Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Regards' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Regards'

Re: Will,Would,Shall,Should

Anonymous — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:35:01 GMT

Hi,

    My self sushil [email address deleted]
    I think would is past of will & always use of would is depend on situation of willingness ,strong stress , depend on also activity what about
    you do somthing that sit.

In certain contexts, will and would are virtually interchangeable, but there are differences. Notice that the contracted form 'll is very frequently used for will.

Will can be used to express willingness:

I'll wash the dishes if you dry.
We're going to the movies. Will you join us?

It can also express intention (especially in the first person):

I'll do my exercises later on.

and prediction:

specific: The meeting will be over soon.
timeless: Humidity will ruin my hairdo.
habitual: The river will overflow its banks every spring.

Would can also be used to express willingness:

Would you please take off your hat?

It can also express insistence (rather rare, and with a strong stress on the word "would"):

Now you've ruined everything. You would act that way.

and characteristic activity:

customary: After work, he would walk to his home in West Hartford.
typical (casual): She would cause the whole family to be late, every time.

In a main clause, would can express a hypothetical meaning:

My cocker spaniel would weigh a ton if I let her eat what she wants.

Finally, would can express a sense of probability:

I hear a whistle. That would be the five o'clock train.

With regards,
sushil

Re: I think it will be better if we can meet tomorrow

Avangi — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:02:00 GMT

Jackson6612
I think it will be better if we ~~can~~ meet tomorrow or the day after ~~tomorrow~~. I believe Jane will also be there because she has some leaves before he her next exam. I ~~will~~ would prefer to meet in the evening , and I believe this will also be your preference ~~because at that time you will have some spare time~~. We can meet at the Station because your home is located nearby. Please let me know if this suits you.

Hi Jackson, I notice that many posters use expressions like "she has some leaves." I'm not sure if this is British, or if it comes from translation. In the US, "leave" used to be common in the military, and we use it for special purpose time off, like "administrative leave" or "pregnancy leave" (I can't think of the right adjective) or "bereavement leave." Otherwise, we usually just say, "time off."

The clause about the spare time seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

You may wish to keep the "can," depending on what conversation has gone before. If this is the first mention of an evening meeting, the "can" would probably be more polite. If the possibility of an evening meeting has already been acknowledged by your correspondent, I think it's better without it.

Best regards, - A.

Re: one of those who and one of whom

Avangi — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:08:53 GMT

"Who threw the stone?" (reply) "It is one of those who are angry." I don't think "one" is the subject of anything here. It's a predicate nominative, or "complement" of the verb "is." "It" is the subject of the sentence, and "who" is the subject of the relative clause, "who are angry." The relative clause modifies "those," which is object of the preposition "of." Those who are angry are a group of angry people, one of whom threw the stone. But you would have to rephrase the sentence in order to make "one" the subject.

"Nobody in this group is angry. It is one of those who is angry." (Note that "who" may be singular or plural.) This time, "one" is still the verb complement. "Who is angry" is still a relative clause. The chief difference between these two interpretations lies in the answer to the question, "In the relative clause, what does "who" refer to?" In the first interpretation it refers to "those." In the second one it refers to "one." But that doesn't entitle "those" and "one" to be called subjects.

Your sentence "It is one of whom are angry" has a couple of things wrong with it.

"One" is now the bona fide subject of the clause, "one of whom is angry." "Whom" is object of the preposition "of," but unfortunately it has nothing to refer to.

A group of people are partying in the next room, one of whom is angry. In this sentence, "whom" refers to "group."

Re one of those who / one of whom, the difference is often only a technicality. She decided to give it to one of those who love her. She decided to give it to one of those whom she loves.

The key lies in the subject and object of the clauses. In "who love her," "who" is the subject, "love" is the verb, and "her" is the object. In "whom she loves," "she" is the subject, "loves" is the verb, and "whom" is the object.

"Who" and "she" are nominative case, "whom" and "her" are objective case.

Best regards, - A.

Memos show Clinton turmoil

Jackson6612 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:05:10 GMT

Memos show Clinton turmoil

Question: I would have written ''Clinton's turmoil''. Why didn't the author use apostrophe?

BY CRAIG GORDON AND TOM BRUNE | <email addresses removed by mod.>
August 13, 2008

Question: Why is semicolon used instead of comma to separate the email addresses above?

WASHINGTON - In a fresh postmortem (=an examination of a plan or event that failed, done to discover why it failed, =autopsy) on Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid (=attempt to obtain or do something), newly published staff memos (=a short official note to another person in the same company or organization) and e-mails reveal a campaign hobbled (=to hobble something or someone means to make it more difficult for them to be successful or to achieve what they want) by internal rivalries (=a situation in which two or more people, teams, or companies are competing for something), faulty planning, bloated (=more than needed, =excessive) spending - and perhaps most important, Clinton's own failure to make the hard decisions.

Clinton offered herself to voters as a hyper-competent (=extra competent) executive ready to be president from day one. But atop (=on top of something) her own campaign, she was a hesitant leader, who allowed bitter infighting (=when members of the same group or organization argue, or compete with each other in an unfriendly way) to fester (=If an argument or bad feeling festers, it continues so that feelings of hate or dissatisfaction increase) among staffers over whether to go negative against Barack Obama, according to the Atlantic magazine.

The most bare-knuckled (=characterized by disorderly action and disregard for rules) lines of attack came from Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, who urged Clinton to highlight Obama's "lack of American roots" due to his upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii - saying he could only win if he faced Attila the Hun ((?406-453 AD) a king of the Huns (=an ancient people from Asia) who attacked and took control of large parts of the Roman Empire. He is famous for being violent and cruel).

But Clinton didn't embrace Penn's flag-waving (=the expression of strong national feelings, especially when these feelings seem too extreme) approach (=way of doing something), which campaign aides (=someone whose job is to help someone who has an important job, especially a politician) insist was never seriously considered.

Question: Clinton didn't embrace Penn's approach because she did not consider it seriously. Therefore, what campaign aides were saying is redundant.

The article also says that Clinton at times grew frustrated and short-tempered - including on the morning after her stunning third-place finish in Iowa in January, when aides on a call were silent. Clinton's camp dismissed the story as "inside-the-Beltway gossip" and "old news." And former campaign aides sharply disputed the notion of Clinton as an indecisive leader, with one campaign veteran saying, "Nobody seems to want to remember the fact that we had so many successes and come-from-behind victories in this campaign ... and they are due in large part to Senator Clinton's leadership."

Question: What does the line including on the morning...when aides on a call were silent mean? If she finished third place, then why would the author describe it as stunning? What does call mean in when aides on a call were silent?

Question: What does the phrase inside-the-Beltway gossip mean?

Question: What does the line Nobody seems to want to remember...to Senator Clinton's leadership'' mean?

But the e-mails and memos offer vivid (=very clear and detailed) new details about what had long been reported - that Clinton's headquarters was beset (=to make someone experience serious problems or dangers) by caustic (=bitter) internal battles involving Penn and former President Bill Clinton, who wanted to forcefully attack Obama, and others who wanted the New York senator to take a more positive tack (=method, =way of doing something). At one point, it was Bill Clinton - and not Hillary - who approved the famed 3 a.m. phone call ad.

Question: what had long been reported is passive past perfect tense. Am I right?

Question: I think headquarters should take plural verb. What do you say?

Question: Why are the hyphens used in -and not Hillary-? I believe commas would do instead?

Adding to the turmoil was the fact that the campaign had little strategy and no money left to seriously compete in the post-Super Tuesday contests - having (=the form having with a past participle can be used to introduce a clause in which you mention an action which had already happened before another action began) burned through $106 million before Iowa. That allowed Obama to win 12 straight contests and effectively wrap up (=to finish a job, meeting etc) the nomination.

Question: What does burned through mean?

In the end, the campaign's strategy came to reflect some of the internal turmoil, as Clinton veered (=changed course) from attacking Obama to emphasizing her personal side.

Question: What does her personal side mean?

Penn did offer some advice in March 2007 that proved on the mark - Clinton's path to victory lay with women and lower- and working-class voters.

Question: What does proved on the mark mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

But by the time Clinton finally settled on that strategy to win the later primaries, it was too late.

Excerpts from the memos

"All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light ... It also exposes a very strong weakness for him - his roots to basic American values and culture are at best (=even when considered in the most positive way) limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Strategist Mark Penn, from a March 19, 2007, memo to Hillary Rodham Clinton advising her to attack Barack Obama for his "lack of American roots."

Question: What does centre mean in the above context?

"The right knows Obama is unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun, and a third party would come in then anyway." Penn, from the same memo.

Question: Does right refer to right wing in the above context?

"This has been a very instructive call, talking to myself." Clinton, before angrily hanging up on a staff conference call the day after coming in third in Iowa in January. "She complained of being outmaneuvered (=to gain an advantage over someone by using cleverer or more skilful plans or methods) in Iowa and being painted as the establishment candidate," according to the Atlantic - but was met with near-silence.

Question: I would have written This has been..., talking to me. Why did she use myself?

Question: What is a conference call? Is it some kind of telephone call which address many poeple?

Question: Why is in used in coming in third?

"STOP IT!! I have help my tongue for weeks. After this morning's WP story, no longer. This makes me sick. This circular firing squad that is occurring is unattractive, unprofessional, unconscionable, and unacceptable ... It must stop." Robert Barnett, a Clinton lawyer and Washington insider, from a March 6, 2008, e-mail to campaign staff after a Washington Post story detailed the infighting.

Question: What does I have help my tongue for weeks mean?

Question: What does This circular firing squad mean?

Question: Were the comments in the last paragraph made by Robert Barnett?

Conditional

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:57:02 GMT

Hi teachers,

When I was reading newspaper, I came across a sentence written like this :

If we don't take these opportunities now, the windows would have closed, others would have seized it, we would have missed the oppotunity.

My question : Why the if-clause is the present real conditional but the main clause is the past unreal conditional? Is that possible?

Shouldn't the sentence be written as follows :

If we don't take these oppotunities now, the windows will be closed, others will seize it, we will miss(or will be missing) the opportunity.

Please enlighten me.

Thank you very much in advance.

Regards,

CW Tan

Re: participle as a subject

CalifJim — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:48:17 GMT

Cool Breeze
I am walking. Walking is an adjective?

"allegedly" See below.

From Introduction to the Grammar of English (Huddleston, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)

... participles are said to be 'verbal adjectives'.

First example given:

He was telling the truth.

Later:

... a present participle ... allegedly has adjectival properties. I say 'allegedly' because it is difficult to see any significant functional resemblance to an adjective ... [in the first example on the list].

He goes on to say that the -ing words in such examples are clearly verbs, while in other contexts they are clearly adjectives.

_____

With respect to the original question then, I suppose the more accurate description is that participles are either parts of verb phrases or are adjectives. In either case, a participle -- being verb or adjective -- cannot be the subject of a sentence unless it is in the cleft sentence structure, as illustrated earlier in the thread by GG. I think that's the only structure that allows a participle or an adjective to be promoted to the status of a noun phrase so it can be a subject.

At least that's my claim. Maybe someone can provide a counterexample. That would be instructive.

Edit:

'Destroyed' is the best description of that town.

Here a participle (adjective) is promoted to a noun and is the subject of the sentence. So there are cases other than the cleft sentence structure that allow it. Nevertheless, note the quotes. It works in the same way that anything in quotes can be promoted to subject:

'Xygneoowytoeyy' is a nonsense word.

'got into the truck' is not a complete sentence.

_____

Your question opens up a good many sticky points in the terminology. Do we (Can we) talk about certain structures by naming them without regard to their function in context? Or not? Probably not. Is love a noun or a verb? Only context will tell.

Cool Breeze
To hear him sing is an unforgettable experience.

to hear him sing is a sentence with a non-finite verb used as a noun phrase in a higher level sentence. The idea is that the terminological identity of a word or group of words may change depending on which level in a hierarchy of clauses it is considered. At the lowest level of the "tree", to hear is indeed an infinitive (a non-finite verb), but in the context of the whole sentence (higher in the hierarchical tree), to hear him sing is the subject of the main clause, is nominal in nature, and is called a noun phrase. (Infinitives are often nominal in nature, so this is not surprising; for example, [I want + noun phrase] can take either of these forms: I want some pizza. I want to sing.)

Cool Breeze
Using an infinitive as a subject may not be common in American English

Actually, infinitives are used in AmE as subjects. The location geographically or historically has nothing to do with it. But infinitives (and their complement(s), if any), taken together, can make noun phrases.

To be absolutely precise, it is a noun phrase (NP) that must be the subject of a sentence. I oversimplified by saying 'noun or pronoun'.

Re: LIKE NOTHING WRONG

Avangi — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:47:15 GMT

Hi Sn, It's natural enough, except that you don't need two conjunctions to connect two clauses; and verbs of sense (like feels and seems and smells) act like verbs of being, and take adjectives rather than adverbs.

Although outside he behaves like nothing is wrong, deep down inside he feels very nervous. OR Outside he behaves like nothing is wrong, but deep down inside he feels very nervous.

Best regards, A.

Use of conditional verb prior to an infinitive clause / object complement

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:17:48 GMT

Hi all,

Thanks in advance for your help in answering this question. I'm trying to explain to a non-native English speaker that a certain usage is either incorrect or awkward, but I find myself unable to do so. At this point, I'm just confusing myself in trying to explain it.

So her construction is:

"I like for you to go to my friend's house in three weeks."

My correction would be:

"I would like for you to go to my friend's house in three weeks."

My reasoning is that including the word "would" allows for a better logical continuity of tenses. I have tried to explain this via continuity of verb tense and the nature of the conditional word "would"-- but I am not a grammarian and my explanations are either imprecise or wholly inaccurate. On that note,

1) Is my correction correct?

2) Is there a rule which either supports or refutes this correction?

Kind regards,
A.S.

Re: Could anyone lookthrough my Illustration Essay? "The Impossible Peace"

Chibi — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:18:17 GMT

Sorry, there's a problem with the former posted entry!

There Is No "Together" In Jerusalem

For Jews and Muslims, Jerusalem has been a city of hope and loss. It has been their homeland but also their battlefield. Its history has been filled with great joy but also with tragedy. In Hebrew, the name "Jerusalem" literally means a "city of peace" Ironically, people there have not seem such thing for a long time.(people there have not seem to live in harmony for ages) There have been numbers of peace plans to settle this conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians but not even one has succeeded everything has failed to succeed); occasionally, they have even worsened the situation (U should write this clause as a separated sentence). One of the most well-known solutions is the Oslo Accord, the first official agreement signed by the leaders of both sides. It was first seen as a (the) hope to the end of the conflict (âto end the conflictâ is better) that (so that) they would live peacefully together in a bi-national state. Yet ( However â in written language, it is better not to start a sentence with Yet/ But), some groups did not accept it and launched a series of suicide bombings. This accord is now viewed to have brought more hatred and violation to the area. Nevertheless, there are still many attempts. It seems that they could live together peacefully since they are similar in many ways regarding their religions and ancestor.(try another expression Ã better) However, after carefully examined (examining) current situations and history, one (U mean who?) has to admit that they will never co-exist (word choice?) peacefully in this common area. It is due to their beliefs that Jerusalem belongs only to them and no one else. (I think the use of pronounce is not clear here. âTheyâ & âtheirâ mean who: Jews or Muslims?) Furthermore, they hate each other so much that they will never want to live together.

The first reason why two-state solution is impossible (be impossible to do sth) is because (Ã that) they believe that (omit this word) all areas of Jerusalem belong to only their people*. From the Jewish perspective, they have all the rights over this land due to God's will as well as their long close connection to it. According to the Bible, four thousands years ago, God promised that he will give Abraham, father of all the Jews, and his children the land of Canaan, or what is (omit) now the capital of the State of Israel. Since then, Jewish people have been waiting for that day to come (omit). The word "Jerusalem" is repeatedly mentioned several times in their daily prayers as well as in many special occasions, for instance, the Passover(Spiro, 2000). In addition, this area had once been under the reign of Jewish kings who had ruled for hundreds of years and built the first Jewish temple in this area. This temple has been the focus of (I guess a problem with word choice here) Jewish people around the world. They regard it as "the house of the Lord"(Bible in Spiro, 2000) and the direction (word choice, again?) in which they say their prayers to. If there is a place on earth that all Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives for, it would be this very place. A Jewish mayor once stated that this land represents, "the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for"(Pipes, 2001).
Conversely, from the Palestinian perspective, they are blessed people who deserve the rights over to this holy place, not the cursed Jews. In the Koran, Jerusalem is said to be blessed. It was where Prophet Muhammed was taken up to heaven and met other Prophets(Spiro, 2000). The significance of it had been emphasized several times by Prophet Muhammed himself through his teachings. He stated that it is where a single act of worship is equal to a thousand, and whoever die there or near by would directly go to heaven(Soufan, n.d.). These have made it one of the three holiest place in Islam. Furthermore, in the Koran, while Muslims are regarded to be the most prestigious group of people, Jews are the opposite, "cursed and condemned"(Abbadi, n.d.). Thus, as it is required in Muslim faith, it is their duty to protect a religious site from being contaminated by those corrupted people and bring the holy place back to the right owners.
The second reason two-state solution is impossible is because of the prolonged aversion that they will never agree to live with their enemies. In the last eight years, approximately 5,000 Palestinians have been killed with (Ã and) more than 33,000 have been injured(Palestine Red Crescent, 2008). The causes were mostly due to shootings as well as tear gas. (try another expression here) Many of the others have been forced to leave their home making approximately 4.4 millions Palestine refugees around the world now(United Nations, 2008). Owing to the loss of ones they love and the harshness of dispersing, hatred has developed. Their expression (word choice?) of hatred has been from incitement of violation to suicide bombings. Terribly, those who carried those horrors (repetition should not be occur) were of all ages including young children. In school textbooks, Israel is described to be “a country of gangs, born in crime"(Israel Ministry, 2001) with Jews who are "arrogant and sly traitors"(Israel Ministry, 2001). These are what all children in Palestinian school have been educated, or to be more accurate, "brainwashed." Not to mention the impacts from family and society in which those children have been raised. Thus, hatred has been deepening (deepened) in all Palestinian hearts both of this generation and the coming generation.
In responding to Palestinian violence, Israel has established a military force and checkpoints to limit the number of Palestinians coming to Israel. The primary objective was to prevent terrorists. However, the presence of humiliation during the search, suffering from long waits at checkpoints, and soldiers' attacks on innocent civilians, has only brought more hatred among them(The Nation, 2008, p. 9A).

It is ironic that a supposed city of peace is actually the most contentious (word choice) city on earth. Numerous peace plans have been made but then were collapsed. The hatred between Israelis and Palestinians has been strongly expressed though violation, and each has clearly stated that they are the only group whom Jerusalem belongs to. This contention has accumulated over a long period of time and it is getting worse. It is useless to force them to live together. No such plans have ever worked and will never work. At least they have given it a try, nevertheless. There is always a light in the dark, I believe. When the darkness disappears, the light would shine. Even though I have concluded that the Jews and Palestinians will never co-exist together in Jerusalem, I always wish that I have been wrong. Let the light shine and the city of peace becomes real. * If I were u, I will express like: Firstly, two-state solution fail to succeed because they believe that all areas of Jerusalem belong to only their people.

Re: Could anyone lookthrough my Illustration Essay? "The Impossible Peace"

Chibi — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:07:08 GMT

I have no ideas about the content or the organization of focused points. I just have some suggestions on word choices, expressions and grammar. The highlighted lines include possible problems and the red words are my suggestions to improve the writing.

Hope that it'll be useful!

There Is No "Together" In Jerusalem

For Jews and Muslims, Jerusalem has been a city of hope and loss. It has been their homeland but also their battlefield. Its history has been filled with great joy but also with tragedy. In Hebrew, the name "Jerusalem" literally means a "city of peace" Ironically, people there have not seem such thing for a long time.(Ã people there have not seem to live in harmony for ages) There have been numbers of peace plans to settle this conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians but not even one has succeeded (Ã everything has failed to succeed); occasionally, they have even worsened the situation (U should write this clause as a separated sentence Ã be clearer). One of the most well-known solutions is the Oslo Accord, the first official agreement signed by the leaders of both sides. It was first seen as a (Ã the) hope to the end of the conflict (âto end the conflictâ is better) that (Ã so that) they would live peacefully together in a bi-national state. Yet (Ã However â in written language, it is better not to start a sentence with Yet/ But), some groups did not accept it and launched a series of suicide bombings. This accord is now viewed to have brought more hatred and violation to the area. Nevertheless, there are still many attempts. It seems that they could live together peacefully since they are similar in many ways regarding their religions and ancestor.(try another expression Ã better) However, after carefully examined (examining) current situations and history, one (U mean who?) has to admit that they will never co-exist (word choice?) peacefully in this common area. It is due to their beliefs that Jerusalem belongs only to them and no one else. (I think the use of pronounce is not clear here. âTheyâ & âtheirâ mean who: Jews or Muslims?) Furthermore, they hate each other so much that they will never want to live together.

The first reason why two-state solution is impossible (be impossible to do sth) is because (Ã that) they believe that (omit this word) all areas of Jerusalem belong to only their people*. From the Jewish perspective, they have all the rights over this land due to God's will as well as their long close connection to it. According to the Bible, four thousands years ago, God promised that he will give Abraham, father of all the Jews, and his children the land of Canaan, or what is (omit) now the capital of the State of Israel. Since then, Jewish people have been waiting for that day to come (omit). The word "Jerusalem" is repeatedly mentioned several times in their daily prayers as well as in many special occasions, for instance, the Passover(Spiro, 2000). In addition, this area had once been under the reign of Jewish kings who had ruled for hundreds of years and built the first Jewish temple in this area. This temple has been the focus of (I guess a problem with word choice here) Jewish people around the world. They regard it as "the house of the Lord"(Bible in Spiro, 2000) and the direction (word choice, again?) in which they say their prayers to. If there is a place on earth that all Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives for, it would be this very place. A Jewish mayor once stated that this land represents, "the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for"(Pipes, 2001).
Conversely, from the Palestinian perspective, they are blessed people who deserve the rights over to this holy place, not the cursed Jews. In the Koran, Jerusalem is said to be blessed. It was where Prophet Muhammed was taken up to heaven and met other Prophets(Spiro, 2000). The significance of it had been emphasized several times by Prophet Muhammed himself through his teachings. He stated that it is where a single act of worship is equal to a thousand, and whoever die there or near by would directly go to heaven(Soufan, n.d.). These have made it one of the three holiest place in Islam. Furthermore, in the Koran, while Muslims are regarded to be the most prestigious group of people, Jews are the opposite, "cursed and condemned"(Abbadi, n.d.). Thus, as it is required in Muslim faith, it is their duty to protect a religious site from being contaminated by those corrupted people and bring the holy place back to the right owners.
The second reason two-state solution is impossible is because of the prolonged aversion that they will never agree to live with their enemies. In the last eight years, approximately 5,000 Palestinians have been killed with (Ã and) more than 33,000 have been injured(Palestine Red Crescent, 2008). The causes were mostly due to shootings as well as tear gas. (try another expression here) Many of the others have been forced to leave their home making approximately 4.4 millions Palestine refugees around the world now(United Nations, 2008). Owing to the loss of ones they love and the harshness of dispersing, hatred has developed. Their expression (word choice?) of hatred has been from incitement of violation to suicide bombings. Terribly, those who carried those horrors (repetition should not be occur) were of all ages including young children. In school textbooks, Israel is described to be “a country of gangs, born in crime"(Israel Ministry, 2001) with Jews who are "arrogant and sly traitors"(Israel Ministry, 2001). These are what all children in Palestinian school have been educated, or to be more accurate, "brainwashed." Not to mention the impacts from family and society in which those children have been raised. Thus, hatred has been deepening (deepened) in all Palestinian hearts both of this generation and the coming generation.
In responding to Palestinian violence, Israel has established a military force and checkpoints to limit the number of Palestinians coming to Israel. The primary objective was to prevent terrorists. However, the presence of humiliation during the search, suffering from long waits at checkpoints, and soldiers' attacks on innocent civilians, has only brought more hatred among them(The Nation, 2008, p. 9A).

It is ironic that a supposed city of peace is actually the most contentious (word choice) city on earth. Numerous peace plans have been made but then were collapsed. The hatred between Israelis and Palestinians has been strongly expressed though violation, and each has clearly stated that they are the only group whom Jerusalem belongs to. This contention has accumulated over a long period of time and it is getting worse. It is useless to force them to live together. No such plans have ever worked and will never work. At least they have given it a try, nevertheless. There is always a light in the dark, I believe. When the darkness disappears, the light would shine. Even though I have concluded that the Jews and Palestinians will never co-exist together in Jerusalem, I always wish that I have been wrong. Let the light shine and the city of peace becomes real. * If I were u, I will express like: Firstly, two-state solution fail to succeed because they believe that all areas of Jerusalem belong to only their people.