United For Israel Essay Example for Free

United For Israel Essay Unity of Israel is needed today more than ever. All the inhabitants of Israel should come together at this moment and show solidarity in the wake of the external problems that are posed to this holy nation. Zionism as described in the holy books used by Christians and Jews has to be fulfilled. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1947 after the dreaded Holocaust was the initial stage in the fulfillment of the prophetic Zion. The Holocaust carried out by the Nazi was a traumatic experience to the Jews and the Christians alike. Israel at the moment is faced by numerous threats from the enemies who have surrounded it. Unity in Israel is a necessity for us to face the impending danger that can be associated to the Holocaust during the Second World War (Merkley, para 1). Following the decision by the United Nations to establish a Jewish State in November of 1947, the world generally agreed that justice had been done to the Jewish people. Thus diligent friends of the Zion agreed that the creation of Israel as a just move was relative one. At the same time, the continued occupation of various territories by Israel at present can be defended in terms of justice with some claiming that some people have suffered injustices due to the Israel occupation. The historical relationship between the churches and Israel has been influenced by their 1948-49 Israel’s Independence war whereby most church leaders had to rework the moral arithmetic finding ‘justice’ in the claims advanced by the Arab Palestinians and little ‘justice’ in the Israel’s position on the matter (Merkley, para 3). However, conservative Christians have remained consistent in supporting the claims advanced by Israel. This has been driven by the notion that Christina Zionists have prioritized the case for the Restoration of the Jews as ordained by the scriptures and therefore resisting any such activities amounted to sinning (Merkley, para 6). In the current world, the World Council of Churches remains to be among the most formidable organizations that reprimand the activities of Israel in the Middle East. Christian Zionists in Israel and around the world should not be swayed by this rhetoric and support the course taken by Israel. This letter was meant to convince the Christians to come and join the ranks of the Zionists spearheaded by the Jews. This is not in the best interest of the Jewish state alone but must be looked at in terms of that tiny piece of land is the battleground for the survival of Jews and Christians alike and for the one God who bestowed that land to the Jewish people as the fountain from which would flow the morality, the willingness to fight the forces of evil in the name of that one God (Weisman, para 5). The Zionist movement is faced with various threats and these forces of evils shall rule by the sword if left unchecked. Christians need to join in the battle for the security of Israel which also expands to include the security of Christianity itself. It must be noted that if left unchecked, the evil forces shall destroy the Jewish people and the Christians will also be destroyed (Weisman, para 5). The alliance between the Christians and the Jews is not something to negotiate about now as there is no time for the negotiations. Zionists and those supporting the movement must unite to defeat the anti-Zionist tendencies that are witnessed in the world today. Israel is the epicenter of all this and that collaboration between the Christians and Jews is a necessity. Surrounded by enemies from virtually all directions, the Zion state faces eminent threat from its adversaries (Weisman, para 5). I appreciate the differences that have existed between the Jews and the Christians but this should not be our weakness in this crucial moment. Our perception about the messiah and his second coming must not be the wedge to separate us. I know that Fundamental Christians talk of the Jewish conversion before the Second Coming of Messiah. I know that they hold the belief that those Jews who would have not been converted before the end of the world would perish in a Holocaust during the Battle of Armageddon (Robinson, para 16). These views should not divide us as we believe in the same God and we have to defend the prophetic Zion as inscribed in our Holy Scriptures. Conclusion: I conclude this letter to my friends, the Christians with a call to unite. We have a task at hand that calls us to come out in defense of God’s promise. Unity at this moment in time is more important than ever, and we shall be judged harshly by history if we let this moment pass and our divisions cost us the right to fulfill what the scriptures had prophesized. Zionism has come to pass and right now we are on track towards this fulfillment. There are various challenges as of now but this generation of Jews and Christians have to come together to accomplish what was started after the end of the Second World war through the creation of the Jewish State. Work Cited: Merkley, Paul, C. Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel: A Birds-Eye View. 2003. Retrieved on 24th July 2010 from; http://christianactionforisrael. org/attitudes. html Robinson, B. A. Christian Zionism: Christian Support For The State Of Israel: The Politics And Theology Of Armageddon. Retrieved on 24th July 2010 from; http://www. religioustolerance. org/chr_isra. htm. Weisman, Inez. Christians and Jews in Common Cause. 2010. Retrieved on 24th July 2010 from; http://christianactionforisrael. org/commoncause. html

The way it goes :: essays research papers

In 1940, George Santayana looked back on his forty years in America, and remarked morbidly: "If I had been free to choose, I should not have lived there, or been educated there, or taught philosophy there or anywhere else."1 He had come to Harvard in 1882 when it was in the middle of its most dynamic transformation; he succeeded both academically and socially as an undergraduate, and, in the company of William James and Josiah Royce, he became one of the most prominent and well-recognized participants in perhaps the greatest department of philosophy that ever existed. Yet Santayana found something horribly wrong with the changing University. He worried that the mass movement towards practicality and specialization, which he equated with President Charles William Eliot's attempts to make Harvard a nationally-recognized institution, was draining the university of the aestheticism and humanism that had made higher education worth pursuing. He saw in Harvard's atmosphere of excessive materialism and utilitarianism an ailment of American society as a whole, an ugly new trend that had separated the national "will" from imagination, and rendered the intellect irrelevant. Unlike most other critics of the new university, the academic and cultural environment was so intolerable to Santayana that he decided to escape it altogether. He left for Europe in 1912, and although he would continue to write about America until his death in 1952, not once did he return. Academia is still not at rest. The public's widespread admiration for higher education once prevalent in the postwar era has begun to reverse itself, and between harsh budget cuts on the one hand and Alan Bloom's vicious denunciation of the university on the other, the future of higher learning in America may look as bleak to the prospective graduate student as it ever has in recent history. Crisis, however, is nothing new to the American university, and Bloom is not the first to warn of the "collapse of the entire American educational structure,"2 which, at last observation, was still standing. The very revolution in education that gave the university its modern, recognizable form found itself confronting similar forecasts of gloom and doom at the turn of the century. Along with the adoption of the free elective system and specialization of knowledge that came to be the staples of higher learning there emerged a small but vocal force determined to curtail the excesses of utilitarianism and abstract research. Known as the "advocates of liberal culture," these men reacted to an institution they believed had lost its sense of purpose, and their opposition, like today's, was testament to the growing and deeply felt fragmentation of the university. The way it goes :: essays research papers In 1940, George Santayana looked back on his forty years in America, and remarked morbidly: "If I had been free to choose, I should not have lived there, or been educated there, or taught philosophy there or anywhere else."1 He had come to Harvard in 1882 when it was in the middle of its most dynamic transformation; he succeeded both academically and socially as an undergraduate, and, in the company of William James and Josiah Royce, he became one of the most prominent and well-recognized participants in perhaps the greatest department of philosophy that ever existed. Yet Santayana found something horribly wrong with the changing University. He worried that the mass movement towards practicality and specialization, which he equated with President Charles William Eliot's attempts to make Harvard a nationally-recognized institution, was draining the university of the aestheticism and humanism that had made higher education worth pursuing. He saw in Harvard's atmosphere of excessive materialism and utilitarianism an ailment of American society as a whole, an ugly new trend that had separated the national "will" from imagination, and rendered the intellect irrelevant. Unlike most other critics of the new university, the academic and cultural environment was so intolerable to Santayana that he decided to escape it altogether. He left for Europe in 1912, and although he would continue to write about America until his death in 1952, not once did he return. Academia is still not at rest. The public's widespread admiration for higher education once prevalent in the postwar era has begun to reverse itself, and between harsh budget cuts on the one hand and Alan Bloom's vicious denunciation of the university on the other, the future of higher learning in America may look as bleak to the prospective graduate student as it ever has in recent history. Crisis, however, is nothing new to the American university, and Bloom is not the first to warn of the "collapse of the entire American educational structure,"2 which, at last observation, was still standing. The very revolution in education that gave the university its modern, recognizable form found itself confronting similar forecasts of gloom and doom at the turn of the century. Along with the adoption of the free elective system and specialization of knowledge that came to be the staples of higher learning there emerged a small but vocal force determined to curtail the excesses of utilitarianism and abstract research. Known as the "advocates of liberal culture," these men reacted to an institution they believed had lost its sense of purpose, and their opposition, like today's, was testament to the growing and deeply felt fragmentation of the university.

Capturing the Audience

â€Å"Rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument, When honour’s at the stake. How stand I then† (4,4,52-55). This is part of one of Hamlets great soliloquys from act 4. This soliloquy hits on several points like greatness, honour and how to live your life. These are to things are subjects that have interested the human mind for thousands of years. This soliloquy speaks to these desires in different ways and is able to relate to our inner desires. In this essay, it will be explained how this soliloquy and the themes that are featured in it effect the audience. The first way it speaks to the audience, particularly the Elizabethan audience of the time by, is by Shakespeare creating a hero that would do anything to protect their honour. Honour has always been part of a man. Looking at history it has pooped up over and over again. Honour is being true to a set of personal ideals, or being a man of integrity. ` The imminent death of twenty thousand men/ That for a fantasy and trick of fame/ Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot/ Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,/Which is not tomb enough and continent/to hide the slain? (4,4,59-64) In the soliloquy, Hamlet gives the most fundamental idea of honour protect it no matter what. No matter what the fight is over, you have to stand up for yourself or you are not a â€Å"manâ€Å". Hamlet is looking at Norway’s army with great respect. They are gaining nothing by c onquering Poland, yet they are still going after it to protect their honour. They aren’t backing down from the fight. Shakespeare knew that honour has always been a big part of human life and something greatly respected, especially to the nobles of his time (Shakespeare’s main audience), and made sure to really hit on that really important moral that the audience was able to relate too. Greatness is something that we look for since the beginning. As young children, we look at our parents as the definition of great. As we get older, we start to see all of our parent’s faults but the idea of greatness s already set in our minds and is something that we will always want to achieve. In The soliloquy greatness is closely associated with honour. A good example of how Hamlet sees greatness is the quote was used at the beginning on the essay: â€Å"Rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument, When honour’s at the stake. How stand I then† (4,4,52-55). Hamlet sees greatness has someone who will always defends their honou r. He is very jealous of young Fortinbras for being a great man who is always defending. This speaks to the audience because again, not only is honour again speaking to the audience but also with our desire to be great. The audience can relate to Hamlet. Most people look at someone with envy wishing they could be great like them. Shakespeare used these feelings of envy and wish for greatness to be able to relate to the play. The last point that Shakespeare hits on is living in the moment. Hamlet biggest flaw in the play is his tendency to ever think everything (e. g. When Claudius is praying and Hamlet comes up with several reasons not to kill him. . The biggest thing that Hamlet realizes in his soliloquy is that flaw. â€Å"Of thinking too precisely on th' event— /A thought which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom And ever three parts coward—I do not know/ Why yet I live to say â€Å"This thing’s to do,† Sith I have cause and will and strength and means/ To do ’† (4,4,40-45) Hamlet realizes what he has done throughout the play and is now regretting the decision he has made. He wishes that he had been brave enough to kill Claudius right away rather than hide behind his thoughts. Audience can relate to this now more than ever. Just take a look at today’s society, many things are about planning and the future but a lot of other things are the exact opposite. Many people are starting to live with the idea that you need to start doing things on a wimp rather than thinking over things and planning them out. People want to live their life to the fullest (e. g YOLO). The people of Shakespeare’s time were renaissance men. They most likely had these thoughts of making their life worthwhile. It is in human nature to want to feel as though our lives have meaning. Although Hamlet is not talking about that exact subject, many of the principles are the same. This speaks to the inner desires of the human mind, capturing the audience’s attention. In conclusion, Hamlets soliloquy captures the targets audience’s attention by using elements that have naturally always captures the human mind attention like greatness, a meaningful life and honour. Shakespeare manages to use all of them to capture the audience’s attention and help them relate to the play.

The Woman Suffrage Parades of 1910 and 1913 by J. L. Borda

The journals review signifies the perception through an author’s concentration being on specific scope in regards to the women’s suffrage. The collection of information led to an enhanced understanding of the subject matter. Therefore, the perspective author’s analyzing topics varying in methods used by women for political recognition, the feminist movement impact, challenges faced within the campaign, and the history of the national and social movements in the global battle for women suffragists. However, some of the author’s did not provide a direct link of their articles to other information from other works of literature though they all have significant contributions to the topic. The woman suffrage parades of 1910–1913: Possibilities†¦show more content†¦1). Therefore, the woman’s right activists aired their philosophies targeting different entertainment events and art activities. As such, the entertainment market showed a value in success primarily because the entertainment events attracted many people and the women’s right activists provided the audience. Nonetheless, â€Å"the use of drama and other forms of entertainment ultimately changed the public’s assessment on the rights of women† (Dassori, 2005, p. 1-13). The article portrays the impact of drama entertainment in attracting audiences from the political leaders, leading to the modification of rules to include women. The article is unique due to the concentration of a specific topic (drama) and its effects on the battle for women’s political recognition, whereas, the other authors provide a generalized perception of the women’s suffrage (Dassori, 2005, p. 4). Therefore, Dassori depicts drama as the main catalyst for seeking an audience; while the other author’s claims that, the annual parades were the chief resource for seeking an audience. However, Dassori justifies her claim by providing specific events as the parlor games to display how a large mass of individuals can be brought to attention. To clearly clarify the issue, the author should have compared and contrasted the main activities, provided an audience, and present justification as to why drama and sporting events effect contributed heavily to providing