posted
A shame??? It's a horrid solution. It would only work if both sides' children were removed. The adults would have to stay where they are and if they wanted to fight to the death, so be it. We'd let them because it would mean that the place would be empty sooner.
There would be no movement of families. just the children. And I wouldn't move any kids over the age of 8, maybe even 6. The point would be to have kids who wouldn't have learned the prejudices of their parents.
But here's the thing. I think if the UN actually THREATENED a program like this -- the forcible removal of all the young children and no let the people there raise their own kids UNLESS they found a way to make peace, they would make peace.
That's the hope of this idea. That the adults who are of good conscience would realize what is truly at stake and drop their mutual animosity in favor of being allowed to raise their own children.
If I were in charge, I would issue the ultimatum and if the terrorism and provocation didn't stop in 30 days, I'd move in and take all the children by force if necessary.
Chances are, we wouldn't even have to take more than a few hundred before people realized that they didn't want this future for their children or their country. And then they'd hate me more than they hated each other.
And that'd be a refreshing change for them too! Nothing like a common enemy to bring foes to a new level of understanding.
It would take far more guts than I have to actually do this though.
Can you imagine? Who would be willing to go down in history as the person who perpetrated cultural genocide on two of the oldest ethnic groups on the planet simply to stop the warring?
And chances are the rest of the world would rise up in protest and stop you from really doing it before you got the point across that it was mostly a threat to bring them to the bargaining table.
But, to be truthful, I think this is the real ultimate solution to all war. If parties insist on going to war, their children are taken away. That's it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
...but carry it out to its logical conclusion, Bob. The Republicans were war-mongers less than a year ago -- should their children be taken away?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there has been no violence as yet, it's obvious why trying to incite terror with violence is wrong. But if a war is already going on, why is it bad to attempt to scare people into surrendering rather than invading and potentially killing a good many more?
I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer that, because I think that such an attempt might not be all that bad in that circumstance. You should ask one of those who believe terrorism is necessarily always wrong. One possible answer, though, is to claim that it is simply wrong to threaten civilians.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see a slight, sad irony, yes, that people are so willing to compromise the same values they are claiming to uphold in the same voice.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, I don't see the parallel to gay adoptive parents. The fact the state of Florida is controlled by people who want to pander to the Religious conservatives is far afield from a world-wide revulsion aimed at the intractable violence of the Israel/Palestine situation.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad thing is Bob, is that there are many parallel situations to Israel and Palestine. All over the world.
And if you think back, we essentially did the same thing to the Native Americans here in the U.S.A. when we removed their children from their parents and homes.
posted
Well, not quite. We more "slaughtered them all" than "removed children from their homes to be raised elsewhere to end the war between two cultures."
posted
Lalo, while there was a good deal of slaughtering, there were in fact quite a few reservations on which the remaining children were removed from their parents to be taught white culture, and I imagine that is what Shan's referring to. It just happened later.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the tribes were practically annihilated. We also got them from the other end by removing their children and beating them for speaking their own language and practicing their cultural/religious beliefs. Unfortuantely, this continues even today.
I met a mid-20's woman at a conference last year who clearly remembers her grandmother being hauled off to jail for performing a particular tribal dance. Who sees families torn apart on a regular basis. Who is aghast at the organized crime now running the tribal governments.
Yes, tribes were killed off through war, famine and illness. But I think the resounding deathblow in many ways came from the forcible removal of children from their cultural roots and familial ties.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironic, fugu, as in, 'A suicide bomber blew himself up in a Jerusalem market this morning, killing seventeen people and injuring thirty.'
Who is it that has no moral compunctions against killing non-combatants, again?
:shrug:
Bob, the situations are comparable. The parents in FL were feasibly subjecting children to a lifestyle that the government considered ideologically/psychologically detrimental. The theorhetical parents in Israel/Palestine subject their children to an ideology you think is detrimental.
Where does one stop? Will my children be taken away from me because I insist on teaching them what is considered by many to be homophobia? Or male chauvinism?
A modest proposal, but your tongue was not in cheek.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know what you intended Scott R. I intended to point out how willing people are to support Israeli tactics which kill (far more) Palestinian civilians in the name of peace than the Palestinians who kill in the name of war. I also consider it ironic, given the number of civilians Israel has killed, that you do not mention them. Both deserve to be in the same breath. I want the dying to stop, not one side's dying to stop as all to often seems to be the concern.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you count stone throwing Palestinians among the citizenry?
Equatable with Israeli market-goers, perhaps? Party-goers? Bus riders?
Israel has killed civilians, of that I have no doubt. But Palestinians have made an art imitated the world over of the practice.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The palestinians are hardly very big offenders on that score, actually. You want experts, take a look at India and Pakistan. There are 65,000 people dead in Kashmir because of them. Palestinians are small change. And as the numbers show, not very effective, even compared to Israel.
I do count stone throwers among the citizenry, at least those who throw stones at soldiers. Lets say you lived in Palestine, and a stray missile shot had killed your sister, or your cousin, or your child. Or perhaps they were bulldozed in a demolition. Or perhaps a rubber bullet when they were in one of the non-stone throwing demonstrations. Are you telling me you would not be out there throwing stones at the soldiers who do this?
Stone throwing at soldiers is an expression of frustration. Certainly, they wouldn't mind killing one, but its not going to happen, and they know it, because it has never happened. The ones who are waging war are not the ones throwing stones at soldiers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where does one stop? Will my children be taken away from me because I insist on teaching them what is considered by many to be homophobia? Or male chauvinism?
If you're serious, yes I would absolutely love to see the state remove your children from your household before you poison their minds with that crap.
quote: A modest proposal, but your tongue was not in cheek.
I think the point was that if you gave people a choice between making peace and losing their children, they'd probably make peace. But if they still refused to, then they probably ought to lose their kids. It's a question of whether the world should just stand by and allow these situations to fester or should we do something about it. Given that we seem to want to do something about it, shouldn't we do something effective and lasting?
Do you have a solution, other than genocide, that would be as effective and last as long, and would have as certain an outcome?
But I will say it again, I'm not seriously proposing this. Tongue was firmly planted in cheek...just not yours.
quote:Palestinians have made an art imitated the world over of the practice
Palestinians invented suicide bombing? Oh wait, no, they just turned it into an art form.
Um...was that just hyperbole or do you really think that?
Basically, terrorism is as old as human warfare. Suicide missions are also as old as human warfare.
The shocking things about it are: 1) There seems to be an inexhaustable supply of people willing to die to do this. 2) They almost exclusively target civilians 3) They plan secondary explosions that kill the rescuers
Frankly, as much as I'd like to say that these people are a small minority of the Palestinians, the fact there are so many disaffected youth in the Palestinian territories means that this kind of thing is going to continue.
I do believe that the solution is to find a way to stop the poisoning of young minds. How we do that is for better and more humane people than me to decide. My imagined solutions always seem too horrible to contemplate. I would not be above jailing clerics or even killing them if they couldn't be silenced effectively -- assuming we could identify the clerics who are spreading this doctrine of dying for the cause. I would not be above taking children away from families that support or engage in the violence. I would do it on both sides though. And I would make sure that the country was empty of the hate mongers before I sent the next generation back in to set it all to right.
I'd prefer a diplomatic solution, but I'm pretty impatient when it comes to diplomacy. I just don't think we should have to wait thousands of years for first cousins (so to speak) to figure out how to live together peacefully.
And I truthfully would ban any religion (or religious sect) that preached a message of violence. I wouldn't have any heartburn over the deaths of the people preaching this either. I'd lose very little sleep over it. None, in fact.
And if the government leaders couldn't figure it out, I'd have them removed from office too. And if they didn't go quietly, they'd be next on the list for incarceration or elimination.
But the problem is that this kind of thing has been tried too. And what it gets you is just suppressed hatred. As soon as the enforced peace is removed (like when the Soviet Union fell), all the old animosities come back alive as if no-one had learned anything.
So, I truly believe that you have to raise the next generation away from all of it, and let the existing people die off.
quote: Bob Scopatz: If you're serious, yes I would absolutely love to see the state remove your children from your household before you poison their minds with that crap.
Hunh. This isn't what I expected you to say at all. I'm not sure how to answer you, Bob.
I hope this is one of those things you just posted off the cuff-- because it looks an awful lot like you want to encourage thought-policing.
And I am serious about teaching my children that homosexuality is a sin. And teaching my sons to serve God and man through the priesthood.
quote: Do you have a solution, other than genocide, that would be as effective and last as long, and would have as certain an outcome?
Yes-- supplying Palestinians with as much aid as we bestow on Israel, contingent on their willingness and capacity to halt terrorism.
quote:Tongue was firmly planted in cheek...just not yours.
:snort: Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of the phrase 'tongue-in-cheek.' See, I had THOUGHT that it meant sarcastic or ironic. Now I have another definition. One that turns it completely around.
For example, you imply that this is tongue in cheek:
quote: But here's the thing. I think if the UN actually THREATENED a program like this -- the forcible removal of all the young children and no let the people there raise their own kids UNLESS they found a way to make peace, they would make peace.
That's the hope of this idea. That the adults who are of good conscience would realize what is truly at stake and drop their mutual animosity in favor of being allowed to raise their own children.
If I were in charge, I would issue the ultimatum and if the terrorism and provocation didn't stop in 30 days, I'd move in and take all the children by force if necessary.
Chances are, we wouldn't even have to take more than a few hundred before people realized that they didn't want this future for their children or their country. And then they'd hate me more than they hated each other.
I'm going to need to get used to this new definition of tongue in cheek. But rest assured, I'll get the hang of it.
And then I'll be just like Bob-- which is apparently what he wants for me and my children anyway.
Won't he be happy?
:snort again:
quote: Lets say you lived in Palestine, and a stray missile shot had killed your sister, or your cousin, or your child. Or perhaps they were bulldozed in a demolition. Or perhaps a rubber bullet when they were in one of the non-stone throwing demonstrations. Are you telling me you would not be out there throwing stones at the soldiers who do this?
No. I'd be using my political power (BEHOLD! THE MIGHTY POWER OF SCOTT R) to remove Arafat and his profiteering cronies from power, and put in place someone who would, when Israel offers to give back the great majority of the occupied lands, accept it.
Throwing stones at soldiers is stupid, pointless, and gets you killed.
Not that taking on Arafat would be any LESS dangerous. . .
quote:Palestinians invented suicide bombing? Oh wait, no, they just turned it into an art form.
Um...was that just hyperbole or do you really think that?
Hyperbole, and I apologize. The demagogue in me is bellowing for food.
quote:So, I truly believe that you have to raise the next generation away from all of it, and let the existing people die off.
That's about it.
So. . . what? NOW you're NOT speaking tongue in cheek?
ScottR, just raise your children to be good people -- a force for good. And do the best you possibly can raising them. If you do that, I'm sure I'll admire you and never have any complaints.
As for the rest, I do despair. I think that the prejudices of the past have poisoned the minds of many in Palestine and Israel. And because of that, I don't think they can achieve peace in their lifetimes. And they are teaching their children the same things they already "know" to be true, so they can't see a different and better way.
It's like if your attitude about homosexuality (it being a sin) took a violent turn, and you taught that to your sons. I mean, I can live with the thought that you might teach your sons something I disagree with as a principle. But if you teach them to act out on that belief and actually harm another human being, then you've gone too far, IMHO.
So, while most of what I've been posting about taking away people's children is just for the shock value, I would support the idea of taking away children from those who promote and engage in violence. Especially those who promote violence on religious grounds and aimed at innocent people who have not harmed anyone else.
Anyway, I wouldn't take away someone's children just for an attitude. But if the kids turn violent because of what they are taught? Sure. Maybe we could fix them -- undo the damage their parents have done before it's too late.
Which lesson do you consider more important to teach your sons: that they know how to recognize sin or that they know not to judge other people? And how do you make sure they get the difference?
You don't really have to answer that. It's the sort of thing that would keep me awake at night if I were raising children.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it hard to believe you would be working against Arafat, actually, as your primary news sources are partisan and one side is telling you he is corrupt (the same side, as far as you can tell, which has killed your relatives) while the other side is telling you he is not (the side which is not killing your relatives). I rather suspect that, while you might be suspicious of Arafat, you would hate the Israeli military.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I simply don't think you are being realistic about the situation. Case in point: are you asserting you are far more reasonable and intelligent than most Palestinians? The simple proof that a lot of reasonable people would behave this way is that a lot of presumably pretty reasonable people are behaving this way. Lets make the a new example. Say you're in the US, and I walk into your house and shoot your wife, then when you come after me I assert I had good intelligence your wife was out to kill me and produce a well documented paper trail. Assuming through some odd cirumstance I was able to force you to read this paper trail, and even assuming that you are persuaded by it that your wife was out to kill me (a doubtful assumption), I'm betting you'd still do everything you could to get me the maximum punishment possible.
I trust you see the rough parallels?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then do you understand why the international community finds my personal reasons for offing you abhorrent, and unsupportable?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now lets assume that before you could kill me, I was taken into custody. Or, say, you just couldn't get close to me because I was sitting in body armor behind some sandbags with a machine gun, and you didn't have any guns. And perhaps you decide to throw a rock at me from a distance -- it doesn't hit me, or if it does, it does negligible damage.
Does the international community condemn you then?
Now say, I shoot a lot of rubber bullets at you (perhaps with my machine gun). Say one of them kills you.
Should I be condemned then?
I'm not drawing an analogy between you and the suicide bombers, scott. I've been drawing an analogy between you and the ones throwing stones at Israeli soldiers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone throwing is never supported by lawful communities, fugu.
I don't exactly support the Israeli penchant for plugging teenagers with rocks-- then again, I don't face a populace that hates me, or that wants to blow me to smithereens every day either.
Empathy works both ways, you know. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, which is what I feel so many people forget, and one purpose of my example.
And stone throwing, while not supported typically, is frequently not condemned. I predict were you to throw a stone from a large distance at a man who had killed your wife (we are assuming the man is in custody) you would be applauded, though of course I cannot be sure.
Moreso, my example was intended to show the humanity of the palestinians throwing stones at Israeli soldiers, something at least one person in this thread seems to reject.
My example was also to demonstrate why those throwing stones at Isreali soldiers were among the citizenry, which at least one person on this thread has specifically denied.
posted
Bob, I read that same short story involving Ghandi and the Nazis. Two things: First, a story can be made any which way and that doesn't mean that it would be true. Second, you're implying the Israelis don't have a conscience. When I say the Israelis use rubber bullets instead of normal bullets I say it because they could use more force but they try to limit the damage. Of course Palestinians are going to die while Israelis are not because the whole point in using more effective weapons is to prevent the inneffective ones from becoming effective. Therefore, stop the attackers before their attacks become truly dangerous.
In Fugu's original article:
quote: Palestinian gunmen opened fire from nearby buildings, drawing Israeli heavy machine-gun fire, witnesses said.
Gunmen don't throw rocks. Furthermore, you said that Israeli soldiers shot protesters. I said they didn't shoot peaceful protesters. You said there were examples where soldiers shot people just throwing rocks and destroying a wall. At that point you imply that rock throwing and the destruction of property is peaceful. I have always maintained that those activities are violent. Finally, bystanders will always get hurt shooting starts around them. You can't expect soldiers to not defend themselves.
quote: I do count stone throwers among the citizenry, at least those who throw stones at soldiers.
So I guess soldiers aren't human beings too? I guess you're the kind of person who cheers when American soldiers are blown up by terrorists in Iraq. Because after all its just "an expression of frustration". Do you realize that virtually all Israeli citizens are, have been, or will be soldiers? Women too.
posted
Fugu, I am not sure that the stone throwers can be considered as being among the citizenry. It is obvious (to me, at least) that the stone throwing is not a part of any type of protest-- in other words, it is not a protected action. Throwing a stone at another living being (keep in mind the stones are not thrown with ones arm, often-- but thrown from a sling) is an act of agression. It has no purpose other than harm.
I think you swing too much the other way-- and sympathy only goes so far.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to bother speaking with NFL anymore. I have tried to converse civilly with him and he has made no similar effort, instead desiring to unleash his vitriol hatefully.
And I repeat, if those Palestinians throwing stones at soldiers were out to harm people, they'd choose something else to do. They can see with their own eyes that throwing stones a) does not harm the soldiers and b) results in tear gas or even death for them. I don't see what they can be other than an expression of frustration. And in a place where everyone has slings, yes, I expect them to be thrown by sling.
Now, throwing stones against civilians I consider just as bad as shooting civilians, and consider shooting at those engaging in it fully justified.
Could you be specific which actions I advocate you consider swinging too far the other way, Scott?
Okay. . . I'm at a loss again, which is twice in a thread. New record for me.
Fugu, how do you justify the stance that the rock throwers aren't throwing rocks to hurt people? Have you spoken with the throwers and asked them, "Are you trying to hurt people? Or standardize a new form of peaceful protest?"
Your argument is just. . .illogical.
EDIT: People who are frustrated but peaceful don't throw rocks. They pass out flyers. They shout. They make signs. All of which are open to Palestinians.
[ January 04, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its great that you decided that you'll ignore me because you didn't read what I said. If you think terrorists are justified in throwing stones at soldiers then you believe it is justified for terrorists to throw stones at any Israeli because every Israeli has been, is, or will be a soldier. If you don't stop/shoot the rock thrower he/she will kill you. What do you think is stopping them from truly becoming dangerous. Everything I've claimed you've said you have said. If you don't mean that soldiers aren't deserving of safety you shouldn't have said that.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I've said I wouldn't, but I hate being lied about.
I said:
quote: Not opening fire on peaceful protesters (peaceful meaning, not threatening people at all).
NFL says:
quote: They don't do that unless you consider throwing rocks to be peaceful and even then rubber bullets are used.
Things go on from there. I clarify several times that when I said that I did not even intend to include rock throwers (at soldiers) but that I meant those who were not attacking humans at all (once referencing an instance where palestinians were attacked when trying to tear down a section of the wall -- NOT attacking any soldiers).
I apologize, the article I cited earlier is unclear that some of the protests did not involve stone throwing, though when I read it I thought it made that clear. Though it does make it clear both the high lethality compared to rocks of rubber bullets, AND that Israel was using live ammunition in response to some rock protests, something NFL has asserted is not so.
However, my position has always been, and I have so clarified several times, such as here:
quote:I can't find it in a cursory look back over what I wrote, but I don't think I asserted that protesters throwing rocks were peaceful ... I was referring to protests where they were not endangering any people, and not doing general property destruction,
After all this NFL of course is still saying:
quote: Fugu likes to claim that people with harmful intentions are actually peaceful
. No, I have said they are harmless, not peaceful. I have explicitly clarified multiple times that peaceful did not include them. See above.
Then I make it even clearer:
quote:Thirdly, you're the one who connected rock throwing with peaceful protests. I'm referring to instances where there wasn't even that when I say peacefully, as I have already explicitly stated.
And now of course, NFL says:
quote:Everything I've claimed you've said you have said
quote:Quite frankly, recognizing sin is more important, Bob.
The kind of judging you're talking about is a sin, too, so recognition kind of covers that.
Wow! I couldn't disagree with you more and still consider us as being from the same species.
Are you serious? It's more important for your children to recognize sin in themselves and others than to heed one of the clearest prohibitions in the New Testament?
Especially when sin is such a nebulously defined concept?
I'm just floored. Really I am.
And I'll stop talking about it because I find I can't continue without seriously impugning your parenting ideas, skills and whatever.
And I really have no right or basis on which to do that, not having been a parent myself.
But I'm shocked that any Christian would even begin to entertain the notion you have just espoused.
I fear, however, that I'm about to be educated by the other parents here at Hatrack...I'm betting more people feel the way you do than I'd ever imagined.
<hides from the world...again!>
This seriously has made my day a lot darker.
This sucks.
I think I'll start a new thread rather than further de-rail this one...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, judging like that IS a sin. If they are recognizing sins, that's one of the sins to recognize.
---
I hate it when discussions turn into hypothetical arguments and statements are made for shock value when one person is still discussing the problem as it exists in this world and looking for a solution that might actually occur.
I mean, if we're going into a illusionary discussion, let's just pass a law that creates a mirror image of all of Isreal/Palestine, and Isreal gets one and Palestine gets the other.
That would solve everything.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Throwing rocks is NOT a threat. I have not heard of Israeli soldiers being killed by thrown rocks, while I have heard of Palestinian protesters being killed by rubber bullets and live rounds (heck, I've seen it happen on TV live!). Tear gas or other responses at a similar degree of force, ok, but firing on an unarmed crowd that is throwing rocks?!
And not all the protesters were even doing that. Not too long ago a group of Palestinians were protesting the building of the wall, and had approached it and begun dismantling a section of it. They were fired on, and at least one live round was fired (that is the number Israel maintains). Two protesters were killed. Dismantling a wall is a justification for killing someone?
So when you said rock throwing was not a threat you didn't mean that it shouldn't be considered violent? When you specifically pointed out that they were "unarmed" you weren't saying they were non-violent? If you didn't say that rock throwing ought to be considered peaceful protest you were certainly implying that in your post.
quote: I was referring to protests where they were not endangering any people, and not doing general property destruction,
quote: Things go on from there. I clarify several times that when I said that I did not even intend to include rock throwers (at soldiers) but that I meant those who were not attacking humans at all (once referencing an instance where palestinians were attacked when trying to tear down a section of the wall -- NOT attacking any soldiers).
Destroying a wall is property damage. Is there something you don't get about that? Furthermore, you're attacking people when you endanger their lives. You endanger their lives when you remove something that greatly contributes to their safety. I've already explained how the wall contributes to Israelis' safety and you've never responded to that.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep meaning to read this thread when I have more free time. As it is, I've just read the first post and this page. The only thing he's possibly changed my mind on is Meryl Streep. I was pretty neutral about her before, and now I can kind of see what bugs him about her.
I don't fully agree with him about Israel, but him having an opinion is probably better than me throwing my hands in the air and thinking "there will never be an answer". I heard different things from different people all the time that keep me feeling confused and upset about it. I guess it is because I am stuck on the underdog archetype. In the Israel/Palestinian struggle, Palestinians are the underdog. But in the Zionist/Arab struggle, the Zionists are the underdog. But since culture and nationality are not really the same thing, it creates very mixed feelings for me. I use Zionist in this context to highlight the kind of remarks made about "them" by pan-Arab and organizations. I don't mean it derogatorily.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The best thing the Palestinians could do is start a peace movement, stick to it,[ sorry for the obvious Out of Contextness, but I'm too lazy to fix it]
What would happen if the Israelis did the same thing, I wonder? Is it possible that surrounding Arabs states would leave them alone?
I was going to bring up the anti-semite paradox in my apology for the zionist label. But what about when Asian Muslims speak of the need to drive Zionists from Palestine?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Recognizing sin in others is not a priority lesson for children. (IMHO)
Recognizing sin (error) in self does top the list, though. It's part of the maturation/discipline process. Recognizing when I have screwed up and done something that harms another or myself. Making amends. Asking forgiveness. Changing the behavior.
I dunno - I always thought the greatest commandment was "Love one another as I have loved you." The capper, as it were.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, the Israelis had no interest in fighting a war in 1948, they were perfectly content to live with half of Palestine and Jerusalem as a UN city but every Arab nation decided peace was not a good idea. Then Egypt tried to starve Israel out of existence by closing the Suez Canal. Then Egypt formulated a plot to destroy Israel in 1967 but the Mossad picked up on it and launched an incredibly successful pre-emptive attack which really created this whole mess by creating the "occupied territories" such as the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Hieghts. Israel managed to successfuly trade the Sanai for peace with Egypt later. Then in 1973 Arab nations launched a suprise attack on the holiest holiday for Jews. During this whole time Syria and its puppet state Lebanon have actively supported terrorist groups and have done it covertly. This is why Israel maintained a 20 mile buffer between Lebanon and Israel for a couple decades. The whole point is an Israeli peace movement would have no effect on the racists who will not be satisfied until all Jews are dead.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
