A different spin on things.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

For as long as I can remember, I have never heard any representative of the nation of Israel state the land is theirs because God gave it to them. From what I have read only a small percent of the Israeli people could be classified as extreemly religious (the ones who want to rebuild the temple, re-institute ritual animal sacrifices like the days of Moses and David...) 95% of the Jewish people in Israel hold their religious beliefs much like we do here in the US - People believe in God, and have religious convictions, but we dont start killing people because of our religion.

Before it was Israel (1946? 47?) it was Palestine. Not the nation of Palestine, the British colony of Palestine. The UN took control of the land away from the British, and formed a new independent nation: Israel.

I think that the "God gave it to them" viewpoint (especially among outsiders) is more of a misunderstanding of the poetic licence that is used when describing the area as a Semitic ancestral homeland. Whether or not some divine bequest took place isn't really relevant—the rationale is that because the old Jews were native to this region, it follows that the Jews of today are entitled to reclaim it.

This is a bit problematic, of course, because of the centuries that Jewish groups spent spread throughout Europe and Asia (not necessarily of their own will). While the Jewish principle of maternal descent ensures that (typically), present-day Jews have old Jewish ancestry, it's not immediately evident that proof of ancestry represents sufficient cause to reclaim dominion over the ancestral lands. Indeed, in most other situations, displaced groups are not returned to their homelands to goverrn themselves.

Indeed, the fact that the Palestinians (also Semites) were not granted the opportunity to return to a specific ancestral homeland of their own is a major source of the tension. Among ardent supporters of the Palestinians, it's sometimes viewed as an injustice orchestrated by the West, to place Jews above Muslims. Of course, in the West, we typically view the creation of Israel as a gesture of goodwill offered to the Jews in recognition of their plight during the Second World War.

It wasn't so much that the UN seized it from Britain, though. Britain had been subjected to criticism for restricting Jewish emigration from Europe into Palestine, and was not well-regarded by the Palestinian populace in general. After the war, they therefore granted the UN the authority to administer the region, and a proposal was accepted by the General Assembly to create a Jewish state from some of the lands.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

and everyone lived happily everafter... Ok, it was not all cut and dry - there were many Palestinian people who lost land and homes when this happened in the late 40's AND the surrounding (Arab) nations banded together and immediately attacked the new nation of Israel. It was a mess from day One.

Much of the problem was due to that impression that the West was coddling the Jews by granting them the best land in the region, and leaving the Arabs to subsist in the desert. So much of that mess might have been avoided, if the UN had divided the land more evenly, or better still, refused to segregate the region on ethnic and religious lines.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Having said all this, I believe 99% of the people in the middle east, on both sides of the conflict, would be happy to live together in peace. Its the 1% who can only stay in their positions of power and control and self-importance, who keep pulling the situation down to the lowest denominator. People like the leaders of Iran, who publicly call for the nation of Israel to be wiped off the map - the extremist who think that strapping a bomb to yourself and murdering men, women and children is what God wants you to do.

As long as people keep listening to these lunatics, the conflict will never end. This conflict has nothing to do with God, or what God wants

you got a bunch of people running around who are not interested in being students, or business people, or engineers or farmers or production workers - not when they can be the leader of "freedom fighters" or do-it-yourself religious leaders, or you can become a martyr in a glorious "religious" war.

In all fairness, the Israelis share some of the blame. Destroying infrastructure, and occasionally killing civillians in the process? That's no way to fight fair. Isreal, as a developed, presumably principled nation has a greater responsibility to behave in a way that promotes co-operation and trust, not mutual hatred—even if the suicide bombers do the worst possible job of returning that decent behaviour in kind. Someone has to grow up, and take a principled stand. Israel is the only party capable of this, thanks to the general disorganization and squalour endemic in the Palestinian territories. I'm not suggesting that they drop their guard completely, but by inconveniencing the Palestinians at every turn, they're systematically and deliberately preventing any sort of order from developing in Palestine. With checkpoints, no trade can be successful. With bombings of infrastructure, industry and agriculture are paralyzed. With tanks in the streets, and bulldozers knocking down houses, they epitomize the instillation of terror. Only Israel can stop their own madness—Palestinian reprisals can't possibly damage the Israeli state in any great fashion, despite the damage that they inflict to individuals, and in fact, only serve to harden the resolve of the fools who orchestrate the Israeli campaigns of destruction.

Israel needs to do less, not more. Lasting peace and successful co-existance can't be achieved by striking into your enemy's cities; these things require unpopular compromises. But when the alternative is perpetual combat, the loss of face that may be incurred is meaningless.

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Its not as if the world has had no interest in the events of the middle east for the last 50 years - just the opposite. The events that happen in this part of the world effect the global economy.

Last 50? I think its more like the last 5000... just the small territory known as Israel as gone through control changes like almost no other place on earth. Israel, Egypt, Israel, Israel and Judea, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, Judea, Rome, Byzantine Empire, Persia, Byzantine Empire, Arab, European Crusaders, Mamluk, Ottoman Empire, British Empire, and now finally back to Israel.

Originally Posted by David55

Truthfully, I don't understand what the actual point of posting this article is, but I would just like to say that I have never seen so much BS in one article.

BS that the US is overextended and hipocritical?

Originally Posted by David55

In my opinion, this thread should be removed. this is not the place for political discussion and nothing good and positive can come out of here.

The Chit-Chat forum has been proven time and again as the only place for this type of discussion. Where is this thread? The Chit-Chat forum.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

There are very few occasions upon which volunteering large segments of your population to die is a smart move.

Edit:
I was asked to clarify and will be more than happy to do so. I do not believe war is a smart move, except under very special circumstances. I do not target a country, a group of people, or a CD poster with this message.

In an area where a nuclear war has been predicted and is anticipated, do you truly believe that nuclear warheads only impact military bases and armed conflict zones? Entering a situation where nuclear power can get involved and can and will destroy you even if you "win" the war is not a smart thing to plan for by any means.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Matt Attallah

NEW YORK (CNN) -- <material redacted>

I don’t care one way or the other about the politics being discussed here, or whether the conclusions are justified, supportable, or pure hogwash.

What I do care about is that the thread has been started by illegally posting copyrighted material. This is a violation of the law, and a violation of CD policy.

Once again (we have had this discussion before - see this thread and this thread for prior examples), posting copyrighted materials for which you do not have redistribution permission from the copyright owner is a violation of the law. You may want to start an engaging discussion on Middle-East politics. That is fine. But doing so by posting copyrighted material is not the way to go about it. The fact is, making a copy of a copyrighted article posting it for public download is an illegal act, no matter how well intentioned you may be.

Someone else owns the material that has been posted here. In this case, you have blatantly copied an article authored by Lou Dobbs and owned by CNN. CNN owns all the content, intellectual property, and reprinting rights. It is their article, and they have not given you permission to make it available to anyone else. CNN retains all the rights to that article, and we are honor-bound to respect those rights.

In your later post, you blatantly copied an article authored by Richard Curtiss and owned by WRMEA. The copied material is the intellectual property of someone else, and you have no right to copy or redistribute it without their permission.

To top it off, by posting the material here on CD, potentially you have made CD complicit in the act. You put Delphi and Innovation First (as the sponsors) and Chief Delphi, two organizations and a team that have gone out of their way to make this forum available for the improvement of the FIRST community, at risk. That is both inappropriate and a violation of CD policy.

There are going to be those that say this is an over-reaction to a minor issue. However, I believe that part of our purpose here is to set an example for the teams of professional behavior. Part of being a professional includes a respect for the law - including copyright law. As mentors we should be demonstrating the highest ethical standards possible. Particularly when presented in the course of a FIRST-related activity (such as posting on CD), honoring the law - even in matters as simple as copyright law - shows appropriate respect for ourselves, the students we mentor, professional standards, and the values that we purport to uphold as part of the FIRST community. And, it is just plain good manners.

-dave

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Someone else owns the material that has been posted here. In this case, you have blatantly copied an article authored by Lou Dobbs and owned by CNN. CNN owns all the content, intellectual property, and reprinting rights. It is their article, and they have not given you permission to make it available to anyone else. CNN retains all the rights to that article, and we are honor-bound to respect those rights.
-dave

Not that I want to disagree with you Dave, but does reprinting now include reposting? Just curious. I too have not only posted articles in the past here on CD, but also linked to the original for reference sake.. That said:

I agree with you completely and wished that everyone who posts things of this nature (references from external sources) would read and understand MLA format for citing works. Even though we are not in a college English class, it's just common courtesy to give credit (or blame, whatever the case) where it is due.

Matt seems to be getting a lot of heat from an article that was not his original though, and that's wrong to me. Now, getting heat for what he said after that in his own posts, is wrong by nature, but that's the nature of the beast of a public forum. We come here to exchange ideas, beliefs, and opinions and as the famous saying states.. "Opinions are like brains*. Everyone has one".


*Sure, we'll go with brains for this G rated example.

[anna~marie]

sorry to be a bummer on this
but really now guys
science news and news relating to FIRST and their people is cool
however... I come on here to hear about FIRST - not politics. In fact, I avoid politics sites. more often than not they can make people hate each other. I'm not opposed to discussion but please don't ruin my CD
/rant