<p>And I was so enjoying my conversation with Mini and Zoos, before the thread deteriorated…</p>
<p>Give me a lutheran war.</p>
<p>Rorosen posted: “they have good memories of the rapping before the music died,…”</p>
<p>Oh you are evil! I just spit all over my monitor. I hope you’re happy.</p>
<p>allmusic posted: “And I was so enjoying my conversation with Mini and Zoos, before the thread deteriorated…”</p>
<p>Same here. May I say that I find your posts to be the kind of well-considered statements that make me really stop to think about issues or points of view that are different from my own? I may not always agree, but I do seek common ground with your opinions because they’re usually so factual and don’t stoop to childish nonsense.</p>
<p>Pardon me if I had a hand in debasing this thread.</p>
<p>I do not advocate converting the Islamic world to the Christian, far from it, I am urging that we (the ME et al) emulate the divine by forgiving others and that we be humble in seeking forgiveness from them.</p>
<p>zoos, agreed. allmusic’s #164 in particular showed balance and thoughtfullness. Please continue,…</p>
<p>Leanid posted: “I do not advocate converting the Islamic world to the Christian, far from it, I am urging that we (the ME et al) emulate the divine by forgiving others and that we be humble in seeking forgiveness from them.”</p>
<p>I respect and admire people who are able to truly hold to that value. It is something that I aspire to, but have not yet achieved.</p>
<p>This is a tough topic, and one with which most people have strong opinions, even if they are based on emotion and not fact. But, it is an important conversation to have, because the future of our earth may well depend on it. I really like hearing what everyone has to say.</p>
<p>zoosermom,</p>
<p>I have not achieved it either – it is so far opposite what is going on in “world affairs” – but I cannot think of better way to find peace. The trouble is that it just may be the hardest thing in the world to do. Think about it – ALL parties would have to “surrender” to a greater good – it is ALMOST impossible.</p>
<p>Leanid, sad to say that it really is almost impossible.</p>
<p>Interesting article in The Times, reinforcing my concern about the web of competing interests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hames begins the article by discounting the longevity and ferocity of the attacks.</p>
<p>
<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;
<p>No doubt, escalation with Israel is a terrific fund-raiser but to what extent? Who is funding this Hezbollah squirmish and do they have any desire to get enmeshed in a long battle? Who emboldened Hezbollah and why? Are the kidnappings part of a bit of a daring bid done in the vacuum created by al Zarqawi’s death? Is this a competition between the rogue states–or a collaboration?</p>
<p>There are about 350 photos on the Yahoo web page, and at least a third of them are Muslim men, women and children from all over the Middle East, India, Africa etc. in demonstrations and gatherings, burning American and Israeli flags, shouting about Israel’s demise, etc. It is quite eye opening, because most of these people are not “militants”.</p>
<p>Yeah, but that always happened</p>
<p>Wouldn’t peace break out quickly if Ehud Olmert would announce:</p>
<p>“Israel will withdraw to the internationally recognized 1967 borders if the following conditions are met:”</p>
<p>and then list however many conditions are necessary? I know this is a “What if…” question, but wouldn’t such an announcement make Olmert an instant hero in the world? Wouldn’t suffering begin to end for everyone, including Israelis?</p>
<p>That strikes me as a Clintonian question, vossron. Real leaders have to make hard decisions that affect their nations. They’re not trying to be the instant hero of the world.</p>
<p>I would think that bringing peace to his people would be a high priority, and that the statement would help greatly to bring peace. The conditions he would specify would include how to guarantee Israel’s security. Again, the question is what would happen, not so much the likelihood of his making the statement. It would be a <em>really</em> hard decision for him to consider making the statement.</p>
<p>Vossron, as I have stated before, this conflict has nothing to do with the 1967 borders. Gaza was pulled back to 1967, as was Lebanon. The conflict is 80 to 100 years old, not 35,a nd the borders are not the issue. at least not the core one.</p>
<p>The truth is, I think most Palestinians would like to live in their own state, in peace and security. It’s their leadership and militant groups that are the problem. However, Israel’s latest bombing campaign is certain to secure more terrorists and militancy across the Arab world, exactly as the US interference in Iraq has done.</p>
<p>Allmusic, thanks. Are you suggesting that a majority of Palentinians would reject such an overture as not sufficiently solving the older problem? The compromise by the Palestinians would be to relenquish title to their lands inside 1967 Israel; the compromise by the Israelis would be to relenquish land outside 1967 Israel. I know there are many on both sides not agreeable to either, but they would have to be overcome to prevent decade after decade of further fighting.</p>
<p>I have always contended that both sides would need to compromise, unless they are intent on another 50 years or more of bloodshed. Your compromise is exactly the one that needs to be made, but the Palestinian leadership, Hamas (and all those before), has rejected that compromise, in favor of obliterating Israel and reclaiming “greater Palestine”. To be fair, many people think that the land that Israelis have settled on in the West bank, which Israelis claim is for security purposes, is actually a land grab. Israelis would need to give up that land entirely, which would put the airport and major cities within a distance that they could be easily attacked. Thus the justification for holding the land. </p>
<p>So, an honest appraisal says that neither side is in any way guiltless in this ongoing conflict. I personally believe that if the Palestinians laid down their weapons, there would be peace, but there are plenty of people who disagree with that opinion.</p>
<p>“if the Palestinians laid down their weapons, there would be peace”</p>
<p>Maybe that depends on what “peace” means. Would Israel stop taking land, returning what has been taken? Would they keep building the wall? Would they compensate the Palestinians for lands taken? There are so many ifs. Being in the position of power, I think Israel must take the first grand step toward unthinkable compromise. Long term, leaders on both sides will come and go, driven by the feelings of the people, which could change eventually.</p>