Israel Instigating War Part II

OK so where was I?

So it is now 1948 and the Brits are beating a hot trail back to the U.K. The Jordanian Monarchy is suddenly realizing the Brits were serious. The Zionists are all ready for the Brits to leave. World opinion is ambivalent at best towards the mostly worthless land in question. Egypt is concerned over securing both total Independence and the only economic production of revenue, the Suez Canal. Lebanon is busy becoming a new Monaco. Syria was busy watching the Brits leave the Transjordan and setting up house as a military power. Iraq was also enjoying the rapid departure of the Brits and French and suffering through the turmoil of the revolt against the English installed Monarchy. And then it all started.. The Jordanians attempted to assert control over the Trans Jordan. The only problem was that it was already too late.

In an attempt to help Jordan, the U.K. placed an embargo on the Transjordan and an immigration ban. Ostensibly, the goal was to prevent any insurrection from developing against Jordanian control as the U.K. forces pulled out. What it was in fact was quite different. The vast majority of all immigration into Palestine at that time was Jewish. Ships and tramp steamers are actually shelled and rammed as "pirate" vessels by the British Navy. The land routes into Palestine were also chocked off by English force of the military kind. The Jewish industrialists and policing forces which had been created with English consent were disenfranchised of rights and weapons. Tariffs were enacted to prevent any sort of Zionist aid getting into the hands of the Jews. But none of the adverse effects of the U.K. actions were equally applied to the Arabs living in the Transjordan.

The English thought was that a friendly nation in the form of Jordan would control both Mediterranean waters and Red Sea waters. Jordan would also provide a military base which would be useful against Egypt if and when the Suez ever became threatened. . In addition, instead of shipping home the huge military equipment which Britain possessed, they turned it over to the Kingdom of Jordan.

If there was ever a more uneven slate of combatants, then you will have to inform me. By all rights the power vacuum should have been filled by Jordan. What happened was the exact opposite.

In a nutshell, the birth of Israel is as unlikely an event as was the Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica.There were only 2 advantages that the Jews had. The first was that they were basically concentrated. The Zionist communities were almost ideal mini fortresses. The second was that the Jews had absolutely nothing left to loose. In Jewish thought, this was the final round. Either the Jews would win or for all intents, they would cease to be a world wide culture.

It is interesting to note that the Jewish state was at war on the very first day of its existence. What is even more amazing is that they didn't have a military. At the start of hostilities they could lay claim to a handful of P-40 Warhawks, a single Messerschmidt Condor, one B-17, 6 ME 109's, one Folckewulf 190, one Ta 190, one Arado Lightning, and 2 Hawker Hurricanes. There was no navy. As for land forces, they had a collection of German army and Waffen SS small arms, a couple Krupps 88 mm cannons, some anti aircraft guns, a single British Goliath, a couple of Patton tanks, A squad of Lee tanks, and 12 world class King Tiger Tanks.

Against this every Arab country had more surplus French & British equipment and supplies to throw into the land grab. The fact that the Arabs failed to take control of the Transjordan is going to continue to be one of the great military stories of all time.

What is important is that by resisting the Arab League, Israel gained the mantel of the kid who stood up to the class bully. And more importantly, every single nation which participated in the land grab underwent huge political turmoil as a result of the failure to defeat the Jews. Lebanon went radically conservative and the British installed government fell. Jordan fell into political chaos. Egypt fell apart. Syria fell apart. In short the failure of the Arab nations to kill Israel on the first day gave Israel the chance to build an army for the next round.

The only difference in the latter wars was that to charge up the populations, the Muslim vs Jew element was brought to the front by the Arab states. And from then on the battle has been Muslim vs Jew.

Personally I feel sorry for the Palestinians. They are both victims of time and place. Had Jordan agreed to take over the Transjordan in the first place, there never would have been a Zionist inspired Jewish state. In fact, there probably never would have been a war period. For the Jews and Arabs had lived without incident since the Crusades. As to the current situation, that the Israelis are willing to give any land or any consideration to the Palestinians is truly amazing. That the Palestinians have yet to even attempt to overcome or even leave the United Nations administered "refugee camps" is monumentally silly. In a way, the Palestinians asking for land back 52 years after they were part of the attempted extermination of what was left of the Jews is as valid as black people in the United States wanting reparations.

The sad fact is, Jordan never wanted the Palestinians, only the land. And what is even more unfortunate is that Israel actually offered citizenship and full rights to the Palestinians. In effect the fact that there are still refugees is a direct result of geopolitical intrigue and PLO machinations.

So do I feel any real sympathy for the Palestinians? Only in human terms, but not in political terms. If it were up to me I'd say the Israelis would be justified in turning on the tanks and jets and pushing the Palestinians into Jordan and ending the issue once and for all.

Leia Mais…

Israel Instigating War

---

OK I am not even going to go into bias viewpoints. Lets just follow some general facts.

First off lets visit the Crusades and the issue of King Prester John. Well as far as their being a Prester John, there wasn't one. The important part of the Prester John icon is that there was a Christian ideal wrapped up in this fictitious king. The Angevin Emperor, The Holy Roman Emperor, and the King of France all conveniently agreed that King Prester John was the rightful ruler of the lands in and around Jerusalem.

While it served the political end fighting at the time, the idea was that in conjunction with the ascendancy of King Prester, the Jews would return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple and user in the return of Jesus as a heavenly ruler.

Ah so this is where we get the idea in the Western World that the Jews were to return and belonged in Jerusalem. The fact is there already were Jews there and to be honest you would be hard pressed to find a time when the Jews weren't there. But what is important is that we as a civilization took up the belief that the Jews were not in Jerusalem and that eventually they would return.

OK lets skip forwards to the Zionist heydays of the late 1800's and early 1900's. OK why is there a Zionist movement in the first place? Quite simply put, Christian nations were prone to systematically killing Jews during times of national crisis. To be blunt, Jews were common cannon fodder. But to add to the problem, successful Jews were still ostracized because of the Christians long held belief that usury was the primary function of Jews. So if a Jew did become successful he was often viewed with a hatred fathomable only to the ingrained Christian nations which the Jew lived in. The fact that there was a name coined for riots against Jews gives you some indication of the reality of Jewish expectations for liberty and happiness. In a world of pogroms how can you feel secure? And that was really the Zionist argument. No Jew, no matter how educated or economically successful, could be reasonably sure he wouldn't be deprived of both at a moment of national whimsy. Some place must be found to ensure such deprivations from not happening.

OK if your interested in Zionist philosophy you may now depart this thread and search elsewhere. All I am concerned with is setting up the motivation for the Jews as concerns Palestinian land. The wish for a Zionist state free from the strife so prevalent in the rest of the world. A Zionist state was seen as an insurance policy.

But with policy comes conspiracy. Or at least a perception of conspiracy. When Zionist leaders approached various European leaders, they were met with a blanket mistrust. No ruler could quite trust a force which had the goal of concentrating the generally hated Jews in one spot.On top of that was the Christian view that if the Jews rebuilt the Temple, things would invariably prove bad. So as part of the national policy of any self respecting Christian nation was to squelch Zionism any way possible.

Finally scroll forwards a few more years to The First World War. It is here that we truly find the seeds which have germinated into our modern reality. In the western powers the Zionist committed themselves with distinction. And in a sense a sort of blood debt was built up. Thousands of Jews used military service as a means of finally declaring their full worth and value to the nations which had so regularly tried to exterminate them in the past. With each Jewish sacrifice to the war efforts a acknowledgment of worth was forced upon the Christian world. In exchange for that debt, Zionism expected at the very least a hearing of the creation of a Jewish state.

So the war ends and the Paris Peace congress begins. And for Zionism the conference was a disaster. The newly freed Ottoman territories were the subject of hot debate. What was of paramount importance to Britain and France was the security of both the Suez Canal and also the exploitation of the new oil fields which had been developed in spite of the Global War. What was most interesting was the partitioning of the Trans Jordan.

There is absolutely nothing of value in the Trans Jordan, from the perspective of the World powers at the time. In fact, the mandate to rule it was shifted from France and Britain repeatedly. They literally did not want it. Especially Jerusalem. To be honest, it is a true shame the Second World War interrupted the passage of time in Jerusalem, because prior to the war there was no such thing as Arab Israeli conflict.

Back to the Zionist for the time being. As the Paris peace conference dragged on. Zionist clamoured for the chance to establish a nation state in and around Jerusalem. And for but one political fault they might have gotten just that. The fault was Zionist support for the Revolution in Russia. In fact, many Zionist were part of the initial assault against the Romanovs. They believed that a proletariat world would give the Jews of the world the security and equality which was so often deprived & would be insured in a Communist world. It was folly on the part of the Zionist, but at the time revolutionary thought was the rule and not the exception.

When it came time to grant official support to the presumptive rulers of the Transjordan, the British Monarchy and the French Republic choose Kings instead of radicals and libertines.

So the Zionist wound up being stateless and associated with World Communism. An Association which would have dramatic consequences as Europe swung in reaction to the far right wing. Fascism would have a field day with Zionism and Jewry.

So, it is the year 1935, and if you were anything but a Jew, traveling to the Transjordan was routine. If you were Jewish you risked your life. Conservatism ruled, and the oil and canal had to be protected. Zionism was viewed as simply an offshoot of Commitern policy. To England, an independent Jewish state was a thorn to be avoided. The implications of a Jewish state were obvious. Firstly a Jewish state would be a provocation to the Arab Kings and princes in and around the League of Nations Mandate. Any provocation could interfere with the oil. Also, if the Zionists were to create a state would it be communist or democratic? The difference didn't matter since both types of government would be in direct opposition to the autocratic puppet kingdoms which France and Britain had installed. Another problem was a perception that if Jews had a land of their own, they would have the political power to demand world wide respect for all Jews. And that's the real problem, no Jew could be deprived as they had in the past if there was a Jewish state. At Zionist provocation, immigration began in earnest in the 1920's.

From a Jewish perspective, immigration from European servitude to a land where Jews were freed from pogroms was a magical promise. For the local officials, and England in particular, it was a nightmare. In such an undeveloped land, any immigration was a strain. The Jewish influx was more than a strain. Whats more the Jews who heeded the Zionist call were of the perception that they were in fact building a nation which would become independent when the League of Nations Mandate ceased. To add to the general mistrust, the Jews from Europe were installing European technologies and sensibilities which upset the traditional Arab lifestyles. The Arabs began demanding that the English and French do something to curtail the immigration.

And here is where the die gets cast in earnest. Remember the Zionist association with Communism, and the reactionary swing to the right by the western powers after the war? Well this provided the clean excuse to deny immigration and close off the Transjordan to Jews. Since the Zionists were actually Communists, and Communists were bent on destruction of the western democracies, Jews must not be allowed to form a communist state in what had now become a valuable land. It was an entirely false accusation, but it was the excuse used anyway. What is even more problematic is that just as the Western powers were setting up the immigration bans, the ultra right wing fascist states began national policies of encouraged and/or forced emigration. States such as Spain, Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia, and Austria began public companies run by Zionists which had the express intent of bringing Jews from Europe to either the Americas or the Middle East. Suddenly, there was no place for them to go to.

And yes, the United States was part of the immigration problem as well. Immigration laws were changed so that immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe were drastically cut. And in the case of American policy, the prevention of Zionist Jews and communist influence seems to have been the central idea behind the laws.

The the war breaks out and we know what happened. So lets just get to June 1945.

The war is over and the magnitude of just what happened to the European Jews becomes apparent. And to make things even more complicated, the Western Democracies are more concerned over the mother land than they were over colonial empires. The Zionists in the United States in particular saw that this was the chance to make a nation and they began financing ships to gather the Jews and deposit them in the TransJordan. And that's when all hell broke lose.

1948.. Great Britain begs The Jordanians to take control of the Trnasjordan area. They refuse.

British cruisers attempt to prevent ships landing Jews. But the Jews kept coming in a race with time.

Create a nation to step into the power vacuum before the mandate was abandoned by Britain. And when it was abandoned guess what? They indeed had a government to take over as the British left.

Which suddenly pissed off Arab sensibilities. Instead of being a land devoid of government, There was a nation state based on religious ideology. And suddenly the idea of Prester John returning in modern guise didn't seem so unlikely. If the Jews rebuilt the Temple.. one of the most sacred Muslim sites would be destroyed.

and ill have to finish latter because a friend just got into some sort of trouble.

Leia Mais…

Why Does the USA support Israel?

Why was Isreal created?

Answer.. Because in a desperate attempt to prevent another pogrom or another genocidal rampage by the rest of the world, the Zionist took land that no Arab government wanted. As the Trans Jordan territory was being broken up, Even the new kingdom of Jordan didn't want the area which now makes up Israel. It became an issue only when the United Kingdom decided to leave a worthless territory it could not justify administering. The Zionist seized the power void and declared a state . It was only at that moment of time that the Arabs took notice of the sudden IMPORTANCE of the territory which makes up Israel.

The Arabs have started every single war, and have had their collective heads handed to them on a plate. America didn't really even directly support Israel until the Yom Kippur War. We came to the realization that unless someone stepped in for Israel, the Arabs would continue major military operations every 5 or so years against the undaunted Jews.

Our very support of Israel has made surprise wars breaking out in the Sinai and Golan regions impossible

If any President changed that policy, I can be reasonable sure that we would revert back to the pattern of my childhood, where Israel gets attacked repeatedly.

So firstly, Jews were not "relocated" they were exterminated like flies.

Secondly, we had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Israel. As a matter of fact Marshall recommended that the UK return to the Trans-Jordan and remove Israel with American support.

Third, there was no religious tensions preexisting the creation of Israel. The religion angle was introduced by the Arab nations as a means of convincing Arabs that a secular war against a previously worthless area of land was in fact ordained by religious reasons.

Finally American support for Israel has been the keystone to resolving the Arab aggression against Israel.

You haven't heard of many 6 Days Wars lately have you?

As to the implication that ruling by conviction, even if the public fails to see it at the time, is treason would lead to most of our Presidents' early political deaths. Do you realize how unpopular Wilson was? Do we now all agree that he was correct? How about Nixon's trip to China? I doubt that he cared too much for the polls which were INSANELY against it. I wont even bring up FDR, but suffice to say if modern polling had existed then, his popularity would have been in the low 30's. Lincoln was so unpopular he seriously came close to loosing the election for his second term.

What do all these men have in common? they followed paths of conviction which were maligned by people at the time but history has judged them right.

Leia Mais…

Email I got

Hey Ya'll.....I cut out all the Fwd's....But I think this is good...dont care for the big breasts n cigars tho LOL I am a BAD American. I like big cars, big breasts, and big cigars. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid-level governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts squirting out babies. I'm not in touch with my feelings and I like it that way. I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or Marilyn Manson sang. I know that owning a gun doesn't make you a killer. I believe it's called the Boy Scouts for a reason. I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized. I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, you'd better do it in English. I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for unpopular opinions or actions. I think fireworks should be legal on the 4th of July. I don't want to eat or drink anything with the words light, lite or fat-free on the package. My heroes are John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant and whoever cancelled Ellen, Full House and Bob Saget. I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time arguing about it. I think global warming is a big lie. I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I didn't wander forty years in the desert after leaving Egypt, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you, so shut up already. I want to know which church is it exactly where the Rev. Jesse Jackson preaches. And where does he get his money. And why is he always part of the problem and not the solution. I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you're running from them. I worry about dying before I get even. I think beef jerky could quite possibly be the perfect food. I enjoy watching high speed pursuits, the more damage the better. I know that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two devoted parents -- one male, one female! I think tattoos and piercings are fine if you want them, but please, don't pretend they are a political statement. I think Dr. Seuss was a genius. If that makes me a bad American, then yes, I'm a bad American. If you, too, are a bad American please forward this to everyone you know. We need to start a revolution. anyway..that.describes.an.ornery.american.pretty.well

Leia Mais…

AIDS in Africa

Yep Africa is in trouble. Remember the huge birthrate problem we were being warned about? Guess what there are countries in Africa where the prospective pool of parents for the next generation are riddled with high percentages of AIDS. Seems without any intervention from the developed word, the third world problem in Africa has taken care of itself.

Just when did we become so racist as to allow flimsy laws and agreements preventing even humanitarian aid? And what gets me is that from a capitalistic viewpoint, the shear numbers of AIDS in Africa would allow huge economies of scale. Even if the western drug companies charge $1 a day for the drugs, they would reap huge huge profits.

In fact, supplying AIDS treatments to Africa would probably pay for the entire original investment which created those drugs.

I am not much a believer in conspiracy but in the case of inaction on AIDS in Africa, I can see no justifications at all. All I know is that the overpopulations which were feared in the 1970's did not take place in the 1990's like the UN feared. These countries are no longer in danger of doubling populations, they are now in danger of having severely reduced populations.

Rhodesia was one example. I use the colonial name of the country because I think it has changed again. But I remember reading about the current state of affairs in the country. The book "Things Fall Apart" is loosely based on Rhodesia and what happened when this country fell from a democracy to a racist military dictatorship. In reality the country really did fall far. But by the mid 1980's the country was beginning to recapture some forwards momentum. The paper I was reading, was in an anthropology journal so it was, as usual, very dry reading. But the thing that I still remember as shocking was that of the population of child rearing age, 55% of the adults had AIDS. The implications are obvious. If you remove 55% of your future population, how the heck do you ever form a stable prosperous country?

And because AIDS is a magnifying disease, the effects on the second generation is even more pronounced. Out of 100 people in a village, 55 people die and don't have children. The next generation is based on 45 breeding people. if 55% of them die, you can see the results. every 20 years the growth is ridiculously low. That's just Rhodesia.

In a way, instead of overpopulation in Africa we are now faced with depopulation. And depopulation benefits the rest of the world. Now when a famine hits Africa, less hungry mouths have to be fed. Since economies are unstable, investment is cheaper and easier in Africa. In fact, a depopulated Africa has created a perverse possibility of a secondary unofficial colonialism. Western Economies well get the benefits of economic output without the drains of actual control.

Look for example at Belgium sending troops into the Congo. 20 years ago there would have been a world wide cry of "foul". Now, due to the weakness of the populations, a former and hated colonial power can do what it wants. Yes there were political overtones to the invasion of Congo, but the real benefit was to Belgium economic interests.

A society suffering from disease is unable and unwilling to resist outside interventions. African Governments are privately so preoccupied with AIDS, that they can not focus on any other issues.

Hunt Petroleum out of Huston Texas conducted an exploration of Kenya for oil reserves. This was in the late 1980's. The oil fields found are massive. Kenya's population is riddled with AIDS. The government is currently unable to even control the development of the oil fields. Hunt Oil is basically in collusion with other world oil companies in not developing the oil reserves. Imagine if Kenya could use oil revenue to pay for AIDS drugs? The population would be healthy, and more importantly Kenya would be socially stable enough to do what it collectively wants with these oil reserves.

I guess what makes me wonder is that there is absolutely no reason for AIDS drugs not being sent to Africa. Most of the countries could completely pay for them right now. More people alive would mean large economies, and larger economies mean more purchasing power. Why would Bayer, Merck, Littlejohn, etc not want to sell to a huge market?

I don't know what my point is, but if the goal of capitalism is to make money in available markets why the heck are the drug companies not selling in this market?

I really hope its not racism.

Leia Mais…

Hate Crimes

What are hate crimes?

PC at its worst. Look we have a basic set of laws. You commit murder you commit murder. I don't care about your motivation. All I care about is that you are given a fair trial and hopefully convicted.

By creating various degrees of motivation you set up our government with the untenable task of having to define and punish criminal acts based on a populist judgement. Did the skinhead murder the black guy because of racist beliefs or because it was a case of self defence? Or was it a case of malice murder? Or was it because the black man was having sex with the skinhead's girlfriend.

So Do you try the case based on lust, racism, personal protection, premeditations, or what? And how does a defendant prove his motivation is not based on racism without incriminating his own defence?

Hate crimes is yet another PC agenda... sounds great and if your against it you are a heathen. But then just how did preventing usurping the 5th amendment become the advocacy of heathens?

If you continue allowing the passing of hate laws the end result is a large degree of governmental power determining how to prosecute a person. If the government has a weak case; throwing a hate crime rider onto the bill of charges may make someone plead guilty to avoid instead being labeled a hate crime commiter. Right now we have a government that I'm not to certain of. They may not prosecute in a malicious manner now, but what if there is a time when government agenda is served by tacking on hate crime prosecutions to otherwise ordinary crimes?

Sure, a normal murder conviction will net them 7 years, but if they tack on a hate charge you can get an easier conviction and get them put in jail for 20 years. Maybe one day the members of the Rainbow Coalition will be on the wrong side of the Governmental castle moat and the easiest way to get rid of the opposition is to label their actions "Hate Crimes".

At that point maybe then the PC faction will realize how greatly Hate Crimes legislation goes against the sound logic of the constitutions we live under in these United States.

Leia Mais…