There cannot be any constructive compromise between theocracy and democracy

In the wake of 9/11, I was pursuing PhD studies in political psychology at the City University of New York. Unfortunately I had to abort after one year following a heart attack I suffered.

But there was one paper I submitted from which the summary below was extracted and modified:

Resolutions to conflicts always involve a delve into the history or origin of the conflict. Not dissimilar to diagnosis and treatment of ailments.

Having premised that, we must admit the origin of this Palestine/Israeli conflict is not Hamas not Netanyahu. No, no. Much earlier than 1948, 1967... Perhaps the exodus of 2 million children of

Abraham out of Egypt? But there are no historical/archaeological support. Maybe a little further in the past to Abram, Sarai, Hagai, Ishmael and Isaac? Maybe even further back to the conflict between Abram and his uncle Lot? But (hypothetically) no western-influenced authority or ‘academic’ wants to start at the point where the Romans totally destroyed Palestine (or Israel as was later renamed) and chased every single Jew out of the land, leaving it to the nomadic Arabs who were there a thousand years before them or their forefather Abram.

There can never be a peaceful solution when two theocracies are each trying to force exclusivity of occupation and statehood within the same geographic at the same time.

Theocracies are unyielding, uncompromising antediluvian systems which cannot be enforced or co-exist within democratic environments. They are not only theocratic but autocratic.

The very intrinsic nature of theocracy is that their politics, economics and religion are all tied to the land and cannot be separated as in a regular democracy.

There cannot be any constructive compromise between theocracy and democracy. We must seek solutions through a knowledge of history. Those who don’t are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over and over.