What you say makes sense.
But I think it's not a question of the 'right to exist' of either nation anymore. It's a question of whether we, if we call ourselves a civilized species, should allow "might is right" to be an acceptable way of running our civilization.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Palestine
By March 1949, a classified CIA report declared Palestine was a 'Long Range Disaster'. The Agency report read in part:
'The establishment of the State of Israel by force, with intimidation of the Arab governments by the US and USSR, with the cutting off of the British arms and ammunition (the Arabs only source of supply), with ample sources for Israel of munitions and finance, the Israeli battle victory is complete, but it has solved nothing.
If boundaries to an Israeli State, any boundaries, had been set and guaranteed by the Great Powers, peace might return to the area. On the contrary, we have actually a victorious state which is limited to no frontiers and which is determined that no narrow limits shall be set. The Near East is faced with the almost certain prospect of a profound and growing disturbance by Israel which may last for decades...
Also from the same article:
Palestine's land surface was approximately 26,320,505 dunums (26,320 km2), of which about one third was cultivable. By comparison, the size of modern day Israel (as of 2006) is 20,770,000 dunums (20,770 km2) (Geography of Israel). The land in Jewish possession had risen from 456,000 dunums (456 km2) in 1920 to 1,393,000 dunums (1,393 km2) in 1945[72] and 1,850,000 dunums (1,850 km2) by 1947 (Avneri p. 224).[73]
The history of Palestine is not as simple and one-sided as you present here with such convenience. Without knowing the correct and complete history of the religious, geographic, and political aspects of the conflict, a proper understanding and debate of the current situation is impossible.
I recommend everyone to read the article I quoted from, along with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine
I disagree. For several reasons.
The first thing a beginner needs to learn is the concept of an algorithm: that it is possible to order the computer to do something, step-by-step. They need to start with the basics of program flow and control. Pointers and classes are way too advanced concepts.
The second thing that is important is interactivity. For a beginner, the best reward is to be able to see the results of their coding. Trial and error is very important. Interpreted languages are good at this. Colors, shapes, sounds, and movement are very important to grab and hold a child's attention. That's why I think QBASIC is good for this purpose. Once the child is hooked, they can be given other languages to play with. I would suggest Python (for algorithms) and Visual Basic (for GUI development).
In my opinion, concepts like memory management and OOP should be introduced only once a genuine interest in programming has been established and demonstrated.
Unless it blocks all ads save for the ones from Google.
Since I find Google ads less obnoxious, I can live with that.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn
