Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism

[Tashah]

I understand and applaud your message G>B, but your philosophy seems to depreciate expoentially with increasing panoramic scale. The non-violent protest rally at campus that changes the cafeteria menu does not project the same 'homespun' locality and charm in broader theaters of contention. Additionally, the larger the theater of contention... the less likely it is that the oppositional actors will possess intrinsic commonalities and interests.

Islamic terrorism is composed of organizations who are as likely to share some interests as they are to diverge on others. The obvious common denominator is that all are adherents of Islam. Do the Islamic people have grievances with the West? Yes. Are these grievances valid? Some are valid indeed. Can these grievances be addressed and rectified with universal acceptence and agreement? Ah... there's the proverbial rub.

Al Qa'ida sheik Osama bin Laden has listed his grievances in many different media forums. His main demand is that the United States remove itself in toto from all Islamic nations in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. It matters not if these nations welcome an American presence. His ultimate stated goal is an Islamic umma stretching from Morocco to China.

Other Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hizb'allah, and Islamic Jihad are not happy with the State of Israel. Their ultimate stated goal is nothing less than to 'drive Israel into the sea'. This is not a typical day at the beach they have in mind, but rather the total destruction of a nation and its people.

The great preponderance of posters here at Debate Politics spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on the past. The blame game. Who did what and when did they do it? Very few venture into the present or future without dragging the nasty past along with them. They seemingly believe that the past must hold the master key to unlocking all of their tomorrows. I too have previously dwelt in the past, but I have found this intercourse to be unsatisfying and impotent. The past will not satisfy the present, nor yield the offspring of today's dreams.

As you have kindly pointed out G>B, I do not lack in certain skills. I have indeed applied these skills in examing present circumstances and future possibilities. Just when I believe that I am making some miniscule progress, the proverbial rub returns me to the netherworld of brutal reality. Try as I may, I cannot peacefully resolve all of the core demands of the feuding couples in this deadly dance. Possibly the core problems are unresolvable... as they have been redacted through time to an either/or presentation. Either things happen 'this way', or I will persist in forcing 'this way' upon you. There is no cleavage here, as no middle ground exists between the orbs of desire.

I don't have the answers. Perhaps someone does. Perhaps that someone is you G>B. I am listening. But no one can change yesterday. You will have to jettison the old baggage and dirty underwear to keep my attention. Shall we continue with the blame game, or can we now proceed into uncharted and unsullied waters? I'm still listening.......

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Islamic terrorism is composed of organizations who are as likely to share some interests as they are to diverge on others. The obvious common denominator is that all are adherents of Islam. Do the Islamic people have grievances with the West? Yes. Are these grievances valid? Some are valid indeed. Can these grievances be addressed and rectified with universal acceptence and agreement? Ah... there's the proverbial rub.

If we cannot rectify the problem with such things as acceptance and agreement, then the problem will not be rectified.

Al Qa'ida sheik Osama bin Laden has listed his grievances in many different media forums. His main demand is that the United States remove itself in toto from all Islamic nations in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. It matters not if these nations welcome an American presence. His ultimate stated goal is an Islamic umma stretching from Morocco to China.

He can only succeed if the people of the Middle East favor his actions/words/policy over our own. That is why this is a popularity contest of sorts.

Other Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hizb'allah, and Islamic Jihad are not happy with the State of Israel. Their ultimate stated goal is nothing less than to 'drive Israel into the sea'. This is not a typical day at the beach they have in mind, but rather the total destruction of a nation and its people.

These organizations represent the extreme views of Muslims. If we can find a way to connect Muslims to Jews and build at least some for of alliance, the willingness for men to kill themselves and to kill others will evaporate in Israel and Palestine and possibly beyond those borders.

The great preponderance of posters here at Debate Politics spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on the past. The blame game. Who did what and when did they do it? Very few venture into the present or future without dragging the nasty past along with them. They seemingly believe that the past must hold the master key to unlocking all of their tomorrows. I too have previously dwelt in the past, but I have found this intercourse to be unsatisfying and impotent. The past will not satisfy the present, nor yield the offspring of today's dreams.

I completely agree, but the terror organizations that you have mentioned above would seem to suggest that extremists certainly have a hold on the past. I would suggest that we can not neglect, deny, and take the value out of the actions of the past, especially when we are trying to change someone who is so adamant about it's grievances.

I don't have the answers. Perhaps someone does. Perhaps that someone is you G>B. I am listening. But no one can change yesterday. You will have to jettison the old baggage and dirty underwear to keep my attention. Shall we continue with the blame game, or can we now proceed into uncharted and unsullied waters? I'm still listening.......

Very well.

The Middle East does not need another theocracy. I would not go as far to say that Israel is a theocracy, but when citizenship is based on one's religion/ethnicity I believe that it is on the proper course to become such and leave's itself open to be called such. Let all who claim to be children of Abraham have the same oppurtunity to enter and those who do not claim to be children of Abraham. We must know what the people of Gaza and the West bank want. Do they want to be separate completely from Israel or perhaps to become one in an entirely new state concieved in the desire for peace and unity between two peoples?

One way or another, the proper course for Israel has to be to win the hearts of people so that they may not be enemies. I don't believe that this can be done by an Israeli occupation of Gaza or the West Bank. I don't know the words that are in the message that must be sent, but I know that it must be sent if peace is truly desired in Jerusalem.

 

[Tashah]

The Middle East does not need another theocracy. I would not go as far to say that Israel is a theocracy, but when citizenship is based on one's religion/ethnicity I believe that it is on the proper course to become such and leave's itself open to be called such. Let all who claim to be children of Abraham have the same oppurtunity to enter and those who do not claim to be children of Abraham. We must know what the people of Gaza and the West bank want. Do they want to be separate completely from Israel or perhaps to become one in an entirely new state concieved in the desire for peace and unity between two peoples?

Although the preponderance of Israel is indeed Jewish, Israel also has Muslim, Christian, and Druze citizens. Israel is a quasi-democracy based on the governing principles established with its modern inception. Every citizen has a vote, and every constituency is represented in the Knesset. You may have the notion that the minority political parties are nothing more than mere window-dressing, but in reality they are a key ingrediant to establishing a majority governing bloc.

There has never been a referendum in either Israel or Palestine to determine the sentiments or feasibility of a unitarian state. The key elements of religion and culture would seem to preclude this from becoming a reality. Israelis remember all too well how access to the Wailing Wall was forbidden to them when Jerusalem was under the auspices of Palestinian governance. Also, Israelis find many deeply-ingrained Arab social customs such as honor-killing to be barbaric and archaic. I would guesstimate that neither Israelis nor Palestinians would willingly accept the united and pluralistic entity you propose above. The societal problems would be tremendous i.e.. would law based on Jewish jurisprudence or Islamic Sharia prevail? The two are not legally mutual or socially equitable.

One way or another, the proper course for Israel has to be to win the hearts of people so that they may not be enemies. I don't believe that this can be done by an Israeli occupation of Gaza or the West Bank. I don't know the words that are in the message that must be sent, but I know that it must be sent if peace is truly desired in Jerusalem.

Israel no longer occupies Gaza. Samaria (the West Bank) is problematic but perhaps negotiable. Jerusalem is non-negotiable. Israel has already sent a decisive message to the Palestinian people with its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. The Israeli government, and its people, can do no more without a genuine and mirrored Palestinian reciprosity. The momentum of peace is now firmly in the hands of the Palestinians. This is their decisive moment.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Well it was the Arab nations who created the refugee camps, and I don't think the Palestinians were forced to leave until after Israel declared independence and was subsequently attacked by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

That's not exactly true. Alot of the Palestinians were forcibly removed from land they had lived on for centuries, against their will before the Jews went into their diaspora abroad. I generally draw the analogy that by the logic some Jews use to justify the forcible removal of Palestinians that it would be perfectly OK for Native Americans to show up with tanks and machine guns and do the same to us here in America, since after all, the Native Americans were here first, before us and that makes everything right and OK?

 

[TimmyBoy]

That's not exactly true. Alot of the Palestinians were forcibly removed from land they had lived on for centuries, against their will after the Jews returned from their diaspora abroad. I generally draw the analogy that by the logic some Jews use to justify the forcible removal of Palestinians that it would be perfectly OK for Native Americans to show up with tanks and machine guns and do the same to us here in America, since after all, the Native Americans were here first, before us and that makes everything right and OK?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's not exactly true. Alot of the Palestinians were forcibly removed from land they had lived on for centuries, against their will before the Jews went into their diaspora abroad. I generally draw the analogy that by the logic some Jews use to justify the forcible removal of Palestinians that it would be perfectly OK for Native Americans to show up with tanks and machine guns and do the same to us here in America, since after all, the Native Americans were here first, before us and that makes everything right and OK?

I don't believe they were forced to leave they were refugees due to the war for Israeli independence there were an equal amount of Jewish refugees but they were brought in as citizens of the newly created state of Israel but instead of letting the Palestinians into the arab nations that attacked Israel the neighboring Arab states hearded them into refugee camps with the hopes of one day forming an army of Fedaheen to fight against Israel.

 

[cnredd]

That's not exactly true. Alot of the Palestinians were forcibly removed from land they had lived on for centuries, against their will after the Jews returned from their diaspora abroad. I generally draw the analogy that by the logic some Jews use to justify the forcible removal of Palestinians that it would be perfectly OK for Native Americans to show up with tanks and machine guns and do the same to us here in America, since after all, the Native Americans were here first, before us and that makes everything right and OK?

I don't believe they were forced to leave they were refugees due to the war for Israeli independence there were an equal amount of Jewish refugees but they were brought in as citizens of the newly created state of Israel but instead of letting the Palestinians into the arab nations that attacked Israel the neighboring Arab states hearded them into refugee camps with the hopes of one day forming an army of Fedaheen to fight against Israel.

You're both right and wrong...

A large percentage of all refugees recognized by the United Nations are Palestinians. Palestinian migration began in 1947 when the wealthiest Palestinians left in anticipation of a war, while others left responding to Arab leaders' calls to avoid the path of Arab armies advancing upon Israel. Had Arab leaders accepted the 1947 UN resolution, there would be an independent Arab state beside Israel. Most expected a victory over the newly-founded Israel to be swift, ensuring Palestinians a return to their homes. Instead, Palestinians found themselves caught in the middle of ongoing strugles between Arab nations and their new neighbor.

This version of events is disputed by Palestinians and by a new generation of Israeli historians, collectively known as the New Historians. There are two important facts left out of the above narrative. First, the area known as Palestine was under Muslim rule from 638 until the collapse of the Ottoman empire after W.W.I. The Zionist movement, which was a political-nationalist movement trying to address the impoverished suffering of Eastern European Jews, did not have any legal basis for establishing a Jewish state in the region until the 1947 UN resolution. This resolution, also known as the UN partition plan, established two states side by side. The international legitimacy of the State of Israel, is predicated on the existence of a State of Palestine. Secondly, while it is true that some Palestinians left voluntarily, many other were forcibely expelled by Jewish soldiers. In the 1948 War the Jews expanded their control over many parts of Palestine, that had been allocated to the native Arab residents under the original UN partition plan . The rest of what should have become Palestine, was taken over by Egypt and Jordan (for the most part).

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Palestinian

I especially like that last sentence...that seems to get overlooked by the Palestinians...

 

[TimmyBoy]

You're both right and wrong...

A large percentage of all refugees recognized by the United Nations are Palestinians. Palestinian migration began in 1947 when the wealthiest Palestinians left in anticipation of a war, while others left responding to Arab leaders' calls to avoid the path of Arab armies advancing upon Israel. Had Arab leaders accepted the 1947 UN resolution, there would be an independent Arab state beside Israel. Most expected a victory over the newly-founded Israel to be swift, ensuring Palestinians a return to their homes. Instead, Palestinians found themselves caught in the middle of ongoing strugles between Arab nations and their new neighbor.

This version of events is disputed by Palestinians and by a new generation of Israeli historians, collectively known as the New Historians. There are two important facts left out of the above narrative. First, the area known as Palestine was under Muslim rule from 638 until the collapse of the Ottoman empire after W.W.I. The Zionist movement, which was a political-nationalist movement trying to address the impoverished suffering of Eastern European Jews, did not have any legal basis for establishing a Jewish state in the region until the 1947 UN resolution. This resolution, also known as the UN partition plan, established two states side by side. The international legitimacy of the State of Israel, is predicated on the existence of a State of Palestine. Secondly, while it is true that some Palestinians left voluntarily, many other were forcibely expelled by Jewish soldiers. In the 1948 War the Jews expanded their control over many parts of Palestine, that had been allocated to the native Arab residents under the original UN partition plan . The rest of what should have become Palestine, was taken over by Egypt and Jordan (for the most part).

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Palestinian

I especially like that last sentence...that seems to get overlooked by the Palestinians...

The founding of Israel was also accelerated after the end of World War II in which many holocaust survivors immigrated to Israel. From what I understand, many of them wanted to go and live in the US but could not, so they moved to Israel. As far as the last sentence, I don't see any good guys in this conflict. To me, it is just a never ending cycle of violence in which neither side is willing to back down no matter what. But I don't see the logical justification of forcibly removing a people from a land that they lived on for centuries. On the same token, I don't see justification for these continued sucide attacks that Palestinians launch on Israeli civilians. It's a never ending cycle of violence and revenge on another. I prefer that the US and the rest of the world stay out of this conflict and let the Jews and Palestinians er "Palestinians" (as some Jews like to call them note the quotation marks) and let them wipe each other out or maybe they will come to their senses and try to find a settlement. I think the only reason why the US supports Israel so much was because they were useful in keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East during the Cold War and probably for other reasons for helping the US to gain influence over the oil rich Middle East. I think it is wise to avoid supporting one side or the other in this particular scenario and allow them to solve their problems on their own and only come in to mediate at the invitation of both parties. The US has done all it can do. It is ultimately up to the Israelies and Palestinians to resolve the conflict.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Although the preponderance of Israel is indeed Jewish, Israel also has Muslim, Christian, and Druze citizens. Israel is a quasi-democracy based on the governing principles established with its modern inception. Every citizen has a vote, and every constituency is represented in the Knesset. You may have the notion that the minority political parties are nothing more than mere window-dressing, but in reality they are a key ingrediant to establishing a majority governing bloc.

I don't doubt Israel's diversity, but I think as long as it present's itself as the "Jewish homeland" it opens itself to criticism over its religious preference.

There has never been a referendum in either Israel or Palestine to determine the sentiments or feasibility of a unitarian state. The key elements of religion and culture would seem to preclude this from becoming a reality. Israelis remember all too well how access to the Wailing Wall was forbidden to them when Jerusalem was under the auspices of Palestinian governance. Also, Israelis find many deeply-ingrained Arab social customs such as honor-killing to be barbaric and archaic. I would guesstimate that neither Israelis nor Palestinians would willingly accept the united and pluralistic entity you propose above. The societal problems would be tremendous i.e.. would law based on Jewish jurisprudence or Islamic Sharia prevail? The two are not legally mutual or socially equitable.

I don't think either Jewish or Islamic law should have anything to do with a place land that contains members of both religions.

Israel no longer occupies Gaza. Samaria (the West Bank) is problematic but perhaps negotiable. Jerusalem is non-negotiable. Israel has already sent a decisive message to the Palestinian people with its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. The Israeli government, and its people, can do no more without a genuine and mirrored Palestinian reciprosity. The momentum of peace is now firmly in the hands of the Palestinians. This is their decisive moment.

I agree somewhat, but despite any attacks that extermists carry out, Israel cannot falter or be turned away from its peace efforts.

 

[Tashah]

I don't doubt Israel's diversity, but I think as long as it present's itself as the "Jewish homeland" it opens itself to criticism over its religious preference.

I believe you would indeed be amazed with the diversity... from every corner of the globe and in every nuance of human color. If there is no 'Jewish homeland' as you steadfastly maintain, then what exactly is the 'Jewish diaspora'? Explain also how it is that both stasis-terms are used extensively in the abstracts and thesis papers of academia.

I don't think either Jewish or Islamic law should have anything to do with a place land that contains members of both religions.

Then you are being simplistic and unrealistic. This isn't Hoboken, this is the Holy Land.

I agree somewhat, but despite any attacks that extermists carry out, Israel cannot falter or be turned away from its peace efforts.

Why is the onus still on Israel? Have we not already made a huge concession? Why are you not demanding that the PA now put an end to all attacks on Israel and seek peace in a humane and civilized manner? Why is it that Israel cannot falter but the PA always gets a free pass? I know of no country that would peacefully negotiate while under constant attack. Do you think it fair and acceptable that I may pay the price of Palestinian procrastination and ineptitude? Would you be as idealistic and forgiving living upon my terrorist roulette wheel of chance?

We have willingly opened the door, but we cannot make them cross the threshold. They have to have the wisdom and courage to take the decisive step forward and never look back. Insh'allah.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I believe you would indeed be amazed with the diversity... from every corner of the globe and in every nuance of human color. If there is no 'Jewish homeland' as you steadfastly maintain, then what exactly is the 'Jewish diaspora'? Explain also how it is that both stasis-terms are used extensively in the abstracts and thesis papers of academia.

Roughly 1250 years ago, it has no basis in the present argument and neither do Palestinian claims for the land of Israel the fact of the matter is you people need to learn to live together, in America we have Palestinians and Israelis, Protestant and Catholics, Sunni and Shiite, Christian and Muslim, all living next door to one another, you know why? Because all the way back in 1776 some very intelligent men realized the necessity for the seperation of church and state.

Then you are being simplistic and unrealistic. This isn't Hoboken, this is the Holy Land.

I don't agree with Palestinians or the Jews when they claim that god has promised them the land this is a cop out with no basis in reality. If there is a god he is far above petty things; such as, dirt and soil.

Why is the onus still on Israel? Have we not already made a huge concession? Why are you not demanding that the PA now put an end to all attacks on Israel and seek peace in a humane and civilized manner? Why is it that Israel cannot falter but the PA always gets a free pass? I know of no country that would peacefully negotiate while under constant attack. Do you think it fair and acceptable that I may pay the price of Palestinian procrastination and ineptitude? Would you be as idealistic and forgiving living upon my terrorist roulette wheel of chance?

Ms. Rice has given the Palestinians control over their own borders for the first time since ''48 hopefully the Palestinians don't blow it.

We have willingly opened the door, but we cannot make them cross the threshold. They have to have the wisdom and courage to take the decisive step forward and never look back. Insh'allah.

The two state solution is the only solution I just wish the arabs realized this all the way back during the time they rejected the U.N. partition plan.

. . . . . . . . .

 

[Tashah]

the fact of the matter is you people need to learn to live together, in America we have Palestinians and Israelis, Protestant and Catholics, Sunni and Shiite, Christian and Muslim, all living next door to one another, you know why? Because all the way back in 1776 some very intelligent men realized the necessity for the seperation of church and state.

First of all, my comments were explicitly directed at G>B. Next up, not every country wishes to be a cookie-cutter faux America. I live in both countries and love each for very different reasons. As I noted to G>B, Israel also has Christian, Muslim, and Druze citizens and there are no disenfranchised protest riots here like those that plague France. Does that tell you anything? Lastly, I never seem to hear any preachy 'seperation of church and state' Americans like you complain about the Vatican being a soverign Christian state.

I don't agree with Palestinians or the Jews when they claim that god has promised them the land this is a cop out with no basis in reality. If there is a god he is far above petty things; such as, dirt and soil.

I've never once mentioned God in this thread! Even so, your personal codex of reality is not germane to or incumbant upon the realities that exist outside of your personal sphere. Less arrogance and more experience with other cultures would do you a world of good (pun intended).

Ms. Rice has given the Palestinians control over their own borders for the first time since ''48 hopefully the Palestinians don't blow it.

Ms. Rice? To my knowledge, Ms. Rice has never controled any border in the Middle East. You can't deed what you don't have. Israel has transfered control of the Gaza border to the Palestinian Authority.

The two state solution is the only solution I just wish the arabs realized this all the way back during the time they rejected the U.N. partition plan.

As I explained to G>B, the past cannot be changed no matter how much we wish it could be. We only have control over the present... and thus we can perhaps influence the future. I have never quibbled with the two state solution. However, this solution is impossible unless all Palestinian power-brokers agree to a total and peaceful acceptance of Israel.

 

[dragonslayer]

We are setting a great example. We invaded Irag for the benefit of Exxon, We run, hidden torture camps, We bomb and murder ciivilians. We torture, and hold with out charge, we hide the truth constantly from the American people.

WE Bush lovers are American haters, Christian haters, moslem haters, haters of the poor, and the sick.

God Bless us Bush lovers, we are screwing up everything. We are a bunch of sickos.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I believe you would indeed be amazed with the diversity... from every corner of the globe and in every nuance of human color. If there is no 'Jewish homeland' as you steadfastly maintain, then what exactly is the 'Jewish diaspora'? Explain also how it is that both stasis-terms are used extensively in the abstracts and thesis papers of academia.

Perhaps it is just me, but I see a difference between when the Jewish people dispersed to different areas of the world and when they came back, the UN partitioned off the land, etc.

Then you are being simplistic and unrealistic. This isn't Hoboken, this is the Holy Land.

It is the Holy Land to the Jews as well as the Muslims and the Christians. Why is that the Jews deserve it as their homeland and no one elses?

Why is the onus still on Israel?

Because Israel has more power than the Palestinians.

Why are you not demanding that the PA now put an end to all attacks on Israel and seek peace in a humane and civilized manner?

Because I am talking to an Israeli. I do not condone terrorist attacks. I do not stand behind any leadership that condones terrorist attacks.

I know of no country that would peacefully negotiate while under constant attack.

Niether do I.

Do you think it fair and acceptable that I may pay the price of Palestinian procrastination and ineptitude? Would you be as idealistic and forgiving living upon my terrorist roulette wheel of chance?

I believe I would. I have faith in nonviolence, and if am at all the man I hope I am then that would not change when put in jeopardy.

We have willingly opened the door, but we cannot make them cross the threshold. They have to have the wisdom and courage to take the decisive step forward and never look back. Insh'allah.

I agree, you have opened the door, but I do not believe that you should simply kick it shut at the first sign of danger.

 

[VTA]

Perhaps it is just me, but I see a difference between when the Jewish people dispersed to different areas of the world and when they came back, the UN partitioned off the land, etc.



It is the Holy Land to the Jews as well as the Muslims and the Christians. Why is that the Jews deserve it as their homeland and no one elses?



Because Israel has more power than the Palestinians.



Because I am talking to an Israeli. I do not condone terrorist attacks. I do not stand behind any leadership that condones terrorist attacks.



Niether do I.



I believe I would. I have faith in nonviolence, and if am at all the man I hope I am then that would not change when put in jeopardy.



I agree, you have opened the door, but I do not believe that you should simply kick it shut at the first sign of danger.

Well G>B, this post has moved far beyond our end of the discussion, so I'll just have to say that after searching in the time that I've had, I had no luck finding the quote I referred to earlier ('compromise is a sign of weakness'). I found plenty of other people parroting it, but have no interest in posting others' opinions to bolster my beliefs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

First of all, my comments were explicitly directed at G>B. Next up, not every country wishes to be a cookie-cutter faux America. I live in both countries and love each for very different reasons. As I noted to G>B, Israel also has Christian, Muslim, and Druze citizens and there are no disenfranchised protest riots here like those that plague France. Does that tell you anything? Lastly, I never seem to hear any preachy 'seperation of church and state' Americans like you complain about the Vatican being a soverign Christian state.

A) Second class citizens.
B) Well I'm Catholic and let me tell you it may not be this way now but back in the day a Catholic couldn't even be elected dog catcher because the American people feared that the Vatican would come to control the U.S. government.
I've never once mentioned God in this thread! Even so, your personal codex of reality is not germane to or incumbant upon the realities that exist outside of your personal sphere. Less arrogance and more experience with other cultures would do you a world of good (pun intended).

Oh, I'm very experienced in the fact that organized religion has murdered more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined.


Ms. Rice? To my knowledge, Ms. Rice has never controled any border in the Middle East. You can't deed what you don't have. Israel has transfered control of the Gaza border to the Palestinian Authority.

I should have been more clear what I meant to say is that Ms. Rice helped to broker a deal to give the Palestinians control over their own borders for the first time since 1948 but it was a joint decision between Sharone and Abbass.

As I explained to G>B, the past cannot be changed no matter how much we wish it could be. We only have control over the present... and thus we can perhaps influence the future. I have never quibbled with the two state solution. However, this solution is impossible unless all Palestinian power-brokers agree to a total and peaceful acceptance of Israel.

Agreed, we must act in a responsible way so as to assure that our present actions will affect the future generations for the better, but by the flip side of the token we must also be cogniscent of the past so that we do not repeat the same mistakes.

Nex ut tyrannus y sic semper tyrannus, licentia vel nex!

hay Tasha I've been doin some reading up on your people Exodus to Zionism I'm about to post a 6000 word essay under the history thread and I would appreciate an opinion from an actual Judaean (is that right or is it Israelite? Since you're not from the 10 lost tribes it should be Judaean not Israelite right?).

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Why is the two state solution the only solution? Why must we segregate the Jewish homeland from Palestine?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why is the two state solution the only solution? Why must we segregate the Jewish homeland from Palestine?

umm because both peoples want an individual state under their own government and it seems that when you put Zionist Jewish Judaeans from Europe together with Islamic converted Judaeans in the Roman created Syria-Palestinia it just doesn't seem to mix well for some reason, go figure?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

umm because both peoples want an individual state under their own government and it seems that when you put Zionist Jewish Judaeans from Europe together with Islamic converted Judaeans in the Roman created Syria-Palestinia it just doesn't seem to mix well for some reason, go figure?

Segregation does not encourage acceptance, tolerance or unity. Peace can only be achieved by unity, not separation. I see an oppritunity in Israel to start the course of tolerance within Islam. Think of it: The only reason Christianity has a sense of tolerance for others is because at some point they were forced to be around foriegn ideas i.e. Animism of African Slaves, Animism of Native Americans, Judaism. I do not believe that the way to solving this problem is by creating more boundaries and distinctions between the two peoples. The answer is unity.

 

[Tashah]

hay Tasha I've been doin some reading up on your people Exodus to Zionism I'm about to post a 6000 word essay under the history thread and I would appreciate an opinion from an actual Judaean (is that right or is it Israelite? Since you're not from the 10 lost tribes it should be Judaean not Israelite right?).

Trajan... my name is Tashah. I've never spelled your name wrong.

I am a citizen of Israel and thus an Israeli. The ancient names Judea and Samaria are currently used in Israel to differentiate between the northern and southern portions of the West Bank. Eretz Yisrael is a term used to denote Israel at its ancient geographical zenith.

If you post your essay I will certainly read it. I must admit to being a bit bemused, as 6000 words could only serve as a brief summation of Jewish history from Exodus to the birth of Zionism in the late 19th century. Why Exodus and not Abraham? A few guiding words for you...

What is history? Is history what happened in the past, or is it what we think happened in the past? This is a complex question... for while we can know something of the past, we cannot know everything about it. If history is defined only by our perception of past events, then there is no history of the past without our interpretation of that past. If history is strictly the past itself, then those events occurred whether we perceive and interpret them or not and have no bearing on present circumstances. So then, what is the correct definition of history? History is the combined product of past events and the discovery and description of past events. In essence, history exists both inside and outside the minds of historians.

There are two methods to arrive at a current perception and description of history. The first is by direct material evidence which by nature must be both obvious and unambiguous. The second method is by what is called a 'convergence of evidence'. This is inferential evidence, and requires a consilience of inductions. Historians must have more than one induction, more than just a single generalization drawn from specific paths to arrive at a valid perception. They must have multiple inductions that converge upon one another, independently, but in conjunction. When these inductions 'jump together', it strengthens the validity of historical description and perception.

Lastly, I caution you on revisionism and plagiarism. If this essay is to be an ad-hoc composition (history as you yourself interpret it), note this caveat at the outset. If you intellectually borrow from others, you must credit your sources.

 

[Tashah]

Perhaps it is just me, but I see a difference between when the Jewish people dispersed to different areas of the world and when they came back, the UN partitioned off the land, etc.

Could you better deliniate the proferred difference?

It is the Holy Land to the Jews as well as the Muslims and the Christians. Why is that the Jews deserve it as their homeland and no one elses?

Christianity is seated in Vatican City. Islam in Mecca. Judaism in Jerusalem.

Because Israel has more power than the Palestinians.

So, less power equates to a sanctioned diminishment of civility and morality?

Because I am talking to an Israeli. I do not condone terrorist attacks. I do not stand behind any leadership that condones terrorist attacks.

Agreed.

I believe I would. I have faith in nonviolence, and if am at all the man I hope I am then that would not change when put in jeopardy.

Does your willingness to perish for your beliefs extend to your family? Your friends? Your colleagues? Do they all have your courage and determination? Is it morally right to place them in harms way to prove that your faith is stronger than their fears?

I agree, you have opened the door, but I do not believe that you should simply kick it shut at the first sign of danger.

Israel has not kicked anything shut. We have recently transfered border control of Gaza to the PA.

It occurs to me that you are strangely biased... as you tend to support any entity that offers a window to promote your nonviolence agenda. In your view, what is good for the goose does not necessarily apply to the gander. You like to administer medicine to one, but are satisified with a placebo for another with the same ailment. The best that can be said at this point, is that we respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Could you better deliniate the proferred difference?

I think the simplest way to do that would be by saying that when the Jews dispersed they did not displace around one million Arabs.

Christianity is seated in Vatican City. Islam in Mecca. Judaism in Jerusalem.

I would say that certainly Catholicism is seated in Vatican City, not so much Christianity. That's not really the point though, is it? Catholics don't get special treatment when appling for citizenship of Italy to my knowledge. When it comes to Mecca, the sheer population of and overcrowding of the place during the Hajj is way to much to allow much else in, though I'm not going to sit here and paint their to be no intolerance toward outsiders on the matter. The Vatican City, what's there for a Jew, a Muslim? Mecca, what's there for a Jew, a Christian? Jerusalem has roots to all of these religions.

So, less power equates to a sanctioned diminishment of civility and morality?

Not at all, but less power I do think equates to less responsibility.

Does your willingness to perish for your beliefs extend to your family? Your friends? Your colleagues? Do they all have your courage and determination? Is it morally right to place them in harms way to prove that your faith is stronger than their fears?

I don't know that it is, but I do know for fact that it is not morally justifiable to kill in order to soothe their fears, especially when doing so would only strengthen their own fears and the fears of others.

Israel has not kicked anything shut. We have recently transfered border control of Gaza to the PA.

I do not think that Israel has kicked anything shut either, but when Hamas prooves that it hatred has destroyed all of their braincells, Israel should persevere rather than going back to punishing all of Palestine for the actions of terrorists.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Segregation does not encourage acceptance, tolerance or unity. Peace can only be achieved by unity, not separation. I see an oppritunity in Israel to start the course of tolerance within Islam. Think of it: The only reason Christianity has a sense of tolerance for others is because at some point they were forced to be around foriegn ideas i.e. Animism of African Slaves, Animism of Native Americans, Judaism. I do not believe that the way to solving this problem is by creating more boundaries and distinctions between the two peoples. The answer is unity.

Actually Christians aren't very tolerant but for the sake of argument if they were it would be due to the fact that they live like Jesus did, Jesus said to turn the other cheek Mohammad said an eye for an eye so do the Jews by the way. In reality all three of these monotheistic religions were started thousands of years ago by some sheep farmer in the desert who heard voices. Today we would call this a mental disorder but to each his own. As for the rest of your drible it makes for a good line but has no basis in reality.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan... my name is Tashah. I've never spelled your name wrong.

I am a citizen of Israel and thus an Israeli. The ancient names Judea and Samaria are currently used in Israel to differentiate between the northern and southern portions of the West Bank. Eretz Yisrael is a term used to denote Israel at its ancient geographical zenith.

If you post your essay I will certainly read it. I must admit to being a bit bemused, as 6000 words could only serve as a brief summation of Jewish history from Exodus to the birth of Zionism in the late 19th century. Why Exodus and not Abraham? A few guiding words for you...

What is history? Is history what happened in the past, or is it what we think happened in the past? This is a complex question... for while we can know something of the past, we cannot know everything about it. If history is defined only by our perception of past events, then there is no history of the past without our interpretation of that past. If history is strictly the past itself, then those events occurred whether we perceive and interpret them or not and have no bearing on present circumstances. So then, what is the correct definition of history? History is the combined product of past events and the discovery and description of past events. In essence, history exists both inside and outside the minds of historians.

There are two methods to arrive at a current perception and description of history. The first is by direct material evidence which by nature must be both obvious and unambiguous. The second method is by what is called a 'convergence of evidence'. This is inferential evidence, and requires a consilience of inductions. Historians must have more than one induction, more than just a single generalization drawn from specific paths to arrive at a valid perception. They must have multiple inductions that converge upon one another, independently, but in conjunction. When these inductions 'jump together', it strengthens the validity of historical description and perception.

Lastly, I caution you on revisionism and plagiarism. If this essay is to be an ad-hoc composition (history as you yourself interpret it), note this caveat at the outset. If you intellectually borrow from others, you must credit your sources.

Dude it's my freaking term paper do you think I don't know how to cite my resources, anyways it's posted on the history section.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Actually Christians aren't very tolerant but for the sake of argument if they were it would be due to the fact that they live like Jesus did, Jesus said to turn the other cheek Mohammad said an eye for an eye so do the Jews by the way. In reality all three of these monotheistic religions were started thousands of years ago by some sheep farmer in the desert who heard voices. Today we would call this a mental disorder but to each his own.

When you compare predominantly Christian societies with predominantly Muslim societies, there is an extreme difference of the amount of tolerance. By the way, Jesus is part of Islam.

As for the rest of your drible it makes for a good line but has no basis in reality

And why not?