Israel civ

[Dauphin]

XarXo, are you really 12 years old (as per your profile)?

[XarXo]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Quote:

The problem is that you mix two things, one is the amount of nouns, adjectives, numbers and other symbols and symbol codes that we use to represent the world. The other is the reality itself. The idea is that this amount represent the reality just because a lot of people say "red" when watch blood.

When I refer to science I am refering to idea such as Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics or etc. In such a system the words or symbols used are irrelevant - it is the underlying principle they represent that are important. Newton's apple could have been green, red or even bright pink - science would predict they fall in the same manner.

It is very relevant, imagine than more than a "fall" we see in the apple a mysterious movement of aproximation, or better, a repelation from the tree.

In a parallel situation, we can see Netwon imagining that trees have special forces and all the science could be oriented in lifeforms like trees. The gravity discovery probably could be hided and included in a more complex or simply different formula.

The system to understand and express the formula is related to some concepts that are in our mind and expressed in languages.

More than the formula, is how to interprete it.

Remember that numbers are also a system to interprete magnitudes, is not exactly the reality too!! Science is a system that combines all this things and establish a basic principle of verification of each possibility to establish a logical equivalence.

This system is expanded with statistics and probabilities in quantum levels. In a near future, using more precise machine we'll be able to see lower levels of matter, but there's a phisical border. For trapass it we use imagination (and induction) and posteriorly we try to verufy it logically.

At the end, the great thing of science is to construct theories that have a great success %. But this isn't at all "faith", is more like Murphy's Theories!

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Quote:

The reality is equal in atomic stage (easily classifiable) beacuse we see a universe pattern that contains a lot of emptyness, when more empty is something, more easily could be interpreted (but only itself, no the complex that it forms, like a large mollecule). The emptyness is (probably) the distance where matter can't exist in the form of the thing that we are looking, so, the emptyness between two atoms is just the area where matter/time can't put another atom. This is very important, it guides us to a reticular (infinitely huge, but...) strucure for see and classify the universe.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

Why 1 is different of 2? Just because there's an emptyness of integers between the 1 and the 2 that when became 1 integer separation it allows to transforms into 2.

The great thing with atoms and quantum theories is the possibility of see like numbers a complex structure like the matter.

This is the reticular classification that allows the presene an important emptyness between some elements.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Quote:

The most important thing in the world actually is the Periodic Table and particule classification. This is the base for undersant the universe

The periodic table is not the most important thing. Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity are the two cornerstones of science today. The periodic table is a classification of emergents from QFT

Quote:

But not only phisical, all the sciences discovered new words for explain waht they see. Also, the creation of machines opened our mind to new thing like lights that we don't see (but other animals yes), sounds, effects, sensations, etc... All this expanded our languages (and this is why languages are so important for me ) and with the differents interpretatuions of each language give us a total vision that surely matches an important % of the universe. With the Internet we can join all the knowledge and obtain the major ideas.

Semantics are not the realm of science. Why do you claim them to be? You can call things whatever you like - scientific theories/principles won't change because of them.

Of course them change, read above. Remember that before the science we had the language. Actually there's a discussion about if we should have TRUE, FALSE or TRUE, FALSE and NULL concepts. The second is for including the time idea of not exist yet, very good for quantum theories.

Sorry, all is semantics

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Quote:

See the geocentric/heliocentric (actually gravicinecticocentric) controversial in the XVI-XVII-XVIII centuries, is a perfect example of the science problem with the "faiths".

Geo-centricity and helio-centricity are both valid ways of viewing the universe. Its all about frames of reference - it just so happens that the former is far harder to work with than the latter when dealing with planetary motion.

Conversely when calculating where to fire artillery shells it is far easier to assume the globe is not rotating and there is a Coriolis force. You are not wrong to assume this.

Quote:

Remember that faith is believe in something that can't be proved

But it can be disprooved.

Newtonian mechanics has been disproven. Therefore people who used it when they believed it to be fundamental were doing so on faith.

Newtonian mechanics hasn't been disproven, they now are only expanded and some things has been removed. Laws are a lot like Windows, they evolve (well, Windows is always worse... ) in new thing but look a lot like the older.

PS: No, I'm not 12, I'm 13 .

[XarXo]

This is total OUT OF TOPIC!! I'm sorry!!

Returning to the original theme:

I think that souldn't be an Israel Civ (read my past post to understand why).

[Dauphin]

I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree with your view of science. Especially these two points.

Remember that numbers are also a system to interprete magnitudes, is not exactly the reality too

Actually numbers are not interpretations if they are made to be dimensionless.

More than the formula, is how to interprete it.

I disagree with that. Formulae are the fundamentals of prediction. How we choose to comprehend them is a matter of preference, and not a matter for science - assuming they give the same answer.

For someone of 13 you have some interesting ideas, but they don't bear much resemblance to the science I studied at university. Your ideas are similar to an arts student trying to comprehend science.

[XarXo]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree with your view of science. Especially these two points.

Quote:

Remember that numbers are also a system to interprete magnitudes, is not exactly the reality too

Actually numbers are not interpretations if they are made to be dimensionless.

When a number is dimensionless (without Kg/s for example) is dimensional in logical vectors, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D (x,y,z,t...) ... Sometimes in a function you obtain no-number values, like a pro-infinite (the true value, there's no easy system to reach the false, except in some complex numbers systems, like the infamuous i = -1 ^ 1/2 and similar). They are interpretation of logical processes like:

1 + 1 = (NonZero => 1) = TRUE \/ TRUE = TRUE
1 + 0 = 1 = TRUE \/ FALSE = TRUE

/\ = *
\/ = +
|| = ^ (basical equality, the negative version of the Not)

When you divide a NonZero value in minor values all what you create is a scalation, the same if they are decimals, reals/complex, negative, etc...

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Sagacious

Quote:

More than the formula, is how to interprete it.

I disagree with that. Formulae are the fundamentals of prediction. How we choose to comprehend them is a matter of preference, and not a matter for science - assuming they give the same answer.

For someone of 13 you have some interesting ideas, but they don't bear much resemblance to the science I studied at university. Your ideas are similar to an arts student trying to comprehend science.

E = m*c^2 is quite similar to F = m2a yes? This is "interpretation", look in science some interpretations have been proved like the relation og magnetic field and electric charge, also, a lot of formulaes could be joined for obatin a big one. The system of relation between each one is based in some ideas like "mass", "force", "energy" and similar. These ideas usually have strange results like the the relation of the maximum possible speed of a particle (in the past, attribued to the light) with the energy, but the true concern is the "time pulsation", the minimum amount of time needed to move something (and the light is very close). And this vision is more near to energy, but the semantic tht we use is quite confuse.

The relation of these thing make us to change the names of some thing that are described in the formulas, sometimes precise machines show irregularities like in the Newton theories, and a constant could appear to solve it.

Posteriorly, these constants become the result of formulaes that are very difficult to change their result, and without the changes we can't discover what originate them (we can see that they aren't constant).
For example, Pi is the (maybe maybe maybe) result of a formulae generated by the infinitization (almost for us) of a particle to adjust it in an angle.

What is at the end? I don't know, but I can assure that Science is more semantic about it seems. All is interpretation!

[Dauphin]

I can assure that Science is more semantic about it seems. All is interpretation!

You are arguing that scientific theories are interpretations. They are not. "Approximations" would be a far better word for what you are stating. Basically, I don't think what you are discussing is semantics or interpretations. If it was, you are advocating the laws of nature change because you rephrase a statement. That is absurd.

For example, changing from Newton to Einstein is more than a semantic issue, and more than a change in interpretation. Interpretation assumes the known facts do not change. Yet it was a change in the known facts that led to the new theory.

The discussion issue originates from your statement that science is not a faith. Well if you argue that scientific "interpretations" (what I would call "approximations") are continually changing how can you ever have faith in a particular interpretation if you know that it will almost certainly not hold in future?

[XarXo]

I'm not english speaker, but interpretation is for me the same of aproximation. I'm not speaking about an unrealistic interpretation, but an hiperrealistic yes.

Newton to Einstein? Newton is a part of Einstein! Is just the part where the observer is in the same Space/Time continual, an omniscient observation. In Einstein he only says something important: We can't be omniscients in something where we are.

No faith, the TRUTH is based in the logical process (it semantically defines the truth), the problem is with the amount of knowledge that we have to apply it and the grade of aproximation of the formulaes that we obtain.

And now, return to Israel!

----------------

What about of including minor nationalities in Civ III ? Hebrews, Gypsyes, Arabians and others. Some of them have a "big" civ, some are a part of a bigger civ.

This could be amaizing when we destroy a civ, it could make a revolution and reappear!!

[gsmoove23]

I'm afraid my eyes just glazed over reading this page. Too much for me. I like to leave these questions for other people and simply put faith in the conclusions they come to.

[Dauphin]

Yeah.. err.... sorry about the threadjack.

We now return to our regular programme.

[One_Brow]

Sorry, the threadjack is not quite over yet...

Sagacious Dolphin wrote, "For example, changing from Newton to Einstein is more than a semantic issue, and more than a change in interpretation. Interpretation assumes the known facts do not change. Yet it was a change in the known facts that led to the new theory." and "Newtonian mechanics has been disproven."

I must disagree here. Newtonian mechanics are as valid today as they were in the time of Newton. What was disproven was the extension of Newtonian mechanics to a degree of error beyond a certain threshold, or to conditions which had not been tested. Below one-hundreth of the speed of light and within sixteen or so significant digits, Newtonian theory is every bit as accurate as quantum mechanics.

XarXo wrote: "When a number is dimensionless (without Kg/s for example) is dimensional in logical vectors, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D (x,y,z,t...) ... "

I am assuming you mean that numbers used as adjectives have "dimensions" (3 kilograms, 2 feet), while numbers used as nouns are "dimensionless". If so, I must disagree with what you wrote. "Dimensionless" numbers constitue what is known as a "formal system", which is a fancy way of saying they are an abstract model. They are created in a very systemic fashion, in which assumptions are made about how they should behave (called axioms) and definitions are assembled about how they interact in groups. However, "dimensionless" numbers have no inherent reality. We can apply the model to the objectively measurable world to determine its degree of correspondance to the behavior of said world, but we can also alter the model at whim (potentially enhancing or reducing the degree or correspondance).

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by One_Brow
I must disagree here. Newtonian mechanics are as valid today as they were in the time of Newton. What was disproven was the extension of Newtonian mechanics to a degree of error beyond a certain threshold, or to conditions which had not been tested. Below one-hundreth of the speed of light and within sixteen or so significant digits,

I never said otherwise.

I said it was disproven as a fundamental concept - absolute space and time are disproven concepts. Still the classical mechanics are extremely good approximation, but not "correct".

Newtonian theory is every bit as accurate as quantum mechanics.

For everyday purposes that can be argued, but try applying that logic to CD players. Trying to use Newtonian theory on the workings of a CD player will render them inoperable.

[One_Brow]

"Absolute space and time" is a model of reality, which is insufficiently correspondant under certain conditions. It can't be proven or disprove. "Relativistic space and time" is another model, which in all known situations gives an equivalent or surperior correspondance, and is therefore considered a more accurate model. It also can't be proven or disproven.

As for CD players, I have not the fainest idea how they work. Why does the relativistic model allow for the creation of such, which creation would not be possible in the "absolute" model?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by One_Brow
As for CD players, I have not the fainest idea how they work. Why does the relativistic model allow for the creation of such, which creation would not be possible in the "absolute" model?

Quantum optics behave differently to classical optics.

"Absolute space and time" is a model of reality, which is insufficiently correspondant under certain conditions. It can't be proven or disprove.

It can be 'disproven' by contrary results. The results of experiments continually show absolute space to be invalid in its Newtonian context.

[Dauphin]

I'm not saying Newton was wrong, but that his theory is only an approximation. You can derive classical mechanics from relativistic theory or quantum mechanics - but you must make assumptions to acheive it - meaning it is only valid when those assumptions hold. Therefore SR & QM are definitely better theories as they are more encompassing and don't make assumptions.

[XarXo]

Originally posted by One_Brow
XarXo wrote: "When a number is dimensionless (without Kg/s for example) is dimensional in logical vectors, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D (x,y,z,t...) ... "

I am assuming you mean that numbers used as adjectives have "dimensions" (3 kilograms, 2 feet), while numbers used as nouns are "dimensionless". If so, I must disagree with what you wrote. "Dimensionless" numbers constitue what is known as a "formal system", which is a fancy way of saying they are an abstract model. They are created in a very systemic fashion, in which assumptions are made about how they should behave (called axioms) and definitions are assembled about how they interact in groups. However, "dimensionless" numbers have no inherent reality. We can apply the model to the objectively measurable world to determine its degree of correspondance to the behavior of said world, but we can also alter the model at whim (potentially enhancing or reducing the degree or correspondance).

If you read all my thread, you can see that I explain the logical dimension, related with the boolean logic, infinite/nonzero/true and zero/false. A logical dimension is the amount of numeric planes necessary to represent an a aproximation explained in a value.

The ? function (the function of creation of a value, the one that nobody put because it is evident! It appears when you type a number in a paper, for example)

For inifinite/true you don't need any dimension, is dimensionless or a 0D value, 0 is also a non-dimenional value, this is why origines a lor of problems that generates infinitization (by possibilities). Zero is like a space singualirty , infinitely small, but very powerful.

The + or \/ function (simple addition, better say the "try", in this case we are forced to create an order, 0 loses and infinite wins, the scalation makes possible to divide in different grades, this is appliabe to logic ina macro-axioma of small axiomes added with \/, this is, the idea of agroupation and partial values)

The · or /\ function (basic product, better say the "join", in this case we use it to join partial values to obtain an including system to create sublevels of groups, and more partial values, in this case a major grup can have a fraction value in a part of the calculus of the result)

For 1,2,3... You need 1 dimension, the same for -1,-2,-3, the same as 4/5, -3/2 (but note that in integer vectors you need another to generate a fraction)...

The || function, is teh basic comparation, so:

infinite ^ infinite = infinite -> T == T -> T
infinite ^ 0 = 0 (by exclusion) T == F -> F
0 ^infinite = 0 F == T -> F
0 ^ 0 = infinite (by exclusion) F == F -> T

This is very important, the results are appliable to obtain the ¬ not system that generates the rest in the + group (in this case, the variation of total modulus in negative values)

When you reach values like the 2^(1/2), you need two dimensions, this value is representable in one, but is impossible to achieve it in a one dimension calculus (BTW, there's a small Pi number influence here, quite odd, it is related with infinity angular...).

Finally, the NULL/DUAL value, this is only for create a sequence of axiomes with predicting and preparing future values for restric the code. I believe that computer science has a great friend in it, is the basis of all the programs. This value is related with the "?" function at the start of the thread. When is used, whe change the NULL/DUAL to TRUE or FALSE.

In a complex number, you probably need two or three logical dimensions, but the complex value is more a time orientation, is calculate the value and reduce the problem "before" we discover it. A complex number is the representation of the FALSE, so the complex value in a binomial representation simply "vanishes" at the result apparition.

Each dimension is an equal dimension at the other, a simple numerical. Note that a complex number is only a nongeometrical findable number (no logic in a matter-like dim, but yes in the time-like dim).

So, yes, where you say "axiomes" and "groups" I only see logical interactions of each logical possibility.

About the degree, it only represents the limitation of the system where is applied, not an a proximation, in Z+ groups by comodity (alphabets and similar), in the reality the numbers doesn't exist (atoms, quarks and similar matter levels ar not numbers), all are axiomes (remember, only humans can generate equal amounts of matter, so are the humans who created the numbers for simplify the vision of the world).

Finally, there's the problem of the resolution order. Why first ^, secondly · and the last the + ? Is just a human idea? Is correct with a system to determine the universe? If somebody know a GOOD reason of that, please explain it to me (no say me "this famous mathematician said that is the correct way", genius are humans too, and like us they could make mistakes!)

----------------

About Israel, nobody has any idea for it?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I'm not saying Newton was wrong, but that his theory is only an approximation.

All theories/models are approximations. this is just as true of SR/QM as of classical mechanics.

You can derive classical mechanics from relativistic theory or quantum mechanics - but you must make assumptions to acheive it - meaning it is only valid when those assumptions hold. Therefore SR & QM are definitely better theories as they are more encompassing and don't make assumptions.

Not "assumptions", but restrictions. Classical mechanics are equally valid to quantum mechanics when, in general, when multiplying/dividing by a factor of sqrt(1 - square(v/c)) will not affect the result within the observable number of significant digits.

OTOH, relativistic calculations have been accurate in all situations and to all levels of significant digits that we have so far been able to observe (as was true of classical mechanics a mere 150 years ago). Just as this did not guarantee the future correspondance of the classical model 150 years ago, we have no current guarantees on SR/QM.

[One_Brow]

XarXo,

You had said that English is not your first language, and that may be of the problem. Perhaps you should consult with someone who speaks your language to clarify some of these ideas.

Frankly, it sounds as if you have been reading some layman's text that explain mathmatical ideas and combining these ideas in ways that do not mesh. It would be like trying to describe the details of surgery after reading some descriptions of anatomy from Reader's Digest.

For example:

The || function, is teh basic comparation, so:

infinite ^ infinite = infinite -> T == T -> T
infinite ^ 0 = 0 (by exclusion) T == F -> F
0 ^infinite = 0 F == T -> F
0 ^ 0 = infinite (by exclusion) F == F -> T

This is very important, the results are appliable to obtain the ¬ not system that generates the rest in the + group (in this case, the variation of total modulus in negative values)

It looks like you are combining a discussion of the minimal necessary logical operators needed to generate all possible truth value outcomes in a Boolean construction with some abstract algebra/number theory regarding the generation of groups. The result is plain nonsense.

[Dauphin]

one_brow, I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet. I haven't seen anything you've written that I disagree with, and I'm at loss as to what exactly it is that I've said that you disagree with.

[One_Brow]

Sagacious Dolphin:

My disagrement would be that you seem to imparting reality into a model/approximation. Perhaps I am quibbling over semantics. For example:

"For example, changing from Newton to Einstein is more than a semantic issue, and more than a change in interpretation. Interpretation assumes the known facts do not change. Yet it was a change in the known facts that led to the new theory."

There was no change in known facts that showed SR to be a more correspondent model than classical mechanics. It was the addition of previously unknown facts, outside the previous range of established conditions, that showed the predictive ability of the classical model was insufficient under said conditions. You spoke of these models as being "proven" or "disproven", as if they have some inherent reality, but all they can be is "tested".

Also, there is an inherent bias toward simplification in our models. For eample, Newton could have used the relatavistic formulae, but had no reason to add in what, at that point, were unneeded complicaitons. For example, an atillery officer does not need to used relatavistic effects in his calculations, they would be insignificant. This does not disprove SR, but rather verifies the use of classical mechanics within the domain of values that it was origianlly determined.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by One_Brow
Sagacious Dolphin:

My disagrement would be that you seem to imparting reality into a model/approximation. Perhaps I am quibbling over semantics. For example:

"For example, changing from Newton to Einstein is more than a semantic issue, and more than a change in interpretation. Interpretation assumes the known facts do not change. Yet it was a change in the known facts that led to the new theory."

I'm not meaning to impart reality, only the way reality is perceived. One equation is no more "real" than the other, but the way the theories are viewed. Newton saw space and time as immutable and fixed, Einstein saw them as flexible (in the loosest sense of the terms).

You spoke of these models as being "proven" or "disproven", as if they have some inherent reality, but all they can be is "tested".

"Proven" is a delicate term. By that I meant that, experimentally, no testing has countered the predictions of SR but they have countered the predictions of classical mechanics in certain areas. I'm sure SR will be countered one day and a more "accurate" model will be obtained.

And sure, classical mechanics is much easier to use when the difference between its predictions and relativity's are insignificant such as when v << c.

There was no change in known facts that showed SR to be a more correspondent model than classical mechanics

I was refering to the fact that observers are important. The speed of light is constant to all observers. This is not strictly a change in facts, but is a change in what was expected (i.e speed dependent on medium or source).

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Quote:

There was no change in known facts that showed SR to be a more correspondent model than classical mechanics

I was refering to the fact that observers are as important as the observed.

This is a prediction of the theoetical model, but I don't think it would be possible to verify experimentally. n How do you measure the change due to measurment?

In any case, the effect from oservational interference would be too small to be detected within the range of facts that was used to establish classical mechanics. It would still be a new fact, not a change in a known fact.

[Dauphin]

I edited my above post to clarify what I meant.

[gsmoove23]

This was a pretty good thread until the mathematicians hijacked it

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Quote:

There was no change in known facts that showed SR to be a more correspondent model than classical mechanics

I was refering to the fact that observers are important. The speed of light is constant to all observers. This is not strictly a change in facts, but is a change in what was expected (i.e speed dependent on medium or source).

This is exactly my point. The extrapolation of of the model into untested conditions (high speeds) does not invalidate the model under the conditions that devised it.

BTW, the speed of light is medium-dependent. For example, light moves slower in water than air (otherwise there would be no rainbows). It is merely source-independent.

[Dauphin]

Its dropping into nit-picking now. I'll rephrase - There is no ether, or medium, which propagates light.

[Az]

There is an apparent gape in the knowledge of The history of the region. What is known now, is that the hebrews were a PART of a larger group of people that were called Canaanites. Another well-known people from that group are the Phoenicians. Other groups include the Amonnites , The Moabites , and a number of lesser tribes I can't remember.( I can testify that seeing the phoenician alphabeth, and dieties, I was astounded by their similarity to us) .Most chances are that the concept 'hebrews' , "ha ivrim" was formed MUCH after they settled in the land. The canaanite ( a concept that didn't exist then, either ) tribes migrated into the areas which now known as Israel, The PA and Jordan, in late-prehistoric times , pushing from the north, and displacing tribes of african descent. The story of the migration to egypt, and consequent slavery,is doubtful, but possible, IIRC. The Phillistines are settlers from the agean sea, and genealogically probably have little in common with the palestinians. The story that was told in the bible After Saul, is probably truth, in essense ( without the theological parts ). two hebrew kingdoms are traced throughout the ages, one is called Judea, the other is Israel, and they appear to be rather small principalities. Assyria captures Israel and disperses it's people. later , The resurgent Babylon captures Judea, and disperses most of it's population as well. However, the Babylonian triumph is short lived , as a new power emerges. Persia sweeps throughout the the Mid-east, and sinse a very short ( historically speaking) period of time has passed, the people return, to a pretty empty land. AtG sweeps across the area a couple of hundreds of years later. The land is being a border zone between the Ptolmeics and the Seleucids. The hellenic rulers build hellenic cultural buildings, and try to change the culture of the Judeans, with limited success. A rebellion rises, by a group of judean zealots, led by a family of judean priests. The rebellion succeeds, and a judean dynasty of priest-kings is created, and lasts for a couple of hundreds of years, in which the high judeans due to the existance of central government, and their numeric strength subdue many other surrounding canaanite tribes, such as the Moabites, and forcefully convert some of them into Judaism. Roman occupation of the entire east-med occurs. After several rebellions, The Romans moved in to uproot the culture and most of the judean inhabitants, And to refrain the country from every having a national identity again, call their province Palestina.

You wanna know more , search the web. ( but be careful. There are lots of lies , from all sides, but mostly the anti-Israeli , and the anti-jewish. there simply are much more anti-semites, than jewish extreme nationalists. )

[gsmoove23]

Azazel,

Thanks for the history, I didn't know alot of it, but I have to question the assumption that the Phillistines and Palestinians aren't related in some way, albeit mixed up and defused through the centuries. Is it possible that the Romans could have been referring to the Phillistines who might have been the dominant group, after the Judean culture, when they named it Palestina. The words are incredibly similar.

[Beren]

The Romans had to deal with a revolt in Judea. After that they were so mad that they didn't want to refer to the Judeans, being the province. So they called it after the Phillistines: Palestina.

[Solomyr]

the fact that those ancient Jews pissed the Romans off so badly they had to change the name of the land and expell the people just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling

of course, that was also the start of the last 2000 years of problems...but, i'll take what i can get.

[Apep]

As usual it is the Britishs' fault,
Well not really it was the USA that gave Palesine to the Jews & Isreal was not a colonial aquisition it was ceased from the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI (Could be a colonial aquisition I guess, but not really) Palestine has belonged to the Palestinians since the Romans lost it. Before that it was Roman, Before that Jewish, Before that Egyptian, Before that Jewish, Before that it was Caananite (Phonecian), But the earliest inhabitants were the people of Jericho in 7000 BC! Or earlier. The point I'm making is this piece of land is the most disputed on Earth and as no person is immortal, no culture is either, their is always a stronger one waiting behind it (Interpretation of Karl Marx). It is promised but it is promised to two peoples and hopefully they can learn they don't have to be one people to live on the same land. On the other hand they might decide not to.
The claim that Palestine should cease terrorist action to get some land back is absurd. Unfortunatly it is absolutly impossible to stop someone who wishes to kill and is not afraid of death, after all they aren't under the Governments control. If anything the Government is under their control, as was the state in Afghanistan I gather.