The United States gives them millions each year. I don't know the exact amount, but it's a lot. Unfortunately, the money goes to dictator Arafat's pocket first, so the people as a whole don't benefit very much.
the basic fact is that Israel is the occupier, "Palestine" is the occupied.
According to international law (which I loathe to cite), it is not occupied by Israel. The following was reported in Arutz-7 on March 18:
"Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not 'occupied territories' according to international law due to the fact that they were not taken from any foreign sovereign," says Law Professor Talia Einhorn, a senior member of the research faculty at Tel Aviv University and a Law professor at the Shaarei Mishpat College in Hod HaSharon.
Einhorn delivered her statements at a session entitled "U.S.-Israel Relations" at the Jerusalem Conference which concluded Wednesday. She declared: "It is important to remember and mention daily what Israel has already said for years, not only the government, but judicial experts - that Yesha [Judea, Samaria and Gaza], according to international law is not occupied territory." Einhorn explained that when Israel won the Six-Day War, no foreign country had recognized sovereignty over the land that was liberated. Egypt claimed no sovereignty over Gaza, and when Jordan tried to assert sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in 1950, the only countries to recognize it were England and Pakistan - with England limiting its recognition to eastern Jerusalem, but not the expanses of land extending north and south of it.
"Their biggest opponents were in fact the Arab countries," said Einhorn. She went on to say that the 1967 demarcation lines are in fact, according to international agreements, simply cease-fire lines that should never be considered political demarcations or national borders.
In the Encyclopedia of International Law, it is written that Israel was established without international borders. Israel's only internationally recognized borders are with Jordan and Egypt, as a result of the peace agreements that were signed.
Calling Israel 'Colonialist' with the intention of deligitimization is very severe, Einhorn said, especially considering how specious the argument is. "The Land of Israel is our land. No other nation ever made Israel into its country."
Einhorn reminded the attendees at the Jerusalem Conference that the biblical curse according to which Israel will remain desolate when controlled by foreigners unfolded throughout history as a reality. Einhorn pointed out that it is largely for this reason that no other nation ever claimed it, and "we must remember this."
Even Ariel Sharon has acknowledged this.
He has used the term "occupied" only one time, and that was because of the onslaught of pressure coming from the UN, US, EU, Russia, Israeli leftists, the Arab world, and his own fears about his perception in the world.
Don't forget that Sharon was the preeminent supporter of the now-labeled "occupied territories." Those "settlements" are there because he helped set them up! For most of his life, he praised Zionism to the hilt. Unfortunately, the office of PM has altered his behavior regarding Zionism, but I do not think he genuinely believes in his heart that Israel is illegally occupying any land.
Sharon's words have become very untrustworthy in the last few years. He flipflops worse than John Kerry. He's liable to say anything these days. If you've been following Israeli politics, you'll know that much of what Sharon says should not automatically be regarded as admissions, denials, agreements, plans, or anything that might portend something significant. We have to watch his actions, but even then, we would have to put them in the correct context, taking into account the matrix of political calculations and contrasting pressures from all sides, to understand his true motivations. For instance, Sharon calling part of Israel "occupied" probably means only that one source of lobbying and pressure is having more influence at that particular moment than other sources.
You're exactly right. On the other hand, you should consult a modern dictionary. It's unfortunate, but the language has evolved in an obfuscating way.
The Palestinians are Semites too, as are all Arabs.
True, and obversely, the Jews are Palestinians, as are all Israelis. (Of course, we are using different definitions of "Palestinians.")
But I like what you're saying. A Semite is someone who descends from Shem, one of Noah's sons. When we say "anti-Semitic," we are not talking about being against all the descendents of Shem; we're really talking about being against the descendents of Israel (Jacob) who came later in history.
Now, here's my point. A lot of people say that being anti-Israel is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic. But when we realize that being anti-Semitic is actually being anti-Israelite, then it becomes clear that being anti-Israel (against the Jewish state) is being anti-Semitic (against the descendents of Israel).
No, Jordan kicked the PLO out in the early 1970s, after the PLO bombed them as viciously as they continue to bomb Israel.
Most Jordanians do in fact identify themselves as Palestinians. I put "PLO supporters" in parentheses to distinguish them as those who identify with the anti-Zionist political movement's moniker "Palestinian," although perhaps not supporters specifically of Yassir Arafat's organization. I think it's important to make that distinction because up until about 1967, the whole world regarded Palestine = Israel (or, generally speaking, = the land of the Bible) and Palestinians = Jews.
I could consider everyone - Jews, Arabs, Bedouins, Persians, etc. - in the land of biblical Palestine to be Palestinians. Regardless of whether your reference is Holy Writ or U.N. documents, it's not historically sensible for Arabs to hijack that term. In my mind, there are both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. Anyone in Israel is a Palestinian. But Palestine is not anybody's state. It's a region.
The word Palestinian has a storied history. Going by the term as defined by the ancient Romans (IIRC), Palestinians are exclusively the Jews. They used it as a derogatory label. It's ironic that Arabs are embracing it. It would be like Klansmen wanting to be called niggers.
Doh! I agree with your sentiment, but you consulted two horrible sources. Did you notice that the CIA's factbook has listings for the "Israeli-occupied" areas of the "Gaza Strip" and the "West Bank"? And the UN is the least credible source of facts, especially when it concerns Israel. As far as policy-making goes, it really doesn't matter that there is no official UN member called "Palestine." Jordan is a member state, and most Jordanians claim to be "Palestinians" (PLO supporters). Jordan essentially is the Palestinian/PLO state.
at least "Palestine" has a distinguishable population
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity... In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It has also been a 'conceptual' war for the ownership of the term 'Palestinian' which has been transferred over to the Arabs, whereas before 1967, 'Palestine' has always been synonymous with the land of Israel."
- Zahir Muhsein, PLO Executive Committee member, to Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977
You're exactly right. The Passion already has "counter-programming"; it's pretty much everything else out there. The proper perspective is that Passion is the counter-programming to all the secular movies coming out of Hollyood week after week, year after year, that have little redeeming quality. (no pun intended, but sweet serendipity:)
People have different ways of getting close to God. So this movie didn't do it for you? Fine. I can understand that. But it does connect with a lot of people, including myself, in a very deep, profound way. It helps us and we thank Mel Gibson for making the movie.
Personally, I'm glad he's making a pile of money from it. It's money in the hands of a good man. For whatever faults there may be in Gibson's movie, his motives, his marketing tactics, his response to critics, etc., the movie is a lot better fare than the trash produced by the rest of Hollywood.
1. I think it is Mel milking a certain group for all he can get from them. I think he is in it first and foremost for the money and the buzz.
I think your cynicism is preventing you from getting the message of the movie. You only harm yourself by assuming negative motives for people who have provided something positive and helpful for you in your spiritual walk.
2. Why? Why in the hell do we need hours of blood and gore.
Because that's the way it happened. The Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 52:14 reads:
Just as there were many who were appalled at him -
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness-
Isaiah 53:5 says that "by his stripes (Passion screen) we are healed." Just like in the movie - He was turned into a scourged piece of bloody meat almost not recognizable as human. The Romans didn't invent crucifixion, but they devised ways to inflict the maximum amount of pain.
Why all the blood? Read Leviticus. Redemption is in the blood. Eternal life is in the blood. Read John 6. It is the blood of the New Covenant. We drink the Christ's blood (symbolically) when we observe the Lord's Supper. For me, the blood in The Passion is not gross. It's uplifting. I feel extreme gratitude and joy.
I don't think it sends any kind of message that would help us to live better lives and be better to each other.
The Palm Beach Post reported on March 18 that a man robbed a bank of $25,000 more than two years ago in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. He surrendered because "he was stirred deeply after watching The Passion of the Christ and felt compelled to come clean." "He said, 'I saw The Passion, and that made my decision,'" said Paul Miller, a spokesman for the sheriff's office. "And he sort of urged [the detective] to see the movie too."
We are a visual generation. We watch TV and movies more than we read books. Putting the passion of the gospels into visual format makes it real to us. Do you think that reading about the 9/11 explosions of the World Trade Center would have evoked the same level of shock and awe as reading "there was an explosion" in a newspaper's black ink? Seeing the Passion forces us to come face to face with our sin and God's response of grace. The experience makes us sad that God had to send His Son to suffer and die because of us, the viewers. It prods us to repent, and when we repent, we live better lives. We regret how much we grieve Him by not loving Him with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind and not loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Which is really what the whole message of Jesus is about.
That's what the whole movie was about. From beginning to end, there was evil and brutality, but it was within the context of an act of love and sacrifice. The sacrifice was on behalf of sin just such as was committed in torturing this innocent Jew and Messiah. His sacrifice was the greatest act of love in all of history. And it was done on your behalf, and mine. The Lord Jesus Christ paid the enormous ransom for our sin that only He could pay, thereby saving us from the torment of hell, and that is what Mel Gibson's movie is all about.
Bush/Ashcroft haters bash the PATRIOT Act on Slashdot.
Bashing leads to paranoia.
Observance of others' paranoia leads to more PATRIOT-bashing and more paranoia.
Rinse, repeat... and it keeps snowballing bigger and bigger until somebody on Slashdot thinks he's going to be dragged to Guantanamo Bay for making a joke online.
This activity is quite enjoyable to liberals because, in their minds, it validates their anger at the administration. In reality, the perceived validation is based on the paranoia that they helped to create.
Enterprise Mission is neither science nor pseudoscience. It's outright DELUSION! Does this look like a Sphinx?? There's something wrong in person's brain to make that kind of connection. Hoagland claims that some Martian rocks look like stoves and tools. I'm sitting here staring and staring at them, and they DO NOT look like these things! As far as we can tell from the pictures, they're just plain old rocks. To this guy, EVERY LITTLE ROCK AND SPECK is something spectacular. He's never seen an ordinary rock before. It's a face, it's a pyramid, it's an alien fort.
Science or phony science is not the issue. I don't see anything attempting to be science on that site. There are pictures and blurbs splattered about everywhere, I can hardly navigate it. I think the disheveled structure of the site is indicative of the scatterbrained nature of Hoagland's ideas.
It seems to me that some people's brains are "miswired" or damaged somehow and form illusory associations where there are none. In the same way that all of our brains trick us all into seeing optical illusions, some people are susceptible to less obvious illusions. Especially when it's FUN to see the illusions. And when you can make a living from it.
Could a "taped" confession of inaudible, unspoken words be admissable in court? Is an unspoken answer really an answer? What's to prevent an interrogator from making things up? I think it would be a scary situation for the prosecuting attorney to say, "The computer said he admitted it!" when you know you admitted nothing.
There must be a perceptible verification of the action. A lot of people are wary of e-voting if there is no paper confirmation of the cast ballot. For legal testimonies, there should be an audible (or written and signed) record of the confession.
is to save without prompting the user, but keeping the last 5 versions of the document
Users may not be aware of the security implications of what the software is doing. There could be some incriminating information that they deleted in the current document, but remains in the older versions. Remember the Office metadata and hidden "deleted" data fiascos reported here on/.?
About two years ago, MaximumPC started putting scantily-clad models in its articles. It definitely wasn't pornographic. It was just an awkward shock to see seductive women in a geek hardware/game magazine with benchmark graphs and technical articles. Also, it smacked of flagrant manipulation. It was so transparent what they were trying to do from a marketing standpoint, it was insulting and patronizing. They think that inserting sex into the magazine is going to make for more loyal umm "readers"? Sorry, while your readers are mostly young and male, they're also too media-savvy to fall for that.
But the pictures weren't the main offense. It was the filthy tone of some of the writing and the frequent allusions to porn-viewing. In one article, a writer was trying to hype some new video card. When he said that he was "creaming" over it, that was the last straw for me. Grossed me out, especially when I was eating. If I wanted to read that kind of content, I would Google for some dirty web sites. Why do I have to be subjected to some guy's masturbation fantasies just to find out about the new video cards?
I let my subscription run out. I'd been waffling on the issue for a few months, because I really liked the magazine. But it had finally gone too far.
Other readers weren't happy about the magazine's foul direction, either. Some of the complaints sent to the editor were published in the magazine. The editors responded to the complaints in the Letters section. They answered directly, and essentially said: "Yeah, we hear you, but we're not going to change. Screw you." Fine. They lost my business. I meant to send a letter explaining why I was not renewing my subscription, but I never got around to it. I hope they're reading this.
Computers Replace Musicians In West End Musical Posted by timothy on 10:03 AM -- Saturday February 14 2004
Albanach writes "The Scotsman newspaper is reporting that despite opposition from the Musician's Union, Sir Cameron Mackintosh will proceed with his plan to replace one half of the musicians in his musical Les Miserables with a computer synthesiser. The Times claims that using Sinfonia will allow the show, the third longest running musical in history, to replace 11 musicians saving 5,000 GBP ($9,450 US) per week. Sinfonia consisits of 2 PCs, one master and one backup, controlled by an trained operator using a musical keyboard."
Could this be touted as a compromise? Live instruments, but non-live players. The audience might be placated somewhat, but the musicians would still be out of jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
The United States gives them millions each year. I don't know the exact amount, but it's a lot. Unfortunately, the money goes to dictator Arafat's pocket first, so the people as a whole don't benefit very much.
According to international law (which I loathe to cite), it is not occupied by Israel. The following was reported in Arutz-7 on March 18:
Even Ariel Sharon has acknowledged this.He has used the term "occupied" only one time, and that was because of the onslaught of pressure coming from the UN, US, EU, Russia, Israeli leftists, the Arab world, and his own fears about his perception in the world.
Don't forget that Sharon was the preeminent supporter of the now-labeled "occupied territories." Those "settlements" are there because he helped set them up! For most of his life, he praised Zionism to the hilt. Unfortunately, the office of PM has altered his behavior regarding Zionism, but I do not think he genuinely believes in his heart that Israel is illegally occupying any land.
Sharon's words have become very untrustworthy in the last few years. He flipflops worse than John Kerry. He's liable to say anything these days. If you've been following Israeli politics, you'll know that much of what Sharon says should not automatically be regarded as admissions, denials, agreements, plans, or anything that might portend something significant. We have to watch his actions, but even then, we would have to put them in the correct context, taking into account the matrix of political calculations and contrasting pressures from all sides, to understand his true motivations. For instance, Sharon calling part of Israel "occupied" probably means only that one source of lobbying and pressure is having more influence at that particular moment than other sources.
The Palestinians are Semites too, as are all Arabs.
True, and obversely, the Jews are Palestinians, as are all Israelis. (Of course, we are using different definitions of "Palestinians.")
But I like what you're saying. A Semite is someone who descends from Shem, one of Noah's sons. When we say "anti-Semitic," we are not talking about being against all the descendents of Shem; we're really talking about being against the descendents of Israel (Jacob) who came later in history.
Now, here's my point. A lot of people say that being anti-Israel is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic. But when we realize that being anti-Semitic is actually being anti-Israelite, then it becomes clear that being anti-Israel (against the Jewish state) is being anti-Semitic (against the descendents of Israel).
Most Jordanians do in fact identify themselves as Palestinians. I put "PLO supporters" in parentheses to distinguish them as those who identify with the anti-Zionist political movement's moniker "Palestinian," although perhaps not supporters specifically of Yassir Arafat's organization. I think it's important to make that distinction because up until about 1967, the whole world regarded Palestine = Israel (or, generally speaking, = the land of the Bible) and Palestinians = Jews.
I could consider everyone - Jews, Arabs, Bedouins, Persians, etc. - in the land of biblical Palestine to be Palestinians. Regardless of whether your reference is Holy Writ or U.N. documents, it's not historically sensible for Arabs to hijack that term. In my mind, there are both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. Anyone in Israel is a Palestinian. But Palestine is not anybody's state. It's a region.
The word Palestinian has a storied history. Going by the term as defined by the ancient Romans (IIRC), Palestinians are exclusively the Jews. They used it as a derogatory label. It's ironic that Arabs are embracing it. It would be like Klansmen wanting to be called niggers.
Doh! I agree with your sentiment, but you consulted two horrible sources. Did you notice that the CIA's factbook has listings for the "Israeli-occupied" areas of the "Gaza Strip" and the "West Bank"? And the UN is the least credible source of facts, especially when it concerns Israel. As far as policy-making goes, it really doesn't matter that there is no official UN member called "Palestine." Jordan is a member state, and most Jordanians claim to be "Palestinians" (PLO supporters). Jordan essentially is the Palestinian/PLO state.
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity... In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It has also been a 'conceptual' war for the ownership of the term 'Palestinian' which has been transferred over to the Arabs, whereas before 1967, 'Palestine' has always been synonymous with the land of Israel."
- Zahir Muhsein, PLO Executive Committee member, to Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977
You're exactly right. The Passion already has "counter-programming"; it's pretty much everything else out there. The proper perspective is that Passion is the counter-programming to all the secular movies coming out of Hollyood week after week, year after year, that have little redeeming quality. (no pun intended, but sweet serendipity :)
You're asking good questions (and you have a good sense of humor). Here are a couple of links to answers about Jesus.
Personally, I'm glad he's making a pile of money from it. It's money in the hands of a good man. For whatever faults there may be in Gibson's movie, his motives, his marketing tactics, his response to critics, etc., the movie is a lot better fare than the trash produced by the rest of Hollywood.
I think your cynicism is preventing you from getting the message of the movie. You only harm yourself by assuming negative motives for people who have provided something positive and helpful for you in your spiritual walk.
2. Why? Why in the hell do we need hours of blood and gore.
Because that's the way it happened. The Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 52:14 reads:
Isaiah 53:5 says that "by his stripes ( Passion screen) we are healed." Just like in the movie - He was turned into a scourged piece of bloody meat almost not recognizable as human. The Romans didn't invent crucifixion, but they devised ways to inflict the maximum amount of pain.Why all the blood? Read Leviticus. Redemption is in the blood. Eternal life is in the blood. Read John 6. It is the blood of the New Covenant. We drink the Christ's blood (symbolically) when we observe the Lord's Supper. For me, the blood in The Passion is not gross. It's uplifting. I feel extreme gratitude and joy.
I don't think it sends any kind of message that would help us to live better lives and be better to each other.
The Palm Beach Post reported on March 18 that a man robbed a bank of $25,000 more than two years ago in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. He surrendered because "he was stirred deeply after watching The Passion of the Christ and felt compelled to come clean." "He said, 'I saw The Passion, and that made my decision,'" said Paul Miller, a spokesman for the sheriff's office. "And he sort of urged [the detective] to see the movie too."
We are a visual generation. We watch TV and movies more than we read books. Putting the passion of the gospels into visual format makes it real to us. Do you think that reading about the 9/11 explosions of the World Trade Center would have evoked the same level of shock and awe as reading "there was an explosion" in a newspaper's black ink? Seeing the Passion forces us to come face to face with our sin and God's response of grace. The experience makes us sad that God had to send His Son to suffer and die because of us, the viewers. It prods us to repent, and when we repent, we live better lives. We regret how much we grieve Him by not loving Him with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind and not loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Which is really what the whole message of Jesus is about.
That's what the whole movie was about. From beginning to end, there was evil and brutality, but it was within the context of an act of love and sacrifice. The sacrifice was on behalf of sin just such as was committed in torturing this innocent Jew and Messiah. His sacrifice was the greatest act of love in all of history. And it was done on your behalf, and mine. The Lord Jesus Christ paid the enormous ransom for our sin that only He could pay, thereby saving us from the torment of hell, and that is what Mel Gibson's movie is all about.
The Gilgamesh Epic and the Bible
The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh
More of his stories are linked to the New York Times and Washington Post than anywhere else.
- Bush/Ashcroft haters bash the PATRIOT Act on Slashdot.
- Bashing leads to paranoia.
- Observance of others' paranoia leads to more PATRIOT-bashing and more paranoia.
Rinse, repeat... and it keeps snowballing bigger and bigger until somebody on Slashdot thinks he's going to be dragged to Guantanamo Bay for making a joke online.This activity is quite enjoyable to liberals because, in their minds, it validates their anger at the administration. In reality, the perceived validation is based on the paranoia that they helped to create.
Then in the polls, we'll be complaining, "I'm an American, you insensitive clod!"
Enterprise Mission is neither science nor pseudoscience. It's outright DELUSION! Does this look like a Sphinx?? There's something wrong in person's brain to make that kind of connection. Hoagland claims that some Martian rocks look like stoves and tools. I'm sitting here staring and staring at them, and they DO NOT look like these things! As far as we can tell from the pictures, they're just plain old rocks. To this guy, EVERY LITTLE ROCK AND SPECK is something spectacular. He's never seen an ordinary rock before. It's a face, it's a pyramid, it's an alien fort.
Science or phony science is not the issue. I don't see anything attempting to be science on that site. There are pictures and blurbs splattered about everywhere, I can hardly navigate it. I think the disheveled structure of the site is indicative of the scatterbrained nature of Hoagland's ideas.
It seems to me that some people's brains are "miswired" or damaged somehow and form illusory associations where there are none. In the same way that all of our brains trick us all into seeing optical illusions, some people are susceptible to less obvious illusions. Especially when it's FUN to see the illusions. And when you can make a living from it.
There must be a perceptible verification of the action. A lot of people are wary of e-voting if there is no paper confirmation of the cast ballot. For legal testimonies, there should be an audible (or written and signed) record of the confession.
Users may not be aware of the security implications of what the software is doing. There could be some incriminating information that they deleted in the current document, but remains in the older versions. Remember the Office metadata and hidden "deleted" data fiascos reported here on /.?
If you like icons, check out the CuteMenus extension. It adds icons for the menu commands and gives Mozilla a little bit of an Office XP look.
People tend to intepret icons literally. If I saw an icon of a camera, I would guess that it was for importing images from a digital camera.
On the other hand, porn can become legitimate content if the geeks actually like smut and circuit boards in the same articles.
But the pictures weren't the main offense. It was the filthy tone of some of the writing and the frequent allusions to porn-viewing. In one article, a writer was trying to hype some new video card. When he said that he was "creaming" over it, that was the last straw for me. Grossed me out, especially when I was eating. If I wanted to read that kind of content, I would Google for some dirty web sites. Why do I have to be subjected to some guy's masturbation fantasies just to find out about the new video cards?
I let my subscription run out. I'd been waffling on the issue for a few months, because I really liked the magazine. But it had finally gone too far.
Other readers weren't happy about the magazine's foul direction, either. Some of the complaints sent to the editor were published in the magazine. The editors responded to the complaints in the Letters section. They answered directly, and essentially said: "Yeah, we hear you, but we're not going to change. Screw you." Fine. They lost my business. I meant to send a letter explaining why I was not renewing my subscription, but I never got around to it. I hope they're reading this.
I take that to mean, "As far as the world of Mono/.Net goes, C is dead."
And the directives go in ROBOTS.TXT.