August 17, 2010

Some right wing religious and nationalist leaders are creating waves about the approval of a permit to build a mosque and Islamic center in Manhattan. They cite the proximity of the project to ground zero of 9/11 as a pretext to oppose its implementation. However, the moderate Moslem organization behind the so called “Cordoba House” in Manhattan is in no way associated with radical Moslems. On the contrary, the project was conceived as a venue for blending with the local community, and for spreading religious tolerance in an attempt to mitigate the ill feelings that ensued from the tragic events of 9/11. (See the interview of Daisy Khan on Democracy Now, August 12) In contrast, the statements of some of those who oppose the project are harsh and inflammatory. They will tend to heighten the kinds of sentiments that contributed to the emergence of the events of 9/11 in the first place. Therefore, the motives of those who oppose the project need to be questioned and scrutinized.

Planning for Survival identifies two main categories of threats to human survival: natural, and relating to man’s action. It classifies the second category into two subcategories: unintended, and intentional. The above developments exemplify the threat to survival from the deeds of some of us. How such deeds have already impacted our chances for survival, and how the perpetuation of such deeds is likely to affect our future is explained in the book.

Chapter 7 of Planning for Survival identifies “Sectarian and National Disparities” as major factors affecting man’s destructive impulses as displayed in terrorism and war. Differences in religious belief and national affiliation evoke emotions about ‘others’ as people to be wary of, guard against, and even combat and concur. Hypothetically, if the population of the world believed in one religion and was unified under global government, the forms of violence associated with religion and nationalism would not emerge. Therefore, it is suggested that action be taken to address religious fanaticism and extreme nationalism.

In Chapter 8 however, it is pointed out that sectarian and religious disparities do net per se lead to strife and conflict. Believers in different religions and nationals of different countries have often lived together in peace. Although aggression among religious factions and nations can be triggered by accident, it is more often triggered by the onset of what is defined as “hazardous aspects of human nature”. Numerous examples of sectarian and international conflicts are analyzed, and analysis reveals that conflicts and wars are usually and primarily spurred by human greed for more power and wealth, which is reflected in seeking unjustifiable and unlawful personal gain for oneself or one’s clan. Therefore, it is also proposed that people attempt to rationally control their egocentric impulses; especially, those in power who pull the strings to initiate strife, terrorism, and war.

However, an increasing number of young adult men are in the capacity to cialis price https://www.unica-web.com/ENGLISH/2018/young-unica-workshop.html purchase it.
It is noted that reasonable men such as Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have spoken against heightening tensions, and pointed out that Moslem citizens have the same rights as any others. Alas, however, certain factions and groups of people in the US persist in creating the kinds of dangerous conditions that I warned about, and argued against in Planning for Survival.

In my view, radical Jewish entities in Israel, with the support of similar entities in the USA detected an ‘opportunity’ in the Cordoba project that could be used to tarnish the reputation of Moslems and Arabs. Their customary motive: create negative impressions about Moslems and Arabs in the minds of Americans in view of perpetuating the US’s unwavering support for Israel in doing whatever it chooses to do in the Middle East; such as annexing ever more Palestinian land into Israel. Thus, the motives of the radical Jewish entities that heighten religious tensions can be seen as being spurred by their Zionist agenda. Some republican and right wing politicians saw an opportunity in riding the band wagon to improve their chances in scoring in the upcoming elections; since, unfortunately, many citizens fall for special interest propaganda. Politicians’ motives could be also seen as emanating from greed for more power and wealth, through expansion of their control of government to better serve the special interest groups which sponsor and nurture them. Explaining the participation of the extreme Christian right in the hubbub is not as easy or straightforward. Generally however, it is no secret that those who pledge allegiance to Israel, stand to be rewarded in both tangible and intangible ways. I am sad to admit that I suspect that some of those on the extreme Christian right may be contemplating such rewards.

The notion that I wish to emphasize is that: when the kinds of developments under consideration emerge, one is advised to probe the causes of their development. In most cases, they do not emerge from puritanical religious impulses, or from love of country. They are most often instigated by powerful individuals and groups of people for purely egocentric reasons.

I wish to conclude with a personal note. Although I am not a religious person, I do respect the right of others to choose whatever religion they elect to believe in –most likely, the religion they were brought up to believe. However, I do not tolerate the actions of radical religious leaders of any persuasion who indulge in instigating strife and conflict. I hold the same feelings about political leaders who indulge in inflaming antagonistic feelings among their constituencies. I doubt that religious and political leaders of the extreme right will ever come around to reading my words. If any of them does, I would plead with him/her to heed my warnings for the sake of humanity. To the general reader, I ask of him/her to be wary of the machinations of special interests, and to do whatever he/she could possibly do to enlighten others about the perils involved in the ways of those who heighten and exacerbate religious and national disparities to achieve their own ulterior goals.

July 16, 2010

Many have argued that the British were instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel; not necessarily out of empathy with the Jewish people, but rather, to implement an ulterior strategic goal to ‘divide and concur’ Middle Eastern countries in order to control their oil assets. The argument goes that the US, which inherited the British Empire, continued to support Israel for the same reason.

The US’s support for Israel has wavered somewhat over the decades, and Israel’s posture has also wavered somewhat in parallel. I do not wish to delve into the details of what transpired over roughly six decades. However, developments in both countries can be related to domestic conditions. In the US, domestic conditions are illustrated by President Eisenhower being in power. He was not an imperialist. He warned about the machinations of the military industrial complex, and was not particularly supportive of Israel. The opposite extreme conditions in the US are illustrated by President G. W. Bush and his neo-con administration, who were capitalist imperialists, and supportive of Israel. Domestic conditions in Israel are illustrated by Prime Ministers Rabin and Netanyahu being respectively in power, and by how each of them addressed relations with the US and other countries in the ME.

One could consider three scenarios in this context: a) that the US has been using Israel to attain its imperialist ambitions, b) that Israel has been using the US to attain its own goal of expanding its realm in the Middle East -there is evidence to support each of these scenarios- and c) that both countries have a symbiotic relationship which aims at fulfilling their respective objectives and aspirations.

Observing developments over the years, I wavered between adopting one or the other scenario. I am now convinced however, that more recently, Israel has been acting consistently both against its own interests, as well as against the interests of the USA; even the US military impersonated in general Petraeus expressed this view.

At present, international pressure is mounting on Israel to change its ways. Peace activists such as George Galloway are planning to augment the pressure on Israel to lift the siege on Gaza; go here to learn more about their plans. Turkey, Iran, and Brazil have teamed up to resolve the issues regarding Iran’s atomic nuclear fuel irrespective of Israel’s and US’s wishes; please note that Brazil and many South American countries are organizing to counter US imperialism. The UN is also expressing disenchantment with Israel.

When everyone of purchase viagra online http://aimhousepatong.com/item8099.html these parts have been evaluated, you’ll be able on your medical doctor to work out regardless if you are, in truth, enduring Hyperactivity.
How come is all of that taking place one might ask!? My father, a professor of mechanics, used to iterate that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This proposition applies in physics and in human affairs as well. One can hardly consistently disregard international law, and abuse others -acts well documented in the cases of Israel, and the USA for that matter- and expect to continue doing that for ever. Eventually, reaction builds up, and one’s actions backfire. How long does it take for this to happen, varies from case to case. Eventually, reaction momentum builds up, and one’s actions backfire. How long does it take for this to happen, varies from case to case. However, the longer and more sever the abuse of others, the more certain one could expect concerted reaction to oppression. Thankfully, a sense of decency and empathy with other humans is built into the human spirit. I believe that this sense of compassion with others ultimately triumphs.

All of Israel’s neighbors have expressed their willingness to negotiate and make peace with Israel. Israel on the other hand has been making all kinds of excuses to acquire as much Palestinian land as possible, in order to establish facts on the ground to advance its negotiating position.

The plea to those in power in Israel at present is to capture the opportunity of the moment to alter their strategies, and to seriously pursue peace with Israel’s neighbors. After all, what is the value of some additional acreage of Palestinian land, compared with the substantial economic prosperity that is likely to ensue from a policy of peaceful coexistence with Israel’s neighbors! Should those in power elect to disregard this plea, I suggest to the Israeli people to elect a government that would pursue the cause of peace which is ultimately in their best interest.

What do you think?

You can comment to express your view.