Global Diplomacy, Right to Exist : Stuck between a bomb and a ...bomb.

I know we delved into this subject in class, but I feel unsatisfied by the inevitable conclusion that we cannot solve the ongoing issue in the Middle East.  I think that I have a certain amount of bias though I concede that Israel behaved pretty poorly recently and in the past all the way back to her conception.  However, the question remains, in a situation that leaves unfortunate consequences no matter the decision how is one supposed to act? How is a country, always bogged down with contemplatively evaluating how much longer they will exist, act fairly? How does the choice not persist negatively with neighbors possessing voracious animosity?

Professor Silliman gave explanation that foreign diplomatic support can be a very positive thing and in cases, specifically where independence is concerned, countries lacking global support of some nature, struggle or fail.  Given this premise, which I am inclined to agree with, what's the right choice when global diplomacy pulls you in turn different directions?

My issue with pacifism

Throughout the entirety of this class, I  have had a problem with the absolutism with which violent civil disobedience had been cast out of the conversation of legitimacy, in regards to appropriate acts of CD.  Though I am still experiencing immense difficulty in presenting a clear argument for violent CD, I think I have uncovered a piece of what had been troubling me; it deals more with the errors of pacifism rather than the successes of violence.

Pacifism, especially in Gandhi's usage, has shown tremendous success in diffusing a significantly stronger party's anger while simultaneously removing their preexisting power, and in turn it yields truly remarkable results for the weaker party.  However, Gandhi's pacifism is one of extremist tendencies that, for me, went down a border line masochistic road.  To advise people not to fight is one thing, to admonish them for dying with revenge on their minds is another, and to remove blame from upon the aggressor is again another.  This extremist version of  pacifism not only squelches natural humanistic emotion (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) it goes further by not placing blame upon the offending party.  I understand physical pacifism in this instance and even the emotional pacifism, i.e. not grouping all members of a strong party together as "bad people" , but to remove blame is to remove reason for the advisee to act with pacifistic ideals in his/her heart, essentially asking people to willingly accept murder for no apparent reason.  Extreme pacifism is too aggressive for my liking.

Legitimacy of religious civil disobedience

In my paper I intend to examine, evaluate, and either defend or refute the legitimacy of acts of civil disobedience in the name of religion, by utilizing documents like the Manhattan Declaration, and reviewing religious acts of civil disobedience in contemporary politic.  The purpose of my paper is to explore the parameters of civil disobedience and determine what factors require a change in terms.