Essay --

Peace Amongst All Nations Most religions have a leader to provide spiritual guidance and support for their followers. The Catholics have the pope, the Jewish have their head Rabbi, and the Tibetan Buddhists have the Dalai Lama. The current Dalai Lama is the fourteenth in line. He promotes peace and spirituality for his homeland, Tibet, and for the whole world. Born in 1935 as Lhamo Thondup, His Holiness grew up with simple surroundings in a small farming village in Tibet called Takster. His family were average peasants and they worked hard for their small living wage. He grew up with his mother, father, his four brothers, and his two sisters. His mother gave birth to 17 children but only 7 children survived being a toddler. Lhamo, now named Tenzin Gyatso, was chosen as the next Dalai Lama at the age of two, so that once he was of age, he could immediately start his political and religious career. He began training to be a monk at age six. His schooling consisted of five core subjects: logic, Tibetan art and culture, Sanskrit (ancient Indian language), medicine, and Buddhist philos...

Israel-Palestine: Two-State vs One-State Solution

What Does The Future Hold for Israel-Palestine? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be one of the most complex and â€Å"intractable† conflicts of modern history – or as some may even add – of all time. And after many decades of failed attempts at peacemaking in this region, there still seems to be no conceivable end to the conflict.During those same decades, most of the parties involved as well as the international community have embraced the idea of a two-state solution, but the question we pose today asks whether this solution is still a viable option considering the present context, and if not, is it finally time to consider a one-state solution?This essay will argue that although a two-state solution remains the more desirable and popular option, keeping in-line with both nations’ desire for freedom, civic rights, dignity, statehood and nationhood, it may no longer be a possibility in the near future and as time passes. A one-state solution also has its faults however, as it simply fails to address the issue of inevitable future conflicts and retaliation, which would stem from the most problematic symptom of a bi-national state: the reduction of Palestinian-Israelis to second-class citizens within their own country.Finally, the essay will attempt to show that regardless of what the more desirable and feasible option may be, the context today points to a de facto one-state reality, which some argue would ultimately need to be embraced as the only option. There is no solution but the two-state solution? Is a one-state solution feasible today? If it is, how optimal of a solution is it for both populations and state-entities?The answer seems to be negative mainly due to the fact that the Jewish-Israeli populace desires to remain a majority within their own state and similarly because the Jewish-Israeli state depends on a Jewish majority in order to vote-in and implement laws and policies, which are aimed to provide a safe home for the Jewish and not the Arab population as per the Balfour Declaration (1). Uniting all territories under one-same state would shift demographics in such a manner that Jewish-Israelis would become the minority within their own state, and thus they would put in jeopardy the Jewish component of what s now a democratic Jewish state. A one-state solution seems to be a utopian idea when we consider the immense sense of pride and victory the Palestinian and Israeli peoples attach to the concept of having and ruling over their own independent and sovereign state. History has shown time and again that no two entities have ever peacefully agreed and successfully managed to create a multinational state within one-same country, but rather they have favoured separate national states, or a two-state solution.Also, from a psychoanalytical and social approach, it appears almost completely improbable that two peoples, cultures and religions that have participated in such a long-standing in tractable conflict would concede to the creation of only one state, since their motivational and cognitive biases as a result of distinct psychological processes would â€Å"render then unable to recognize as advantageous settlement terms† proposed by the other side (2).This would fully undermine the Palestinians’ fight for liberation and sovereignty and the Israelis’ struggle for existence and independence. Moreover, under one state, the Palestinians would perhaps suffer a reality of segregation and would shift their fight towards one for achieving their civil rights. This could potentially be achieved as it was done in South-Africa. However, it would ultimately lead towards a Jewish minority within the state and that would directly threaten the existence of a Jewish state.One could argue that Israelis would never agree to dismantle the Jewish state by contributing to the formation of an Arab majority within their own territory. Also, the realities in South-Afr ica were quite different from those in Israel-Palestine today. In fact, the struggle was of another nature: the black-Africans and white-Africans both fought for a one-state solution and the domination of that state, whereas the Palestinians and Israelis fight for the creation of their own independent states, therefore a one-state option is neither desired by the Israelis nor the Palestinians (3) (4).Furthermore, the involvement and conflict-resolution approaches of the international community during the South-African ordeal differed greatly from those of today, since Israel has a more complex relationship with the United-States than South-Africa ever did and an international boycott of Israel would ultimately fail as it would be interpreted as a repetition of the Holocaust, which began with the simple slogan â€Å"Don’t buy from the Jews† and which no one in their right mind desires today! 5) So, is a two-state solution a more viable option? One might think that a two -state option is a very remote possibility seeing the constant hostility from the Palestinian side, the crisis and disconnect between Hamas and the official Palestinian Authority, the fragmentation of the West Bank territory into districts due to growing Israeli settlements, and an almost inexistent peace process between the two nations in light of a unilateral Israeli approach to conflict resolution.However, it is also vital to underline that the lack of evidence of a one-state option being the optimal solution to the problem makes the route towards a two-state solution more compelling in comparison. In fact, by opting for a one-state solution and denying the Palestinian people their own independent state where they can freely live with dignity and enjoy full civic rights, Israel and the international community risk causing additional chaos, retaliation and a continuation of the already intractable war between these two nations.On the other hand, the reality we have today points de facto to the existence of a bi-national state, mainly as a result of Israel’s expansionist policies. In fact, living on what was d’antan Philistine are almost eleven million people, almost equally divided, half of whom – the Palestinians – are growing faster in number and will most inevitably become the majority (6). Historic precedents have shown through failed peacemaking processes that this land cannot be successfully partitioned by agreement.This means that the only way to achieve a two-state solution is by military force, which many would agree is not desirable, since it may generate the worst war to date. The greatest fear emanating from the adoption of a one-state solution, and which prompts many to favour the infamous two-state solution, is the creation of an apartheid state and second-class citizens as was the case in South-Africa. However, many fail to remember that only upon agreement to create a democratic bi-national state did South-Africa d issolve its apartheid component (7). This is not to say that an equitably shared i-national state would automatically be created when and if a one-state solution is put into place, but rather that a peaceful coexistence within a bi-national state is a possibility. In fact, one could defend that any attempt to separate the two entities would be impossible, since any territorial split would create displaced Palestinian and Israeli persons and refugees within both states. A two-state solution almost guarantees that having Palestinians and Israelis live under Israeli and Palestinian sovereignly respectively will additionally fuel discontent, retaliation and violent struggle.This would undermine any past attempt to reconcile the two parties and achieve peace, and would render any past accords and treaties useless. Furthermore, ruling two separate geographical entities – Gaza and the West Bank – under the same independent Palestinian state is an impractical and inefficient w ay of organizing institutions and governmental administrations, as it would complicate decision-making and even practical implementation of policies pertaining to resources, energy, security and social issues.For example, how could a Palestinian state survive without access to resources such as water and electricity, when Israel has almost completely taken control of water access in the West Bank and is the greatest supplier of electricity to the Palestinian territories? Also, how will these two geographically separate, yet politically united entities communicate, ensure safety for their citizens travelling through Israel in-between Gaza and the West Bank, organize transport and delivery of goods, services and energy to each part, and how will they reconcile their economies?The answers to most of these questions point towards a reality that would be quite impossible to accept and sustain. In addition, it is safe to say that the problem of a two-state solution runs a lot deeper. For example, the PA is quite weak as it lacks support in Gaza: it is lead by wealthy officials who have no interest in altering the Palestinian reality in the West Bank due to their investments in that region, the economy is unstable in that region, and it depends almost entirely on Israeli and American support and funding.If it became a sovereign state, Palestine’s economy would suffer, as it is greatly linked and depends on both Israel and the international community. From empirical evidence, as is the case with many European countries today and other African and South American countries some years ago, we know that a weak or crumbling economy spells political and social unrest, and therefore a two-state solution would fail to accomplish what a one-state solution may prevent: a failed state and extreme violent uprisings.Moreover, land disputes are an impediment for a clear-cut two-state solution. For example, ten percent of the West Bank would be annexed by Israel (8) as it for ms part of permanent Israeli settlements and land-swaps would occur failing to provide a clear understanding of what would happen to Palestinians living on these â€Å"swapped† territories inside of Israel. For these reasons and more, it is quite unimaginable to even speak of a strong, stable and sovereign Palestinian state at the moment.In sum, neither option seems to be ideal, although on a personal note, I believe that a one-state solution would lead to yet another form of occupation, at least for some years or even generations to come, of lower-class Palestinian-Israelis by Jewish-Israelis as well as to more struggle for land and to more violence, since the Jewish inhabitants of the land evidently enjoy the upper economic and political hand in this conflict. As the South-African example depicts well, the one-state option would lead to an apartheid state for some time at least.Israeli-Jews inevitably would continue to hold onto the economic and socio-political power they e njoy today, which means that Palestinian-Israelis would become second-class citizens who will suffer discrimination in all spheres of life and who may even be compelled by law to participate in that which is the top source of their anguish and hate: the Israeli army. Both sides will forcibly persist in trying to augment their numbers in order to form the standing majority and the foreseeable and very unfortunate event that would unfold is another mid-twentieth century-type civil war.And however complicated a two-state solution may seem, it is an illusion to believe that the Israelis or the Palestinians for that matter would easily give up the idea of having their own independent state. There is no force in this world that could make these two nations give up this aspiration. However, on the other hand, it seems that if the idea of a two-state solution was brought to fruition today it would be a disaster for the Palestinian people, since the content of the solution would inevitably p ut them at a disadvantage in the context of today.In the end, as we can deduce from some of the evidence presented in this essay, one is still left with unanswered questions as well as with new questions pertaining respectively to the best possible option for Israel and Palestine as well as other foreseeable solutions that differ from the one and two-state solutions. References and Works Cited Al-Masri, Hani. â€Å"The Two-State Solution Is Still an Option. † Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 14. 2 (2007): 27-30. Print. ?Avnrey, Uri. â€Å"One State: Solution or Utopia? Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 14. 4 (2007): 7-12. Print. Awad, Samir. â€Å"Http://www. pij. org/details. php? id=1413. † Palestine-Israel Journal: Impact of the Revolutions in the Arab World on the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict AndFuture Prospects. Middle East Publications, 2012. Web. 04 Aug. 2012. . Baskin, Gershon. â€Å"A Choice To Be Made. â €  Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 14. 2 (2007): 94-96. Print. Democracy in America Blog Correspondents. (2011).Palestine Statehood: A Strategic Mistake by Everyone. Available: (http://www. economist. com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/palestine- statehood-0). Last accessed 3rd Aug 2012. ?Dudai, Ron. â€Å"A Model for Dealing with the Past in the Israeli–Palestinian Context. † The International Journal of Transitional Justice 1 (2007): 249-67. Print. Ghanem, As'ad. â€Å"Cooperation Instead of Separation: A One-State Solution to Promote Israeli-Palestinian Peace. † Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 14. 2 (2007): 13-19. Print. ?Hadi, A. B. A. The Balfour Declaration. † The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 164. 1 (1932): 12-21. Print. ?Kelman, Herbert C. â€Å"The Interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian National Identities: The Role of the Other in Existential Confli cts. † Journal of Social Issues 55. 3 (1999): 581-600. Print. ?Lindsay, Talmud. â€Å"Six South-African Lessons. † Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 14. 2 (2007): 96-100. Print. Majdalani, Ahmad. â€Å"The Serious Threats Facing the Palestinian National Project. † Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 14. (2007): 37-43. Print. Plenary, Sixty-sixth General Assembly. UN General Assembly Archives. 23 Sept. 2011. Peace Can Only Come through Negotiations, Responds Israel’s Prime Minister, Offering ‘Straightforward Discussion’. United Nations NHQ, United States of America, New York. Pollak, Joel. â€Å"A Northern Ireland Solution for the West Bank? † Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 14. 2 (2007): 62-68. Print. ?Ruether, Rosemary, â€Å"Invisible Palestinians: Ideology and Reality in Israel†, Christian Century Publishing, (1987), p. 587.

Our Enviorment

The earths population is growing every day. Every second, on average, five children are born somewhere on the earth. This is a growing rate of 10,000 new births per hour, 90 million per year. The world population is currently 5. 8 billion. The current growth rate is 1. 7%, if this continues the population will double in 41 years. The largest populated country is China, and this is by a land sweep. The United States is third in population, India being second. O-zone Depletion is the ozone levels in the stratosphere over the South Pole that are dropping precipitously during September and October every year at the end of the, polar winter. This has been happening since 1960 and maybe earlier just unnoticed. The largest ozone hole was reported in Antarctica in 1997. Approximately 10% of all stratospheric ozone was destroyed in 1997. The loss of ozone is in result of UV reaching the earth in result of one million more skin cancers. The extremely cold winters in Antartica, that cause ice crystals are also a factor in the depletion. Human on Earth release many chlorine-containing molecules into the ozone that are harmful. These things are very persistent and they keep destroying our ozone. Global warming is said to accelerate if the ozone was restored. When one environmental factor is destroyed, another is affected. Burning fossil fuel, agriculture, deforestation, and Industrial processes are all factors in global warming. Many anthropogantic gases cause global warming such as, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Acid Rain is the deposition of wet acidic solution or dry acidic particles from the air. Air pollutants, including mospheric acids that can be transported long distance are all known as acid rain. The air pollutants are said to be affecting the lakes in North America and destroying many forests. Acid Rain also destroys many monuments and buildings. There are many different hazardous things affecting our environment. Many people only look at the murder, deaths, and pollution here on earth that are visible. What people fail to notice is there are many hazards happening to our earth that can not be seen.

Mollie Bentley â€Rowe Essay

To what extent did Russia undergo economic and political reform in the years 1906 – 1914? Russia underwent economic and political reform to a limited extent. Although Peter Stolypin was pushing for reform, he was undermined by the mindsets of peasants and the fundamental law. From the years 1906 – 1914, Peter Stolypin was pushing to de – revolutionise the peasantry and put into place economic reform, and there is evidence of this working. During these years large amounts of agricultural reform were set in motion. In 1906 45.9 million tonnes of agricultural production was produced, by 1913 this had grown significantly to 61.7 million tonnes. The massive change in the amount of product shows that agricultural and therefore economic reform had taken place. Farmers, at this time, had also started paying higher taxes, which is sign of higher income, again strengthening this idea of economic reform occurring. Stolypin, however successful he was in his endeavours, was pushing fiercely for a more independent and de-revolutionised peasantry. During November 1906, huge action was taken to change the way the peasants lived. They were freed from the constraints of commune control and land banks were set up to give money to those peasants who chose to leave. Many were also encouraged to move to Siberia, all of these reforms were starting to lay a foundation for a more independent peasantry. Economic reform was being pursued desperately by members of the government such as Stolypin, this can been seen by the copious amount of law, for example peasants leaving commune control, being put into place. The fact these laws were coming about shows that Russia was undergoing economic reform to some extent during this period, whether it was successful or not. Much like economic reform, during this time frame, the government also showed signs that they were undergoing change. The fundamental law of 1906 shows that political reform was definitely taking place, as it established Russia’s first form of democracy and created the national parliament. The  decisions of the Dumas reveal that there was an extent of change occurring within politics; they made reforms against capital punishment and a reform for famine relief. The third Duma also replaced land captains, created health and accident insurance as well as installing reform to the army and the navy. These polices mean that change was taking place as before 1906 it was barbaric to even suggest the idea of democracy in Russia. These changes show that the political side of Russia was undergoing reform to some extent. As previously stated, there was a clear sign that economic reform was trying to be put into action, but because of peasant attitudes towards these ideas, Russia could only undergo reform to a limited extent. An attempt was made to modernise Russia farming technique from the almost archaic method of strip farming, however only 10% of Russian peasants actually took on board this reform and changed to a new method. The peasants were too stuck in their ways to change which hindered the amount of agricultural and therefore economic reform Russia could go through. Because of the peasants even the ministry of agriculture had started to lose faith in the reforms by 1913. There was also a distinct lack in reform towards the natural side of Russia, with it more going backwards than forwards. For example, strikes from the ministry of trade and industry rose from 24 in 1911 to 2401 in 1914. This coupled with the mass slaughter of gold mine workers in 1912 (Lena Goldfields), highlights that the exact opposite of reform was happening and Russia was receding to events more like bloody Sunday than heading towards a new modernised country. This huge leap backwards means that there was little economic reform taking place and Russia was only undergoing it to a limited extent. Although the Dumas showed signs of reform in political Russia, there was still a heavy autocratic rule on the new democracy, which limited the extent that Russia was allowed to undergo changes. The fundamental law, while being a step forward for political reform, also limited the extent to which it could be taken. It created a parliament compromised of an upper and lower house. The upper house was mainly chosen by the Tsar and consisted of aristocratic tsarist followers; it also had the ability to overrule the democratically elected lower house. This meant that the only laws to be  passed would be in the Tsar’s best interests, severely restricting any reform that might take place. The fundamental law also stated that the Tsar had supreme autocratic power; the law hadn’t changed the positioned of dictator he had held previously. The fundamental law only served as a trick so the middle classes thought they were getting reform. The first Duma lasted 73 days, made 391 requested of which 2 were passed. The difference in the request passed and the requests made shows that very little political reform actually took place. By the 3rd Duma, the voting franchise had been restricted so only the wealthy could vote, this Duma consisted of member the Tsar felt were right, they also had little reform and were know as the ‘Duma lords and lackeys’. A restricted voting franchise erases all the concepts of democracy, which makes it very hard for political reform to take place. It was the fundamental law which gave the Tsar the same autocratic power that he’d had previously that restricted the amount of change that could happen, and meant Russia only underwent political reform to an extremely limited extent. In conclusion, in the years 1906-1914 Russia underwent political and economic reform to a limited extent. This is because peasants refused to change ideas, but there was still some evidence of agricultural produce improving, and while industry went on more frequent strikes, the farmers paying higher taxes shows that there were small changes in Russia’s economy. The fundamental law also became a hindrance to any reform that could take place politically and definitely limited the extent that Russia could undergo reform, however there were still some laws passed and the creation of a national parliament in the first place is a massive change, which meant although it was limited, some reform still happened.

Accounting Module 5 SLP Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Accounting Module 5 SLP - Assignment Example Relevant costs are also called differential costs. If the future costs are going to be incurred regardless of the decision that is made, those costs are not relevant. Sunk costs are never relevant. The repair cost of $26000 is relevant to the decision on hand whether to sell the truck or get it repaired. The sale proceeds offered by repair shop of $10000 is also relevant. The purchase cost of used truck of $ 34000 is relevant to the decision. The amount offered by the insurance company of $30000 would be the same whether Pizzahut gets the truck repaired or disposes the truck and purchases the used truck. Since the amount is same under both the alternatives it is a non-relevant cost. Similarly, the original cost of truck of $50000 is a sunk cost and would be same under both the alternatives and hence it is also a non-relevant cost. The classification of costs into Relevant and non-relevant costs aids in decision making. The cost with respect to the alternative of disposing the truck is $34000 - $10000 which is equal to $24000. Thus, the gain to the company in choosing this alternative is $26000(cost of repair) minus $24000, which is $2000. Thus, the analysis helped the company reach a decision which resulted in a gain of $2000 to the company. 1. Dennis Caplan, Management Accounting: Concepts and Techniques, Retrieved on December 21st 2009, from Oregon State University, College of Business Web Site,

Case Study Chapter 12 How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria

Chapter 12 How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria - Case Study Example Maria is an excellent resource to the school; diversity encourages creativity among other new ideas, which enhances competitiveness of the institution in question. From the case study, we see her taking the initiatives of communicating to the less fortunate girls among other children with different challenges, which seem to affect their life in school. These kinds of the initiative will ultimately boost the performance of the school. Such girls will have the courage to face life challenges as they have a person who guides and motivates them. This idea came from Maria, and it is a clear example of a new idea, which boost competitiveness (Miller 227). Diversity creates an opportunity where an institution creates an effective environment, which meets global standards. In reference to the case study, we see it was through the diversity that they came to uphold the position of Maria in the District School. If they had not taken the initiative of hiring her, they would not have realized the benefits along with hiring women. Such standards enhance the institution’s competitiveness (Miller 227). Tokenism in this case is about challenges facing Maria, yet she does not have the authority to overcome some of these issues. Ideal example is the issue concerning role model. It is ethical for a teacher to be a role model to the students, but this practically possible if the administration is acting as a role model to the minor teachers as well. In this instance, Maria feels challenges because she is doing a lot, but getting little in return of her efforts (Miller 229). The tokenism issues that Maria has to deal with concerns doing a lot and getting little appreciation. They think it is a privilege to offer her the job opportunity, but they do not value the effort in classroom, supportive talks she offers to students and the community service duties. If I were the communication consultant

Fiscal policy and government debt Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Fiscal policy and government debt - Coursework Example Through empirical tests, guided by the above representations, Romer and Romer (2010) conclude that irrespective of the given legislation, significant changes in an economy’s tax policy brings about a dominant motivation that fits into the following categories making up for increases in government expenditure, addressing an inherited government deficit and spurring long-term growth (799). Further, the findings illustrate that tax changes largely influence output. The baseline specification implies that one percent of GDP will lower real GDP by almost three percent. Additionally, changes in taxation are very much related to future changes, further, investments decline significantly following exogenous tax increases. Lastly, the study concluded that tax increases to reduce an inherited budget deficit do not have the large output costs associated with other exogenous tax increases. The observation, which points to the fact that improved welfare results from tax cuts are largely a position confounded by the New Keynesian multipliers which indicate that a tax cut should increase welfare mainly because it frees up private resources for spending. This thought is only countered by the initial Keynesian multipliers which have since been replaced by the more contemporary thought (Tsoukis, 2010). Therefore, it seems safe to base thoughts of tax policy changes on the view represented in this study. The main argument in this regard is that higher taxation acts as a disincentive to individuals and firms to work and invest.