I was making a bigger point in that, if the Muslims intend to be effective in conventional warfare , and be a legitimate political body, they have to invest in secular education and science, just as the Israelis did.
What you are suggesting is how things ought to be. (I could call you utopian, but assigning labels will not help us understand each other's points views.) In the real world Muslim rulers are not interested in imparting secular, scientific knowledge to the people. Educated masses will challenge their illegitimate power - and they are in no hurry to provoke their own demise. Muslim rulers have already invested billions in "conventional warfare" - with the West selling them more arms than they need. Pls do not confuse Islamic militants with their governments.
It is unseemly to compare the aid Israel gets (US$3billion or so a year from the US) to the measly millions that Palestinians get. True, Israel has made a good use of the money - especially building its formidable and ruthless army with which it wantonly and "illegitimately" kills people resisting its occupation and oppression . And I couldn't agree more that Arafat and his corrupt cronies have not only squandered millions of dollars but also the hopes of a first democratic nation in the Arab world.
What I take issue with is this facile attitude that finds fault with everything Islamic/East while holding the West and its conduct above board. What I'm trying to say in this thread, as a counterpoint, is that "democratic" western rulers and "despotic" Islamic rulers are in league - they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (a formal democracy in the West and varying degrees of despotism in the rest of the world). The militants who operate from caves are as much against their own rulers as against American presence/influence in their countries. The militants resort to violence out of desperation - because their own societies have closed all door of legitimate expression on them. Blame it on the despotic Islamic rulers, and the freedom loving West which supports them. See, how this is interconnected and ends up in a vicious cycle.
I agree, it's not the question of right or wrong. Rulers are not guided by moral values but by realpolitik. What drives them is power and control. Therefore, it's necessary to define the terms we use in this discussion. Earlier, I stressed that we need to define "self-interest" - whose self interest are we talking about when we say nations act in self-interest - the rulers or the people?
Similarly, what is meant by "playing legitimately"? To me the UN human rights charter, the Geneva convention, and other such international treaties and documents (which most countries are signatories to) lay down guidelines for nations to conduct themselves legitimately.
But look at the reality. It's the freedom-loving US and its client, "democratic" Israel who have violated these international conventions more often than any other countries. The US has led/supported/financed attacks in hundreds of countries in the last 50 years (not to mention the earlier period) - and not a single such action can come close to being called "playing legitimately"
Acts of resistance by Islamic militants and other groups are "illegitimate" but small potatoes compared to state sponsored terrorism of the US and other governments. The terrorism of the rulers is not only far more illegitimate but also far more lethal and terrible in scale and reach than any terrorist group can ever hope to achieve. This is not to say two wrongs make a right. But the onus to act responsibly and humanely is more with the rulers (democratic or not) than with individual "terrorists" who often act in reaction to "state terrorism".
