Actions Speak Louder Than Words
By Nancy Salvato (01/08/06)
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”.
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
Copyright © Nancy Salvato 2006
(Printer friendly version) Email: Nancy Salvato
