|
| |
Actions Speak Louder Than
Words
World/Nancy Salvato |
January 10, 2006
- In 7th grade Language Arts, the classes have been
receiving instruction in linking verbs and action verbs. Now most of the
kids demonstrated that they understood a verb usually represented action.
When asked to list examples, it was pretty easy for them to come up with
things that could be seen; running, jumping, walking, eating, talking, etc.
However, not nearly as many students came up with action verbs which could
not be seen. I suggested to one of the kids, that he should consider words
that represent feelings, such as to love. Put to him that way, he came up
with words like hate, like, want, pretend, imagine. Perhaps it wasn’t that
hard after all. Some kids decided to argue that you could actually see a
person listen. This was resolved though, when it was agreed that a person
might look like he or she is listening when in fact they could be thinking
about last Saturday night. The bottom line is, unless you can see the
action, you can’t really know what is happening inside another person unless
it is shared.
If 7th graders can understand this concept --in less than 45 minutes I might
add—why are opinions which speculate about and indict people taken seriously
when they’re solely based on conjecture and not actions? Christian
broadcaster Pat Robertson, according to the Associated Press reports,
recently stated without the slightest hesitation that the Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for dividing God's
land. He deduced this because in the bible the prophet Joel "made it clear”
that God directs his enmity against those who would divide Israel. Am I to
accept that since Robertson believes he speaks with authority on God, he
must be able to divine what God is thinking? By this reasoning, Osama Bin
Laden must also have this ability as well, since his leadership is based on
the notion that God commanded al Qaeda and the Taliban to kill Christians
and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and
civilians, including women and children.
It was reported in the Washington Times today that, "The U.S. Naval Academy
has ordered a court-martial for a faculty member who made a "crude" remark
in the presence of female midshipmen.” I don’t know what the remark was but
the lieutenant facing charges for the crime has since apologized and
believed the incident to be over. Little did he know that another lieutenant
on his ship determined his apology to be insincere and filed a report which
resulted in the following charges: failure to obey a lawful general order or
regulation; conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; and indecent
language. Obviously this woman could see inside this man’s mind to determine
that he wasn’t "for real” and that his words couldn’t be taken at face
value. For this he faces court martial.
All too often people only see events through a filter which validates their
own beliefs. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described the Holocaust
as "a myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as decreed by
radical Iranian clerics. From all appearances, Tehran is attempting to make
an atomic bomb, though Tehran denies seeking nuclear weapons and says its
atomic programs are solely for peaceful power generation. Because
Ahmadinejad has revised history to support his own agenda, it would warrant
we be more cognizant of his actions than his words. Most recently Iran
skipped a scheduled meeting with the International Atomic Energy Agency
--set up so it could explain its decision to restart critical operations.
That is troubling.
Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a
"trick," saying Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and withdrawal
was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge Israel. Palestinians believe
the pullout occurred because of the intifada. The official reason is it was
a concession to the Palestinians to help bring peace to Israel. Sharon was
trying to secure Israel’s boundaries while providing the Palestinians the
opportunity to create a state of their own. Regardless of what anyone thinks
of his reasoning, the pullout was made in good faith in the hope that
Palestinian militants would cease their acts of terror against the Jewish
citizens and further negotiations toward a Palestinian state could resume.
Sharon led his party in pursuing this course of action despite evidence that
would indicate the policy would fail. A previous offer of a Palestinian
state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal (brokered by the Clinton
administration) was outright rejected by Arafat (who represented the
Palestinians). Much infighting took place within the Likud party over the
Gaza pullout. Benjamin Netanyahu actually resigned fearing that Gaza would
become a "base of Islamic terror. Natan Sharansky also resigned; his reason
being that any concessions made by Israel must be conditioned on Palestinian
democratic reform. Sharon himself was compelled to leave the Likud and
started a new party, with a more moderate stance toward the Palestinians.
Given the history, is it surprising that Palestinian militants continue to
fire rockets at what it considers to be occupied land? Hamas opposes the
existence of the Jewish state and has carried out dozens of suicide bombing
attacks against Israelis. Mahmoud Abbas has condemned the chaos yet has been
unable to impose order. Israel will not cooperate with upcoming elections if
an armed Hamas is allowed to participate. Abbas fears a forced disarmament
would lead to civil war. Is Israel to believe that the militants will not to
attack Israel and Hamas' involvement in politics will moderate the group?
Meanwhile, the Rafah has been placed under Palestinian control and European
supervision, as part of a U.S.-brokered deal with Israel last month. Is it
any surprise that the crossing was forced to shut down several times during
attacks by gunmen. Israel finds itself threatening to close the crossing in
coordination with European observers if the breach is not repaired.
Personal ideology and bias have no place in making decisions of policy.
Decisions that affect others should be based on facts. If people could truly
divine what another is thinking or whether someone should live or die, then
by that reasoning Clinton and all those preceding him would have been struck
dead when trying to broker a separate Palestinian state. How did the old
saying go…, oh yeah, "Actions speak louder than words”.
Related Reading:
Chaos in Gaza spills into Egypt
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002721210_gaza05.html
Navy prosecutes officer for a 'crude' remark
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060107-122951-3941r
Sharon Warns Against Hamas Participation in Elections
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/6/224525.shtml
Why Gaza pullout matters
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p09s01-coop.html |
|
Nancy Salvato is the President of
Basics Project,
a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational project whose mission is
to promote the education of the American public on the basic elements of
relevant political, legal and social issues important to our country...
[read
more] |
|
Contact Nancy
Archive
|
|
