I'd say that's the politically correct version of history here, and in most other Western countries, too. It's quite a commentary on how desperate people are to believe that Islam is no different than the two other Abrahamic religions, or that if it is, it's because it's better and more tolerant and therefore everyone else is to blame for the ongoing strife.

True, and the Jim Crow era was a "utopia" compared to the days of slavery (it was better in pretty much every way), but that doesn't mean there was anything laudable about it. But I guess you gotta give credit where credit is due.

Nobody should be allowed to invade a country without a war.

Nah, Palestinian yearly aid only comes out to about 250 bucks a person.

All I know is that Jesus, Mohammed, and Abraham went to the same high school so everyone thinks that the land is theirs. It's an issue that unfortunately never will be resolved.

Nonstate actors. Specifically Hamas campaigning for support within the nonstate group by running violence against Israel.

Also the fact that, aside from the whole "Death to Israel" thing, Hamas seems like the more honest of the two Palestinian parties.

I still don't see what about any of that has changed.

If anything, Hamas looks even more like the more honest of the two currently... while the PA looks like bumbling traitors who can't even successfully negotiate a secret capitulation.

Just for an example, if Israel today were to say "We will accept the Palestinian proposal in the Palestine papers" do you actually think a deal would be made?

Even if they wanted too, the PA couldn't agree to their own proposal in public.

I hate to say it, but I don't see any meanigful negotiation happening until another failed intifada.

If Israel could prove that they could be trusted for their part in the Palestinian Papers, i believe they could own up to it.

That is the other issue in that Hamas has toyed with the expectations of the Palestinian people, and thus forced the PA to up the ante beyond what they as a negotiation partner could reasonably expect, and will bring harsh reality down upon the Palestinian people, but it is a reality they would grudgingly accept so long as they believed that Israel would stand by their word, and that certain minimum thresholds are met (but minimum thresholds lower than the conditions that Palestinian leaders have been publicly endorsing)

Bad analogy, as my example was comparing contemporary countries, while you presented the same country in different historical periods. Criticising Al-Andalus is simply ridiculous, since the fact is that it was by far better than any other country in Europe at the time (it took the rest of Europe a long time to reach the same level). And it most likely would've been ahead constantly if it had a better army, wasn't torn by internal conflicts, and then destroyed by the Spanish. If you're gonna criticise Islam regarding Al-Andalus, then you should bash Christianity regarding the rest of Europe (which was in a miserable state at the time).

Uh... no. I did implicitly criticize Christianity by acknowledging that it managed to be even less tolerant at the time (though there were exceptions such as the Byzantine Empire which - much like Andalusia - vacillated between long periods of marked tolerance and fierce bouts of persecution). However, the Christians have made incredible progress in the intervening centuries. The Muslims have meanwhile been steadily eradicating pretty much every ancient Christian and Jewish community in their midst, so I'm not exactly inclined to heap praise on them because their forefathers were somewhat more tolerant than the wildly intolerant Christians about a millennium ago.