Babeled

July 1, 1776 - the inevitable birth of nation draws near.  Hours of debate ensued on what was a balmy Monday in Philadelphia.  The feverish mood set upon Congress was somber yet the issue was clear; the potential ratification of Richard Henry Lee’s motion to dissolve all allegiance with Great Britain and declare absolute independence from the Crown.  The motion, originally raised a month prior, and seconded by the colossus John Adams had finally run its course.  As a matter of historical fact, on this day the decision was already in effect made.  Nine states were in favor, versus two against (Delaware and South Carolina), with two other colonies abstaining (Pennsylvania and New York).

As it stood there was enough support to carry the vote and initiate the break, however with the wisdom and leadership of John Adams, Congress agreed that a unanimous decision was needed in order to show necessary strength and unity amongst the precocious colonies.  It was certain on this night, that more debate and backroom dealings were needed.

And so it began, the delegates met throughout the night, outside the walls of Congress to reach a working agreement for the final vote that would take place on July 2, 1776.  South Carolina agreed to switch their vote to the positive if Delaware would do the same - the problem here was that two of the three Delaware delegates were at an impasse.  John Dickenson of Pennsylvania (a devout Quaker), who was the most ardent opponent of independence maintained his penchant for peace with England.  Instead of allowing his ideals to be compromised with a public switch before the record, he agreed to not attended the vote thus allowing Pennsylvania to vote in favor of Lee’s motion.  Finally the New York delegation, who had yet to receive orders for separation from their constituents, pledged to be the one abstaining vote.

So, on July 2, 1776 it officially came to pass when in heroic fashion the ailing Caesar Rodney, afflicted with facial cancer rode tirelessly 80 miles throughout violent thunderstorms to break the Delaware deadlock and seal the fate of America.  In a recorded vote of 12-0-1, a snapshot of monumental import took place.  Thirteen fledgling colonies, of various backgrounds and beliefs, asserted themselves as the new era in the new world.  A place were a representative government by the people, for the people would rule the day; honoring the republican values sent down through the annals of history.

As we make our Independence Day preparations, take a simple moment to reflect and honor a seminal moment in the history of western civilization.  A moment in time where the perfect storm of circumstance coalesced in the great crucible of nation building.  I leave you with a excerpt from a letter that John Adams had written to his wife Abigail at the close of July the Second.

The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America.  I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.  It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.  It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, with games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.

It is truly remarkable to hear a principle architect of this nation speak to us now in such a way.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Long gone are the days of the vision quest.

No more do we mark the transitions of life by sending our loved ones unprepared into the wilderness. No more do we get the opportunity to take on a wolf, mano a mano. I’d be down. I’d put that wolf in a headlock till it called me daddy.

But even if I have the opportunity to go on a vision quest, it sadly would be of my own accord. No more are these awesome experiences built in to the fabric of our society. What then is an American left to do when they need to mark a significant moment in their life?

GET F*CKED UP!!!

That’s just the way it is around these parts. When we want to mark stages of our life we drink alcohol. Managing to make it to the bathroom without puking in public is the new quest. And the visions will come if you keep drinking for enough years - its called Delirium Tremens.

Image courtesy of Youthink.

Popularity: 7% [?]

With the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones series set to release this Thursday, there has been much hype and anticipation surrounding the movie. Will it be good? Will it be bad? Well I don’t know, you’ll have to watch it and let me know. However, recently I heard that Indiana Jones could have been inspired by an actual person in history. Furthermore, his name was Hiram Bingham III. So I did a little research and found out that Hiram Bingham was the guy that discovered the Peruvian “Lost City” Machu Picchu.

Hiram Bingham discovered Machu Picchu in 1911 after the city had been entirely forgotten about for years. He authored a best-selling book, the Lost City of the Incas in 1948, chronicling his adventure. After his return to the United States, he attained the rank of Captain in the Connecticut National Guard. He eventually became an aviator and organized the United States Schools of Military Aeronautics, as well as commanded an aviator school in France. When he wasn’t exploring lost cities and flying planes, he was a professor at Harvard University and Yale University. He served as a preceptor at Princeton University under Woodrow Wilson. Bingham was heavily involved in politics and was the elected governor of Connecticut in 1924. His educational resume was most impressive as he received degrees from Harvard, Yale, and University of California (Berkeley).

While Bingham seems like the inspiration for the character Indiana Jones, both Spielberg and Lucas do not confirm that Indiana was inspired by anyone in particular. However, after learning about Hiram Bingham, I am convinced that this guy was the Indiana Jones of the early 20th century.

Image Used in this Post

Machu Picchu image courtesy of Flickr user Michael McDonough published under the CC license.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Most people know who George Washington was and what he accomplished, such as being the 1st President of the United States. Most people also know that he was the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. I’m sure you’ve even heard the tale of chopping down his fathers cherry tree. Although he is known for all of these things, he has never been someone I thought was that great of a President. Until recently . . .

The Legacy of Cinncinnatus

Lucius Quinctius Cinncinnatus lived in the early days of the Roman Republic before there was such a thing as a dictator or emperor singlehandedly ruling. He served as a consul to Rome when the Senate and People of Rome (SPQR) ruled the streets. Before the Caesars and Augustus’ took a hold of Rome, the patricians and plebeians (mobs) were the ruling force and Rome was truly a Republic for the people governed by the Senate. Moving on, Cinncinnatus served as a consul in 460 BC where he was heavily involved in the politics of the day and relentlessly resisted plebeian proposed laws. After serving one year as a consul, he retired from politics and went back to his farm life.

However, the early years of Rome were filled with much violence as wars were a commonplace in the outlying regions around the Tiber River. Rome was at war with the local tribe, the Aequians, and after a major defeat against them at the Alban Hills, the Senate made the decision to appoint a dictator to lead the fledgling Republic to a victory. They appointed Cinncinnatus as dictator of Rome in 459 BC, pulling him out of retired farm life and asked him to lead their armies to defeat the Aequi. Cinncinnatus engineered a double pronged attack, utilizing his infantry and cavalry. Taken aback, the Aequi were defeated and surrendered to Cinncinnatus. After the war was won, Cinncinnatus disbanded his army and resigned as dictator, when he easily could have stayed on as the sole ruling power. Cinncinnatus was appointed dictator once more in 439 BC to put down a plebeian revolt, and once again resigned as dictator. He provides a great legacy in that he realized that the Roman Republic was not meant to be built upon the shoulders of emperors, dictators, or tyrants. He very well could have stayed on as dictator and appointed himself the emperor with the strength of his army and popularity, but he did not.

The Legacy of George Washington

Fast forward to 1776, the Revolutionary War, when the Continental Congress, headed by John Hancock, appointed General George Washington as Commander-in-Chief over the Continental Army. Due to George Washington’s rising popularity with his victories over the Red Coats, he won the respect and admiration of the 13 colonies and was elected as the United States first President, a title he held with much hesitation.

After serving two 4 year terms as President of the United States, George Washington gave up his elected seat and retired to quiet life in Mount Vernon. He very easily could have stayed in the White House as the Commander-in-Chief of the fledgling nation, but he knew that doing so would be counterproductive to the free nation that they had just fought for and won. To me this is the greatest legacy that George Washington left behind, as he could have very easily been the first king or emperor of the U.S. However he opted out of the office, such as Cinncinnatus did, and retired to quiet life. After Washington set the precedent of a two term limit on the presidency, no president broke that precedent until Franklin D. Roosevelt. After Roosevelt’s death, the 22nd Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution that set the traditional 2 term limit to the President’s seat.

Popularity: 12% [?]

This is one humble layman’s arduous journey to understand the overwhelmingly complex political history of the Cradle of Civilization and its surrounding peoples in antiquity. To set the scene, this historical account will cover the geographical area bordered in the north by the Black Sea and the Caucasus Mountains in modern Armenia; to the south by the Persian Gulf and modern Saudi Arabia; to the west by the Mediterranean Sea and modern Turkey; and to the east by modern Iran/Afghanistan border. Click on the picture below to enlarge and view the area circled in red.

I. In the Beginning there was Agriculture

Human settlement and the development of agriculture go hand in hand. Without farming there is no way for a city to rise, no specialization and division of labor, no need for a structured governing body. In the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers humans began to farm lands and subsequently develop cities that covered up to a square kilometer and housed between 10,000 and 20,000 people as far back as the Uruk period (4000 - 3100 BC). Note that there were human cities prior to this period, but not as substantial in population or cultural development. As humans are wont to do, these cities and their peoples expanded outward eventually colliding with each other in both positive and negative ways. Inevitably, one group of people will be victorious; thus, giving positive reinforcement to the expand and take-over behavior. This is how fledgling empires are conceived.

II. An Empire is Born

Mesopotamia gave rise to the first conglomerate human civilization (encompassing more than one city) in what is commonly referred to as the Early Dynastic Periods I, II and III (circa 2900-2350 BC). This civilization was born of the Sumerian people who are believed to have migrated to Mesopotamia from the east, possibly from modern Iran and Afghanistan. Although this span of time is long, it was by no means peaceful or unified. At this time the concept of the city-state still dominated everyday life. The more powerful the city-state, the more likely it was to revolt against the reigning regime and try to hold the seat of power itself. An excellent example of this is the much-coveted city of Babylon, which has been both subservient to several ruling peoples and in a position of authority over other empires in it’s long and distinguished history.

III. Enter the Quagmire

The Akkadian Empire, a Semitic people settled to northwest of Mesopotamia, climbed the ladder of power and eventually were able to overthrow Sumerian rule over Mesopotamia (circa 2350 - 2193 BC). The Akkadian rule did not last long, however, as they were subsequently usurped by the Gutians, a barbarian tribe whose origins are rooted in mystery. The Gutian dynasty was short-lived, under 100 years, but is considered a breed of “dark ages” as there is little written account or knowledge from this period (circa 2193 - 2119 BC).

The Sumerians rise to power again in what is known as the Third Dynasty of Ur, or the Sumerian Renaissance (circa 2119 - 2004 BC). As before, the Sumerians were destined to be invaded for their precious irrigated land and central location for trade routes. The Third Dynasty of Ur’s demise would this time come from a “pronged attack” by the Amorites and the Assyrians.

The Amorites were a nomadic herding people living to the west of Mesopotamia. By definition these nomadic people were constantly looking for grazing land for their herds. As they traveled eastward, the Amorites eventually came into contact with the Sumerians in Mesopotamia. While the Amorites waged no declared war or specific military campaigns against the Ur-III dynasty, their settlements in the Sumerians’ lands were ever-increasing in power and influence. The Amorites even came to power in certain city-states. The Amorites were the first rulers to officially create kingdoms from city-states; and went on to disband forced labor, distributed lands from the rulers to the people and enabled a class of free citizens and merchants.

The other prong to the demise of the Sumerian Renaissance was the Assyrians. The Assyrians are believed to be descendants of the Akkadians, whom if you recall reigned over Mesopotamia some 200 years prior to the downfall of Ur-III. The Assyrians are a section all unto themselves, with a kingdom that lasted nearly 1,500 years.

Honorable mention: The Hurrians were a race of people from the Caucasus mountains area in modern Armenia. This people migrated southward from circa 2500 BC and settled to the west of Mesopotamia. By 1300 BC all of the Hurrian settlements had been assimilated by other peoples in the area. I bring them into the fold to further expound on the seemingly unquenchable thirst for conquest and power inherent to the peoples of the region.

IV. Babylonia

As mentioned above, the Assyrians had an extended reign of power. They, like their alleged ancestors the Akkadians, were a warrior people ruled by solider-kings. When people typically mention the Babylonian Empire, they are referring to the Assyrian Periods and their inclusion of the city-state of Babylon. The famed Hammurabi and his code of laws was an Old Assyrian Period King of Amorite descent. The specific dates of Hammurabi’s rule are highly uncertain, but most historians agree that it was somewhere in the 1700’s BC.

The Kassite dynasty was a group of people from the east of Mesopotamia that conquered the Old Assyrians in Babylon and subsequently ruled the city. As you can see, the family tree of Mesopotamia has many branches. The Kassites would most likely not have been able to conquer the Old Assyrians on their own; however, they capitalized on the opportunity that presented itself in the form of the Hittites. The Hittites were a powerful empire all unto themselves, spanning much of modern Turkey and Syria. Two empires the size of the Hittites’ and the Assyrians’ would inevitably come to conflict given their relative proximity. As it were, the Hittites sacked Babylon in 1595 BC but had no intention of ruling the city. This was the final enabling factor for the Kassites to come to power.

Once in power in Babylon, the Kassite rulers achieved an unheard of period of relative peace, spanning approximately 400 years. Not surprisingly, the Kassites were absorbed into the Babylonian population which consisted of Assyrians, Sumerians and Elamites to name a few. All good things have to come to an end, unfortunately, and so it did for the Kassite dynasty circa 1200 BC at the hands of the Elamites.

The Elamites ruled with varying degrees of control over Babylon for several hundred years (circa 1200 - 770 BC). Not much is known from this period, with widespread violence and resultant chaos from the rival kingdoms of Assyria, Elam, and Hittites who came under Assyrian rule circa 1100 BC. Subsequently, the Neo-Assyrian empire regained control of Mesopotamia from circa 934 to 609 BC, although it was not a cohesive base of power until the rule of Tiglath-Pileser III who ruled from 745 to 727 BC.

V. The Persian Empire

While the term Persian Empire may be a slight misnomer, it signifies that which Westerners identify as the ruling force of this region up until Alexander the Great ushered in the Hellenistic era by conquering the Persians at the decisive Battle of Issus in 333 BC. The better identifying term for this empire is the Achaemenid Empire, which included notorious rulers such as Darius II and Xerxes. Under their rule, the empire expanded and gained power over the entire geographic area covered in this account and then some. Xerxes inability to conquer the Greeks led to a period of cultural development rather than aggressive expansion. There is much to be said of the Achaemenid empire, however politically it held it’s states together and thus was uneventful except for the few minor revolts which were commonplace in this region for the better part of the past 2,500 years.

VI. So It Ends

The journey for this account is over. In an effort not to mislead, the various kingdoms and empires addressed usually coexisted at various geographic points across the region, which is what spawned so much conflict. It was not until the Achaemenid empire and then the Hellenistic era that the area exerted even a semblance of unity. Even then, the conflict continued for the next 2,300 years up until present day. The terms have changed, peoples now fight over subdivisions of Islam and other minority religions rather than ethnic dominance, but the people remain the same. They fight for their lands and their heritage, and given the precedent set by the historical political climate as described above, I see no reason for the area to suddenly pacify themselves and accept each other as brothers and sisters in peace.

Map from Introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Achaemenid_Empire.jpg

Map from Section III: author John D. Croft; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sumer1.jpg

Map from Section IV: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hittite_Empire.png

Map from Section VI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amarnamap.png

Popularity: 19% [?]

1. Farmer from Braintree Massachusetts.
2. Harvard graduate
3. Legal Defense for the British Soldiers of the Boston Massacre - a case Mr. Adams rightfully won.
4. Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.  He was the one who Thomas Jefferson referred to as their “colossus on the floor” and when he spoke he, “moved us in our seats”.  If Jefferson was the author of our independence, Adams was its voice.  Not only did he head the committee that would draft the declaration, he repeatedly laid his reputation and popularity on the line to push congress towards dissolving our allegiance with Britain.  It was Adams who bestowed Jefferson with the task of penning our declaration.
5. Appointed then Colonel George Washington of Virginia, to the post of Commander and Chief of the newly formed Continental Army (which was heavily fought for by Adams to the dismay of Mr. John Dickinson before Congress).
6. Author of Thoughts of Government, which expounded upon the benefits and need of a system of checks and balances which would uphold a strong central government.  A government that would be backed by an honest and just Supreme Court, with an active executive and dutiful legislature.
7. Author of the constitution for the State of Massachusetts.
8. Ambassador to France at the Court of King Louis the XVI.
9. Ambassador to Holland where he insured the necessary bank loans to finance the fledgling republic.
10. Contributor to the negotiations Treaty of Paris, along with John Jay and Benjamin Franklin, which brought an end to the American Revolution and formal creation of a new nation.
11. First U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James in London.  It was Mr. Adams who was the first to speak on behalf of America before his majesty King George III.
12. First Vice President of the United States.
13. Second President of the United States.
14. Appointed Chief Justice John Marshall to the head of the U.S. Supreme Court.
15. Father of the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams.
16. Repeatedly lamented that he should have only been a shoemaker.

Popularity: 10% [?]

We’ve all heard it before. Shouted from on high and backed by the grace of providence, a boast so heavenly it could only be born of our writ of independence - that all men are created equal. This simple yet powerful phrase has been embedded in our very being, ensconced in our personal constitution. All the while, its meaning has been grossly misinterpreted since its purposeful insertion into our Declaration of Independence.

But what did our Founding Fathers really mean?

I am of the opinion that the misinterpretation of the equality of all men is where political correctness had its evil seed sown. It was an interpretable phrase that could be and would be easily manipulated through rhetoric and divisiveness, with its natural meaning felled by history. Nevertheless, since Jefferson’s words are physically documented before us, it is easy for proselytizers of all things P.C. to point and say,

since the founding of this country is based on these fundamental rights, we are all one and the same and everyone is equal. We are all equally capable of accomplishing the same great things, and because I believe it so, (backed by the great Jefferson) I will fight for these rights! There are no differences between you and I!!! …Right?

…Wrong!

As Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams sat mulling over the document (they were members of a committee hand selected by Adams with the approval of the President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, to draft a statement of independence for his majesty King George III) during the 11th hour of our independence, these men envisioned a free nation imbued with equal opportunity for all its people. They intuitively understood that individuals were of unequal talents, ability, and prowess and each expanded on that extensively in their private writings. John Adams postulated the very matter at his desk:

Was there, or will there ever be a nation whose individuals were all equal, in natural and acquired qualities, in virtues, talents, and riches? The answer in all mankind must be in the negative.

However each recognized the singular keystone of this fledgling Republic, was that all men when created ought to be protected and granted equal opportunity to achieve their very desires as a free and independent people. This is the inalienable right to which Thomas Jefferson so eloquently referred.

Now you may be asking the question, “Why was it not written so in the first place?”

An excellent question, and to answer it we must think as brilliant intellects in the context of their situation. First and foremost, with every ounce of their being these gentlemen (see Adams excerpt from Thoughts on Government in the passage below) understood gravely the magnitude of their work.

It has been the will of Heaven that we should be thrown into existence at a period when the greatest philosophers and law-givers of antiquity would have wished to live… a period when a coincidence of circumstances without example has afforded to thirteen colonies at once an opportunity of beginning government anew from the foundation and building as they choose. How few of the human race have ever had an opportunity of choosing a system of government for themselves and their children? How few have ever had anything more of choice in government than in climate?

There was no doubt in their collective mindset that they were creating a crucial document that would anchor the foundation of what would surely take its place as the world’s greatest empire, eclipsing the might of Rome. Their pride was on display as they saw themselves as worthy orators and writers, rivaling the best of Greece and Rome. Surely, Jefferson’s mighty pen would have impressed even Cicero, and these men knew it.

Secondly, and this plays into the first point, the declaration needed to be concise, powerful, and awe inspiring. A document that would be exact in its words and wholly understood by the audience to which it was intended. For the members of Congress, that audience was both well understood and small. It was meant for the King, and it was meant for the military officers of both sides - primarily Washington who was desperate for independence and the full commitment by Congress that it would imply. For the lay, the document was meant to stand as an ethereal creation that had the look and sound of majesty and superiority. This after all was an act of nation building and our fathers knew they had to look and play the part.

The erosion of History

A genius in his own right, Adams had a keen sense that history would not only misunderstand the meaning of equality, but would skew the struggle for independence itself. John Adams was incredibly learned (Harvard scholar), and with his uncanny sense for how truths degrade with history often lamented how he would be wronged by the pen.

My mind has been long fixed to bow to the judgment of the world, who will judge me by my acts and will never take counsel from me as to what the judgment will be.

In later years Jefferson too realized that the spirit of 1776 and the essence of revolution would be widely misunderstood. In a letter responding to Adams inquiry (after their reconciliation) of who would be able to recount the history of the American Revolution? The always reserved Jefferson offered this simple reply, “nobody, except perhaps its external facts.”

This admission by not just men who lived through it, but the men who made this country with their own will is profound when we reflect back with a modern eye. How many times do you remember hearing some blow-hard pundit, or obnoxious neighbor, mention that the founders of this country would be rolling over in their graves? Or the blanket statement that the great fathers of this nation never meant for it to be this way? The facts of the revolution were seldom clear to contemporaries of Adams and Jefferson (”the North and South poles of the American Revolution”), and they were certainly misunderstood by the great minds that immediately followed their leadership. The spirit of revolution was quickly mechanized into a ruthless system driven by people who serve their own needs (see Alexander Hamilton).

If the people, politicians, and historians could not get it right then, we are surely dead wrong now. I suppose the moral here is the same as it should always be. Whenever history in all its glory is reported in a manner that is both cavalier and polished, and sounds too good to be true - it is. All you are hearing is bad history which masquerades as woeful propaganda. It is a bending of truths, in support of half-truths that lend credence to a cause fueled by maniacal motives and political intrigue. It is what we see in the news everyday.

I said political correctness had its start with our nation’s birth because smart people knew they could put even smarter ones up on pedestals. After all you would not dare disagree with the glorious words of Thomas Jefferson would you? Since we are all exactly equal there can be no individual differences. If we were not burdened with revisionist history that statement would read more like this: Just because you are different does not mean your right to opportunity will ever be stripped from you.

Be proud of your differences, as your founders were proud enough to fight for them.

Popularity: 13% [?]

But before I go down, Can I get another chance to make the world a better place?

The world politics and current events forced me to take a look into the past.  A good book and some spring romance gave birth to my peaceful mood.

The First World War began because many sovereign super-powers had to protect their foreign interests, mainly in colonies or other occupied land (rather than their own). In the magnificent new book by Niall Ferguson, a Harvard distinguished history professor, entitled “War of the World”; historical events are given a different perspective. The main idea is that, the 50 years from 1905 to 1955 were actually one global war. These first five decades of the twentieth century were the bloodiest ever; “The Second World War was the greatest man-made catastrophe of all time”. The main conclusion to be drawn is that it could repeat itself, if we would not change our beliefs, thoughts and actions.

Ferguson claimed that although a magnitude increase in average GDP occurred around the world’s nations during the early 20^th century, it was the most violent time, stemming from war and terror inspired by humanity. None predicted this war. From a financial standpoint, even the capital market in late July of 1914 “were caught sleep, in awaken of a global war” according to Ferguson.

Was the war of 1914 a complete surprise? The history tells us that it all geared up into a great conflict, involving many powerful head of states exchanging diplomatic messages about the navigation of armed forces. The Russians threatened the Austrian-Hungary alliance by defending Serbia sovereignty, while the Germans had to interfere because of the Austria-Germany alliance. Meanwhile, France attacked South Germany in it attempt to re-capture Alsace territory. The English had to follow, which meant that the Balkan War of 1914 escalated into global war.

While reading the book, it amazed me how many things are relevant today. I just can’t stop thinking of these same patterns that developed on the international stage, on daily basis. Financially, we are better off, GDP rises in many areas which does not compensate for poor populations in other areas. More then half of the world population earns less then $2 per day. Yet, in those countries defense budget and army spending increases every year.

The West against East conflict is culminating in front of us. Globalization has had a second-round revival, but differences between these two societies are hard to overpass. Conflicts all over the world threaten many lives daily, and similarly to the bloodiest times of the early 20^th century, these conflicts share the same characteristics. Moreover, it holds the risk where it might group together into a one global conflict.

We can’t stop the world, but we can make it abetter place; or try to. Stop the War; Talk.

Popularity: 13% [?]

The following statements and international communication messages and their timing could be a small miscommunication. But it could also be a bad part of the history of our time. These miscommunication practices could simply begin a good start for the next war in the Middle-East.

Friday, 18th April: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz last week in an interview “I know exactly what the Syrians want and I think the Syrians know what the State of Israel and I expect from the peace process.” In an interview for Passover, Olmert also said that ” Whoever threatens Israel would be terribly sorry for the results”.

Saturday, April 19th: Former US president, Mr. Jimmy Carter held discussions in Syria to propose an exchange of soldiers between Hamas and Israel that would lead to the release of Gilad Shalit, an IDF solider who was kidnapped last year. Hamas officials said that, “Shalit won’t see his parents unless Israel returns/withdraws to the 67′ lines”.

Sunday, April 20th: Syrian president, Mr. Bashar Assad, confirmed that he exchanged messages with Israel. According to Syria’s official news agency, SANA, Syria is interested in having a third party explore the possibility of resuming peace talks.

Sunday, April 20^th: According to the Associated Press, Assad echoed these comments Sunday, saying “Israel knows well what is accepted and not accepted by Syria.”

Monday, April 21st: Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said that he will announce his organization’s decision over former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s truce proposals on Sunday. The time frame for this matter was set on Thursday, April 24^th. Meshal also said that Hamas’ Damascus-based leadership was consulting with the organization’s Gaza leadership over the issues that came up in Friday’s meeting.

Monday, April 21st: Assad said to his league members that “Syria will remain a country of resistance to the US, and Israel” (Associated Press).

Monday, April 21st: Assad stated, “Syria is ready for war with Israel”. The Associated Press later declared that in a meeting with his party supporters (Syria’s ruling Baath Party officials) Assad claimed that nevertheless his country is not interested in such war.

Tuesday, April 22nd: IDF Chief Commander claims that movements of the Syrian army are not of a pre-war nature. The possibility for war with Syria remains low.

Tuesday April 22^nd: “Syria rejects secret [direct] talks or contacts with Israel… Anything Syria does in this regard will be announced to the public,” Assad was quoted as saying. (www.haartez.co.il)

Tuesday April 22^nd: King Hussein of Jordan asks US President, Mr. Bush, to delay his arrival to Israel on May (For the country’s 60th celebration) because of the current poor peace efforts and Israel treatment of Abbas’ (The Palestinian) government and situation in Gaza.

Some background for this matter:

Negotiations broke off in 2000 after Syria rejected Israel’s offer to return the Golan Heights, which it captured in the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed. Syria wanted Israel to withdraw to the prewar line on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. But Israel wasn’t prepared to give up any control of the lake that provides about half of the country’s drinking water. This major issue would have to be voted by the public. Former Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Barak, while leading his Labor Party on 2000, announced this plan.

Despite the peace overtures, tensions have been high between the two countries in recent months, largely because of the Israeli air-strike on a Syrian military facility last September which was never confirmed by the Israeli government. The UN investigates the issue, while other foreign reports have said the target was a nuclear installation Syria was building using a North Korean assistance.

Lately, officials in Damascus deny having a nuclear program, and North Korea says it was not involved in any such project. Syria did not retaliate for the attack but filed a complaint within the UN Security Council.

The last clashes between the countries, although indirectly, were in 2006 - the Second Lebanon War. Both Syria and Israel have expressed a willingness to renew talks since Israel’s war against Hezbollah militia. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s current Prime Minister has insisted that if Syria is serious about peace, Damascus must withdraw its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas (While their leader, Mashal, operates freely from Damascus).

The sad thing is that those interested in war are not the country’s leaders (from either side), but rather a minority militant group which opposes any contact with the West. All of the recent tactics and tension fit to those militants strategy and serve their interest. This is just another non-reasonable clash between Israel and its neighbors, when none remember after one hour, why we are fighting.

Conclusion: In such a sensitive, flammable environment, one would expect a more careful choice of words.

With all due respect for Mr. Carter’s job as “Informal Chief-Mediator”, and to Mr. Assad, the Syrian leader who actively contributes to the area’s instability and the poor life of many of the region’s citizens, and to King Hussein, who despite having a significant influence in the Arab World did very little to effect major radical movements and basically, doesn’t put dirt on his hands, I say:

Mr. President, When you say No, What do you mean?

And just for a finale, a joke for Passover:

Q: What is the best known gentleman club in Egypt?

A: The Gaza Strip…

Popularity: 15% [?]

Over the history of mankind, there has been a global war between two ideologies, East versus West. It spans across 3 millennia, from the Trojan War to the Persian Wars to the Crusades to the World Wars. What’s interesting is that in today’s world, this battle is still ongoing and the reasons are similar. Additionally, the War on Terror is not a new war to me, the West, has been fighting this war for thousands of years without any permanent resolution. It is just a continuation of what has always occurred between two extremely different ideologies; I am not just talking about Islam v. Christianity or Americans v. Muslims. I am talking about a difference that is, itself, rooted in ancient times before such notions of religion were even a thought.

Circa 1200 B.C., the first of many wars between the East and West began in the form of the Greeks (Western Civilization) fighting the Trojans (Eastern Civilization). Unfortunately, the only source of this war comes from the story of the Iliad and the Odyssey, told by a blind bard, Homer. This story, which has been orally recited for centuries has been interpreted many times. Due to many factors influencing the validity of these stories, most labeled it as mythology and not as fact. While the telling of the story is still under professional scrutiny, it has been proven that there was an actual city called Troy, which has remnants indicating that a massive war took place 3000 years ago. Nevertheless, this was the first of many wars chronicled between the East and West.

In the 5th century B.C., the Persian Wars symbolized a more monumental battle between the East and West. Had the Persians defeated Athens and the Greeks then Western Civilization, as we know it today, would have ceased to exist. That is to say that the Roman Empire, which has contributed so much to the world of today, would have never existed. Persia, larger, richer, and more motivated, launched 2 massive wars against a smaller, less unified Greece. Needless to say, Greece was heavily outnumbered and did not have the resources that Persia had to fight such a massive war. Greece, which was broken up into independent city-states, at the time, unified under a common banner to defend their way of life, and eventually ours. Against all odds, Greece and her city-states proved to be triumphant against the overwhelming forces of Persia. Another battle between the East and West, yet the West won and her ideologies salvaged for centuries thereafter.

In our more recent history, relatively speaking, the wars between the East and West have been dictated by religion. With the introduction of organized religion in this world, many societies, people, and cultures have been destroyed in the name of God.

The wars between the East and the West got progressively worse over years in the name of God. The Crusades or the Holy Wars, whatever you want to call it, historically began in 1096, when Pope Urban II, declared a war on Islam in the name of God. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire had become unsafe for pilgrims to traverse en route to the Holy Land. The Eastern Emperor was losing control over his territory and needed help defending it against the Seljuk Turks. With the fear of losing land, religious sanctity, and commerce, the Western Emperor had to do what any proud leader would do, fight.

The Islamic community, which rapidly rose in population, between the years of 632 to 1096, became a force to be reckoned with. Known to many as the “warriors religion” they forcefully converted people through war and destruction. (Similar to what the Babylonians did to the Israelites in the 7th century B.C.) Nevertheless, in 1096, the first Holy Crusade began under the banner of the Roman Empire and it was meant to protect her assets from the influx of Islam. The war was propagandized as the war to fight and die in so you could secure you a place in Heaven. Of course, many leaders, kings, religious zealots, and priests jumped on this opportunity to seize the Holy Land. Some jumped on this opportunity for their personal gain, as the East was richer than the West in almost every single facet. Some simply jumped to the cause to kill and plunder.

Over the course of centuries to come, the Crusades continued in the name of God. Between 1096 and 1272 there were a total of 9 official Crusades. There were other minor crusades, such as the Swedish Crusades and the Peoples Crusade. Thousands of people died over the course of the Holy Wars and no resolution ever occurred. Although the Crusades were being fought under the guise of God, the true nature of the Crusades was contorted to fit powerful leaders greedy purposes. Most scholars attribute the end of the Crusades to the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 when the Ottoman Turks finally captured Constantinople and held it. Many scholars also attribute this moment as the final collapse of the Roman Empire.

However, the tradition and ideologies of the Roman Empire never ceased to exist. These factors were instilled and preserved in Western Europe, in places like England, France, Germany, and Spain. The Empire never died, it had just taken on a ‘new look’; no longer was it necessary to be the biggest and baddest. Instead of having one massive state to govern all, now many countries shared the same ideologies and religious beliefs as it used to under the Roman Empire banner. With the European discovery of the “New World” in 1492 came colonization and the transferring of these ideologies.

With the colonization of the “New World”, the eastern problems were temporarily forgotten about and Western Europe was consumed with an entire new hemisphere. Converting people from all areas in the Western Hemisphere was more important to the Western European countries than to continue waging a war that had continually given them heartache. No longer was is it imperative to war with the Turks or the remnants of the Eastern Empire, at least not until 1914. Although empires have fallen over the course of history, their ideals have not and the battle between East and West has continued throughout the 20th century under these same influences.

After the Ottoman Empire was broken up following the first World War, there was no great Empire left in the world and after WWII, the U.S. stepped in, along with the U.S.S.R., as the next Superpower or Empire, whatever you want to call it. The U.S. fought the ‘Sphere of Influence’ in Vietnam, Cuba, and Korea over not religion, but socialism. The U.S. dominated a large portion of this movement and eventually solidified itself as a capitalistic superpower. Although the Cold War was not fought over religion, it was fought over power and influence, with both countries vying to fill in the void left by its predecessors. The result was the same as any war before, just without the negative religious connotation.

The world could not even go 100 years before the next attack on religions began once again. In 2001, Islamic fundamentalists attacked the U.S. and the people inside simply because they hated Americans. Why? Because we are from the West. Naturally, the U.S. rallied the troops following the 9-11 attack, greater than that of Pearl Harbor, and proceeded to declare war on various countries and invoked personal vendettas for every single one of their enemies. There is this cliché that history repeats itself, such as a patterned quilt does. That no matter what the times might dictate or what events might seem impact full, the same theme occurs again and again. Naturally the theme I refer to is the war between the Eastern and Western religions, predominately Christianity and Islam, but not solely. In regards to what the true definition of culture is, these two hemispheres have not seen eye to eye in any recorded history. Not having stopped their constant war faring ways over the centuries from the Trojan War through today, this war is truly endless.

Unfortunately, the “War on Terror” began in more recent history and is still being fought. Maybe it’s just me, but declaring a “war on terrorism” seems like the most noble, but dumbest thing I have ever been witness to. Terrorism is not a country nor an empire nor any entity that can be stopped. It is an ideology that you can’t see or touch or contain. It will probably exist thousands of years after we colonize the Moon. I find it funny that the title of this current administrations “The War on Terror” is a committal of the nonsensical never ending battle between East and West.

For some reason light years above my head the East and West have been engaged in constant warfare since the beginning of recorded history, yes I include the Iliad and Odyssey in that summation. This war that has lasted for millenia between the same opponents has shifted the scope of differences, such as religion, really has occurred due to different ideologies of what is right and wrong. As if they were two brother bore from the same source and haven’t stopped fighting amongst themselves; and yes I am referring to the mythology of Cain and Abel.

Popularity: 10% [?]