be ALSO stored centrally and transmitted to you when needed. Obviously, the service provider will have to store only links (rather than songs/movies themselves) for each customer.
4) Various quality (size) content can be priced differently. For instance, the same song, transmitted to a cellular phone doesn't have to be of the same quality (size) as the one transmitted to a home media center.

Obviously, the suggested above is not a business model. Still, I believe that natural selection process will push DRM (as defined today) aside.

Is There Truth In Mass Media ?

Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:53:19 GMT

Today, most information that we "consume", especially the "news" about events that happen outside our immediate proximity, reach us from various pages and screens. Usually this information is presented in a simple, convenient and a colourful form but is it true ? In other words, how close is what we get to know to the real event that happened ?

Obviously, the simplest answer is: they all lie. Unfortunately, such attitude doesn't help if one wants to follow situation/events outside his immediate reach. Luckily, the abundance of available information (in so-called Free World), enables to get some, more or less reliable, picture of what's happening (at least partly). The best proof is the fact that intelligence services do make use of adversary's media, so there is hope.

From philosophical point of view, if someone witnesses some event, he interprets it in a way that fits his state of mind. The details that get remembered/written are only those that are considered worth noting, based on the interpretation and individuality of the witness. Thus some information can get lost and some information gets altered. When the information is being narrated to the recipient (you), it can get even more modifications based on the previous conversation topic, the relationship between the recipient and the witness, available time, etc... The recipient also has his own interpretation for (already altered) information and his own selective memory. Clearly, even such a short path, introduces significant changes to the information about an event. It happens even before money, interest, censor and other strong altering factors come in action.

To be continued ...

Очевидное - Невероятное

Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:05:57 GMT

Сразу извиняюсь, статья не окончена, но начало пол-дела :-)

Вопрос: Как так что во время последнего (большого) цунами пострадали десятки тысяч людей и практически не пострадали дикие звери (в прибрежных районах) ?

Благо хоть тут обошлось, но КАК ? Их что кто-то "предупредил" или, тем более, "направил" в безопасные места ? Чудо или магия какая-то. Мало того, известно что во время лесных пожаров звери бегут в правильном направлении (К. Паустовский, Заячьи Лапы). Это как-же получается, пожарные с вертолётами с трудом следят за ситуацией а зайцы и так всё знают ? Мало того, есть ещё много примеров "сверх-естественных" способностей животных, например: лошадь всегда вернётся в стойло (этим пользовались ямщики когда, особенно зимними ночами, терялись в дороге); кошки увезённые на многие километры от дома, возвращались домой.

Другое, всем известное, но непонятное явление это ... интуиция (или предчувствие). Не в смысле "я контру за версту чую" а именно предчувствие: так не делай, туда не иди и такое прочее. Откуда оно берётся ? Не всегда его можно обьяснить страхом/ленью или другими "пороками". Ещё пример - сколько раз вы вдруг думали/вспоминали о человеке и тут он как раз звонил или появлялся ? Можно ли все случаи "лёгок на помине" свести исключительно к вероятности ? Если этого мало, рассмотрим ещё кое-что, а именно чувство что на тебя смотрят. Не раз, в литературе, можно встретить выражение: "он/она почувствовал/а на спине (враждебный/чужой/...) взгляд". Это как понимать ? Как у учителя, глаза на спине ? Предположим взгляд спереди/сбоку ещё можно перехватить, но сзади ? Интересно что это не вызывает такой же реакции как "на магистраль села летающая тарелка". То есть тарелка на левой полосе это не естественно, а вот взгляд на спине это нормально... А самое интересное, что многие, когда такой взгляд чувствуют и смотрят назад, таки его перехватывают... Законами физики такое не обьяснишь...

Следующая на очереди - религия. Откуда она взялась ? Почему разные народы, живущие в разных местах с разными природными условиями придумывали всякие "божества" (зачастую похожие) ? Почему разным "камням" начинали поклоняться, приносить жертвы и.т.д. ? Им что, делать было нечего ? Были-же реальные, нужные дела: охота, ловля рыбы, сбор плодов и.т.д. Ну предположим страх, неведение, ощущение бессилия толкали на их эти "глупости". Почему-же тогда сегодня, религии (в основном монотеистические) процветают ? И это после триумфа науки и атеизма... Может всё-таки учёные что-то упускают ?

Любому кто когда-либо сталкивался с медициной "серьёзно" становится понятно что у современных медиков нет такой цели как излечить от недуга. Врачей, обычно, даже не интересует причина недомогания - им важно "подавить симптомы", и тем самым "облегчить страдания". В редких, хорошо изученных случаях они могут устранить источник хвори но, к сожалению, далеко не во всех.
С другой стороны, с незопамятных времён существуют знахари или целители. Их как раз всегда интересует причина, которую они устраняют, и что самое интересное, делают они это порой успешнее врачей. Следует отметить, что с тех пор как "неудачным" знахарям перестали "рубить головы" стали появляться множество шарлатанов - о них мы речь не ведём, хотя в наше время непонятно кого больше шарлатанов или настоящих целителей.
Любой целитель (обычно не знакомый с историей болезни больного) должен, во первых, продиагностировать пациента. Во вторых, он должен назначить лечение. Ну и наконец произвести исцеляющий процесс (или научить больного что делать). Всё это в "полевых условиях", без дорогостоящего и громоздкого оборудования, особых препаратов, сложных медикаментов и.т.д. Понятно что анатомический атлас, справочник о недугах и коллегу консультанта он с собой обычно не "носит". При всём при этом, целители существовали(ют) - несмотря на все "усилия" цивилизации (инквизиция, "конвенциональная" медицина, и.т.д.).

Ещё одно интересное "явление" это пророки и их предсказания. Отметая в сторону "шелуху" - лже пророков, шарлатанов, ловкачей и.т.д. остаётся часть "сбывшихся" пророчеств. Некоторые из них, могут быть чисто "статистичиские" совпадения, некоторые фальсификация или "подгон под ответ" но всё равно однозначного заключения что "всё это чушь" нету...
Например история со вскрытием гробницы Тамерлана: http://gazeta.aif.ru/online/aif/1338/45_01
Или разные "дворцовые легеды": http://www.utro.ru/articles/2004/05/26/311980.shtml
Про "общеизвестных" Мишеля Нострадамуса, бабу Вангу и др., даже и говорить не буду.
Понятно что на каждое такое пророчество можно найти/придумать объяснение/опровержение но сам факт их устойчивого существования в немалых количествах заставляет задуматься - всё ли так просто ? Ведь-же "нет дыма без огня"...

Перейдём к разным древним постройкам и прочим археологическим находкам. До сих пор до конца не ясно как и для чего соорудили египетские пирамиды. Есть много "рабочих" версий, но "окончательной" нет... (кстати, в предидущий параграф можно добавить и "проклятье фараонов").
Стоунхендж тоже не даёт повода расставить все точки над "и" : http://originweb.info/education/astronomy/stonehedge.html
Монументальные комплексы древнейшей архитектуры майя в Центральной Америке тоже таят в себе загадки... На этом примеры не заканчиваются, например меня поразил огромный камень в основании стены Иерусалимского Храма во время экскурсии по подземному Иерусалиму. Вес его конечно не помню но сегодня такие "камешки" не используются... Ещё пример - античные амфитеатры. В них без усилителей слышно что говорится на сцене. Сегодня такие уже не строят...
Вопрос простой, откуда у древних были знания позволявшие им возводить "не дешёвые" постройки ?
Ведь тут и довольно продвинутые знания математики, астрономии, строительства и.т.д... Ещё интересный вопрос - куда эти знания подевались ? Почему их не удалось сохранить ?

Ещё такой, философский, вопрос - что такое расстояние ? А время ? Хотя мы все пользуемся этими понятиями довольно свободно, объяснить что это такое мы не можем (не используя синонимы или само понятие)...

Ну и наконец последний вопрос - а в чём смысл жизни ? На Земле уже более 6 миллиардов человек (во расплодились то !) - а зачем ?
Ответ на этот вопрос дают только "не рациональные" источники: религия, эзотерика и им подобные.

Забегая вперёд, даю ссылку на интересные ответы

--------------------

Peace in the Middle East

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:06:35 GMT

Peace in the Middle East sounds very much like Utopia and unfortunately so it is. Some people may think that just one more step and it is here - nope, it's just like a horizon you can never reach it.

In order to realize that, one needs to understand the reasons for the unrest. These reasons are complex and numerous. Thinking that Israeli aggression or Arab terrorism are the root cause of all the mess is simply short-sighted. Below some most important reasons are listed. The order of listing is arbitrary, because it is not possible to determine which reason is more significant.
The first reason is Arab/Muslim hatred towards West/Israel and Western/Jewish population. It does not matter whether their hatred is justified or not, all that matters is that it exists. The second reason is a Palestine division problem. The mere fact that two nations want the same piece of land leads to conflicts. Third reason is oil in the Persian Gulf. Clearly the situation in the Middle East affects oil prices. All parties are interested in their control over oil resources and especially oil price, some want it higher some want it lower. As a last recourse, warming the situation rises the price. Fourth reason is the geopolitical position of the Middle East between oil resources, East Asia and Europe. Just controlling a Suez channel is a great deal. Fifth reason is Israeli attitude toward Arab neighbors. Israel tries to apply European/Western concepts to the Oriental people, therefore it is not surprising that they fail. For instance, agreements, so valued in Western civilization, in the Middle East are usually not worth the paper they are written on.

All these reasons are enough to make Middle East an unstable region. But there is more. Middle East is a convenient playground for world powers. So it was between USA (with the Free World) and USSR during the Cold War, the first supporting Israel and the former supporting Arabs. So it is again, but now (2006) the number of independent players is higher: USA , France, Russia, Iran and there may be others. In addition to world powers, fueling the conflict by money and influence there are all the Arabs/Muslims living all over the world. As expected, they support their respective parties both with demonstrations (which influence local politicians) and with money, flowing to the Middle East. Usually the money is "intended to humanitarian purposes" but in fact lump sums are used by terrorist organizations in their operations (buying weapons, for instance). An additional factor is Sunni-Shiite standoff that is the basis for the "near civil war" in Iraq (after Saddam Hussein regime defeat by USA ).
Bearing all these in mind, it is clear why stability (or so called Peace) is not possible in the Middle East. Simply stated, there are world powers that actually make money from the instability (not from a total war). Therefore they'll do their best to keep the "smoke" but to avoid "open fire". Total war is against their interests: first, it is not possible to ramp up oil prices, in proportion to the hostilities level and scope; second, such price disproportion leads to depreciation of the "regular conflict/terror act" fee; third, it may constitute a real danger to oil production (rather than imaginary one, caused by minor events like Intifada); and fourth it may change the balance or status quo which leads to unexpected and uncontrolled events.

The last time a real peace effort was made, was around 1994, when US (President Clinton) tried to make friends between Yassir Arafat (PLO leader then) and Itzhak Rabin (Israeli PM then). Obviously, the opportunity window was open after USSR collapse and USA being the only superpower. At that time PLO was nearly dead by itself due to lack of financial support (previously generously offered by USSR). After PLO was revived by gaining the control of the Palestinian Autonomy, they had no reason to continue with the "Peace Process" and started the so-called "al-Aqsa Intifada" or the second Intifada. The timing of the second Intifada was perfect: first, Arafat clearly understood that Israelis had given him all he could get by peace and agreements, so in order to "keep gains", the second stage was due, based armed actions. Secondly oil situation was also good. The end of August and beginning of September 2000 are remembered in Europe as huge protests to gas prices: http://www.energybulletin.net/19919.html . Clearly this required European states to press OPEC to increase oil production (which usually lowers oil price). A good record of oil prices and production is here: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm and the specific graph is here: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/crudeoilprice97_03.gif. Clearly OPEC drastically increased production but there were no oil price drops. This time such strange behavior is easily explained, on September 29, 2000, the second Intifada started. This gives a good reason to believe that OPEC (mainly Arab countries) rewarded Arafat for his brave action. It may be also possible that they asked him to start. This is only one example for the complexity of the Middle East situation.

Another good example is situation in Iraq. In 1991, after Gulf War, USA decided not to destroy Saddam Hussein regime. Why? The answer is clear, they wanted a counter balance against Iran. It must be noted that Iran "was quiet" until the second war in Iraq (in 2003). Since then, slowly but steadily Iran ramps up its rhetoric and ambitions. At the first sight it is strange, in 2003 US has shown to all the world that it can destroy countries if needed (Afghanistan and Iraq). Right after the war it was a word around the media that the war was a good lesson to Iran. Somehow it turns out that Iran learned exactly the opposite. It learned that USA doesn't know what to do in invaded countries. The feeble attempts to impose Western democracy on Oriental people has lead to civil war(s). Right now the war in Iraq is waged between Sunni affiliates (supported by Al-Qaeda) and Shiite affiliates, previously oppressed by Saddam Hussein and now backed by Iran. This clearly shows that Israel is not a necessary condition for Middle East unrest. When needed a conflict can be incited between Sunni and Shiite Muslims (as in Iraq) or between Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs (example: civil war in Lebanon).

Let's inspect the main reasons (listed above) a bit deeper. Let's start with Arab/Muslim hatred. Rationally speaking they have no reason to hate neither Israel nor the West. Just look at these: http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15066. They are not Israelis but they are much more supportive of Israel than most Israeli media. Clearly economic status of Arabs/Muslims is positively affected by the West and Israel. Western goods are extensively used in their lifestyle, Western tourists bring money to poor Arab/Muslim countries. Many Arabs/Muslims are living in Europe and America enjoying the high life standards. But still they hate West and Western people. Every demonstration of Arabs/Muslims spits hatred and threats on Western world and people. Just look at these pictures taken in London during the Mohammad Caricature scandal: http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2006629124042.asp. They say it all. Let's not omit Israeli influence. It is not a secret that economic situation in Israel is better than in the neighboring lands (like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestinian Autonomy-PA). Moreover, when not under siege, economic situation in PA is better than in the above mentioned Arab countries. Therefore it is not surprise that many Arabs from neighboring countries tried to get to PA so as to live better. Yes, Arabs left Arab countries to join their "oppressed" brothers in the PA just to earn more money... Sounds strange, but it is true, or at least was true before terrorist activities made Israel to increase military pressure on the population in PA. Read it here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31947. Yet Israel is Arab's worst enemy. So we have that West and Israel benefit Arabs, still they hate West and even more Israel. How does it happen? First they envy Western people and Israelis. They can't accept that others are wealthier. Although envy is a regular human feeling, it doesn't take such proportions in other places (like Thailand or Eastern Europe - where relatively poor local population meets rich foreigners). Second their "pride" is "hit" by Israeli existence. They can't accept that Israel defeated them in some wars. Although it may seem natural, but following the same "feelings" Germans must hate Russians and Americans (they were defeated in WWII) and French must hate Germans (for the same reason). Another reason for hate is religious. They just can't accept that there are other people that are different and believe in different things. Surely not all the Arabs/Muslims are the same, and far from all of them have this hatred, but Arab/Muslim media does its best to develop these feelings in their audience. Arab/Muslim leaders and clerics (mullahs, sheikhs and imams) are often inciting this hatred. Today (2006) this hatred is widespread both in Arab/Muslim countries and among Arabs/Muslims living in other places. It affects not only the "extremist" Arabs/Muslims but also many of the "moderate" ones. It is here and it wouldn't go easily. At the best circumstances it will take years of propaganda, education and persuasion to lower this hate to pre-WWII levels.

Let's turn now to the "Palestine". Both Jews and Arabs want it. Until recent both wanted it all. From about 1992, a considerable part of Jewish population of Israel started to agree to give a part to Arabs. Arabs still want it all (this was one of the reasons of the second Intifada - when Arafat realized that he can't get it all). Even if by some "virtue" a land was divided somehow, it would look in many areas like a chessboard white being Israel and black being Palestine. Given that Arabs hate Israelis and Israelis do not quite like Arabs, added Middle East reality the next war would be just a matter of time. It is just like a toy in a kindergarten that two children want. It can't be divided. Only one can have it. The other will be preparing for a "just war". So as long as there will be Jews calling themselves Israelis and Arabs calling them Palestinians and the Holy Land would be in reach, there will be no rest.

Here comes Oil. Oil is a strategic resource. It fuels our cars, planes and other vehicles (including military). It is the basis for organic materials (for instance plastics which are widely used in our civilization). It will be "always" needed. The replacements are not here yet. It is required in huge quantities. Having the oil or not can determine a fate of a country (some believe that if Hitler had more oil, than he'd use jet Messerschmitts to defeat allies). Therefore oil will be always of interest, until its resources are exhausted. Most of the world's oil reserves are in ... the Middle East. Check out OPEC data: http://www.opec.org/library/FAQs/CrudeOil/q3.htm (OPEC is comprises mostly Arab countries). All these make Middle East a heart of the oil industry. Therefore ANY country would like to secure its access to oil under suitable prices. When some countries quarrel the best way to bite or hit each one is to hinder oil supply. This was the case during the Cold War, USA was a patron of Israel and some Arab countries, while USSR was a patron of other Arab countries. Needless to remind that Six Days War outcome was decided over a phone line between Washington and Moscow. Since there are many powers in the world they'll not hesitate to use the oil handle to influence each other. This means - no rest in the Middle East.

Middle East is positioned on the trade routes between Europe, Asia and Africa. Even in Ancient times its important position was recognized. The importance of the trade routes can be illustrated by the fact that the age of Great Geographical Discoveries started by looking for a sea route to India. The land routes were cut/controlled by hostile Ottoman Empire, that controlled much of Middle East then. As before Asia and Europe need land/sea connections and control of those connections is important. Again, this doesn't lead to quiet.

Let's turn now to mentality conflict. Israel is a mix of cultures. The dominating parties in politics (which reflect Israeli population) feature Western or near Western mentality. Arabs and their politicians have Oriental mentality. Certainly these mentalities are different. Western mentality is built upon freedom. Arab mentality is built upon (physical) power. Expanding the above example, a written agreement to Western people means that they carry out it fully, both at parts/times when it is convenient to them and when it is not convenient to them. Western people/nations care about their credibility. Arabs are different. An agreement in their mind is just a temporary means to achieve their goal which may be quite the opposite to the agreement signed by them. They'll sign it if it gives them something that brings them closer to their real goal. When the agreement no longer serves their purposes they just ignore it. Therefore trying to stabilize Middle East situation by agreements is impossible and useless. The only order in the Middle East can be based on overwhelming power that is too strong to be challenged. The only example of such power was Ottoman Empire. There is no such power now, and, anyway, the establishment of such a power will take time and many wars.

Finally let's turn to Arabs/Muslims living in Western countries. They enjoy all the benefits of the Western culture and lifestyle but they remain distinct from the Western society. Leaving alone their attitude to the country of their residence and its people we'll examine their influence on the Middle East. Naturally they support Arabs/Muslims in their war/Intifada/standoff against Israel/USA and other "invaders". They are well organized, they are "educated" by media and religious clerics, and most important they are ready to act. They go on demonstration that support Islam (against cartoons for instance), they protest against Israel, USA and others. For instance, in France they are a considerable part of the population and consequently French politics mind them and their power when making decisions regarding Middle East. Similar things, on smaller scale happen in other countries too. Inspired by media, religious clerics and national feelings they gather money to help their brothers and sisters back there in the Middle East. Sometimes such donations go directly to terrorist organizations. Certainly this doesn't improve stability. In other cases the money is intended to humanitarian purposes, but in many cases it misses the addressee. Terror organizations that control areas/settlements/towns/cities care to take their fee from the humanitarian money. The money flow and demonstrations, taken alone, can't much affect Middle East, but added to other reasons, like hatred, they amplify them.

The reasons for Middle East unrest are deep and hard to deal with. Therefore in the foreseeable future there is no reason for an end of hostilities. As opposed to common belief that "Israel is the root cause of the problem", it's easy to see that even if Israel gives away everything, even if Israel and Jews disappear from the Middle East map, the Middle East will continue fighting. The most troublesome thing about it is that the fighting from the Middle East spreads all over the world, but that's another story.