Re: *HURRAY!* Google Groups gets act together
- From: Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Aug 2005 17:47:17 GMT
In sci.archaeology, Eric created a message ID
news:bvKdnfW7t_Q05ZTeRVn-qw@xxxxxxxxxxx:
> Landy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Also, replace the Boycott Google campaign by the "Boycott
Inbred
>>> Presidents" campaign which at the present time includes
the Kennedys,
>>> Kerries, Clintons, Carters, and Bushes (the latter for
forcing Israel
>>> to cede more land to the Terrorists and Pro-Terrorists in
the deceptive
>>> name of Road Map for Peace (actually Road Map For
Withdrawal).
>>
>> Land which Israel forceably took in the first place from
your so-called
>> terrorists.
>> Who are the real terrorists in this case?
>> cheers
>> Bill
>
> Yeh, after the arabs attacked Israel. No, the real
terrorists are now and
> always have been arabs. I guess you have been reading the
left-wing view of
> history, you know, the one that is re-written to fit their
agenda? I've
> just never understood why the left hates the Jews so badly,
why they
> blindly support every terrorist (Mao, Ho, Castro, Che,
Arafat, bin Laden)
> that comes down the pike. Just makes no sense, no sense at
all...
During the period from 1880 to 1920 there were about 70,000
Jews living in palesting and about 500,000 coastal arabs, and
transjordanians, about 70,000 orthodox christians. In the
period that followed Britian initiated a secret policy of
Jewish immigration as well as a public policy. Just about
every guideline they committed to in the LoN Mandate for
palestine was violated, and by 1928 the violence rate between
arabs and jews, measurable in single digits per year began to
rise. We know for a fact that between 1928 and 1938 Jewish
interest in Britian were exporting arms shipments to
Palestinian Jews, and we know for fact that the British has a
policy of tolerance for backdoor illegal immigration of Jews
to palestine. As the palestinians found out about this in the
1930s the leaders who were selected by Britian, revolted and
the british simply exiles them from the country. By the 1940s
the population of palestine was about 50:50 Jewish and Arab.
The British virtually walked out of Palestine in 1939, leaving
a growing set of problems that would accelerate at the end of
the war. At this time, 'officially' or Madate compliant Jewish
settled areas were about 10% of Palestine. It is also
important to note that in this period Jeruselem, there were
almost no european Jews settled in 1920, began to see
increases in Jewish settlements unofficially a number of petty
crimes committed against muslims is a more or less harassive
manner. Officially the british were supposed to block
settlement of any Jews to indigeonously occupied regions,
unofficially they ignored all arab claims that this was
happening.
The turn of events that exposed the problem is that one of
the early settled areas in the northern part of the
palestinian mandate area was encroached upon and had some sort
of petty crimes being committed. A jewish family brought the
case to the British, which then heard the case, only to find
out it was the illegal Jewish squaters that were the cause of
the problem. It somehow got into the situation reports that
were brought to the league of Nations, and the League
requested the GB investigate the level of illegal immigration.
When they did so they found that immigration was almost double
of their committed values, and the unemployement rate in the
illegal immigrants was about 85% explaining the rash of petty
crimes in some areas. In addition to this, at this time Jewish
terrorist organizations began to form in palestine, the target
of these organizations was a Jewish state over most of
palestine, we have a pretty good idea of how many there were
and how enumerated they were by the size of intercepted arms
shipments. These organizations are responsible for several
assasinations including on of the UNs top diplomats from
Sweden.
After the war was over the UNs took over adopted and
modified the League of Nations obligations including the
palestinian mandate. The arabs would not negotiate with Israel
as long as illegal immigration to Palestine continued (a.k.a.
the Baldorf plan in full action) whereas the Jews would not
form as part of a palestinian state, the required their own
state. Violence continued to escalate as the British and
Jewish interest pushed for a Jewish state much larger than was
permissible under the guidelines of the original mandate.
There were a number of maps drawn up, 2 had maps still
available at the United Nations would have Isreal primarily in
the northern part of Palestine and another with Jewish
settlements close to the Red Sea. In one plan the city of
jeruselem was under UN control in the other arab control. The
jews of course reject these plans.
1. because they did not connect the areas of Israel
2. because direct access to jeruselem was denied
(That this was not about a holy war is fictitious, it was
always about a holy war and holy lands)
During the period the British were to come up with a plan that
would compromise between Arab and Jews. The level of
immigration increased, as with the level of violence. The
boundaries (mandate) was to be settled in august, the british
however walked out months before this declaring 'we have no
control', within 24 hours the Jews declared and isreali state
that was considerably larger than either the 2 maps and which
connected the coastline to jeruselem and moved into the
salient, the arabs then attacked the salient, and the rest is
history.
The considered defense of Jews is that the Jews _HAD_ to do
what they did (illegal immigration, increase the size of the
declared state, non cessation of immigration) because of
events in europe between 1933 and 1945. Therefore from both
sides the weight of the blame does not fall on the
palestinians but on British Policy and corruption and the
political climate of europe during the 4th and 5th decades of
the 20th century. Even to the degree that one can parse out
Arab Jews and the original turkic settlements in the North,
these Jews often were disenfranchised by the way 'things went
down'.
There are claims by Jews of mistreatment and massacres
under the palestinians; however, there was one sniper from
syria and a couple of malcontents noted during the period from
1918 to 1928 and the escalation of crime thereafter follows
the deviation of British policy from their promises and the
illegal immigration. To state it more properly, we in the U.S.
would be envious of the level of crime in palestine between
1918 and 1928 if we rely on the British documents. Crime was
so sparse during the period they had taken to reports of
'bread theft' and 'juvenile disobediance'. At the time turkic
law was incredibly strick and the palestinians had a habit of
strict law obidiance, and according to custom it was forbidden
to attack a Jew because jews were the children of Moses, the
chosen people. Crimes against jews took place elsewhere in the
arab world or because of outside arabs (Wahabbist) attacking
settlements close to the dead sea, Jews often attribute these
to palestine during the early Mandate period, simply did not
occur.
The documents and reports and questioning of the British at
the League of Nation are interesting and informative. Anyone
who thinks they know the cause of the conflict in Palestine
should read these documents first, particularly in the U.S.
the actual written records of the prewar period are never
discussed leading the palestinians to claim there is a Jewish
bias in the american media. Indeed the secret policy of the
British was not made known until 1974, and it was not widely
reported in the U.S. Whenever they are discussed such as here
you hear the rhetoric by zionist of 'its just a conspiracy
theory' or 'Geeze the british were unaware of the level of
illegal immigration, it was european policies that caused the
illegal immigration and not the British supervision' etc. And
yet the British do know who was secretly sending arms to
Israel and they know who secretly financed those arms
shipments and they also know its the same person who the
secret policy letter was sent to during the 1920s. Therefore
this was beyond a passive policy or incompetence, there was
active political background on the part of the west for
increasing violence in Palestine.
I want to know, was it the British and Jewish interest who
skillfully predicted the terrorism, or was it the British and
Jewish extremist who were the terrorist and sponsering the
terrorist. And now the pandoras box is open, where are the
British to close it? How much money are the Rothchilds going
to give displaced palestians for lost land, for stolen public
lands, for loss of religious and other cultural sites?
The question does not need to be answered because we can
judge the tree by the fruit it bears. Since the doctine began
to take affect the concern as been to ignore the claims of the
palestinians and take heart the Jewish claims of 'security'
and 'homeland'. This expansion of the Jewish regions of
palestine is both pre-Isreal and post Israel with the Jews
simply adopting the underhanded policies of the British. This
has continued unabridged as the population of Israel has
increased, the only pull backs have been in Sinai and the
recent pullback in Gaza. A retrospective look at Israel would
not claim that all Israelis are Zionist, but a glance of
terroristic Israelis from the 30s 40s and 50s might conclude
that the direction of the government was in the direction of
Zionist extremist, and their actions cannot refute this
either. However even the Extremist need to realize there is an
eventuality to a palestinian state, and the real issue is how
to contain its size while not diluting the political will of
Israeli Jews. The feeling amoung the Israeli elite has not
changed. The palestinian population is now growing, and the
international community is calling for representative
democracy which included palestinians. If the Jews do not
separate palestinians they will eventually be forced to give
them the right to vote. And so now the Jewish goal is to keep
as much of their seized land as possible while simultaneously
partitioning palestinians on as densely population areas as
possible. Gaza fits that bill for now.
While Israel claims it is a democracy, more than 2/3rds of
the people living in its held territories cannot vote for the
leadership which controls that land. The Jews absolutely
refuse any form of government that question their authority
over their homeland (i.e. the currently defined state,
implicitly large areas of the west bank).
What we would call a 'non-representative' government.
Also. One point of reflection, what would the US have done if
Jews declared their own Country in New York City or in
southern Florida. Now imagine if they had 100 or 200 atomic
bombs pointed at our most developed cities. Waddayathink our
response would be, love or hatred? And how about this, they
would be encroaching on independance hall, plymouth rock,
minuteman national park and the feild at gettysburg.
In such situations life is much easier with Hand over eyes.
The other side of the equation is this. The arabs have
repeatedly claimed they wished to push the Jews into the
mediterranean sea, to remove from existence the Jewish state.
I would supposed the pragmatist amoung the extremist would be
tolerant of the held territories pre-1933 (which in essence
would push them into a small corner of the mandate), arabs
often have a zeal for hyperboles. Again there are claims by
some jews that the palestinians should be forced out of the
west bank and gaza, that the entire state was granted to them
by god, and that islamic arabs hold key jewish cities and
ruins, traditionally however gaza was under the jurisdiction
of egypt or other empires during most of the period of Jewish
historical occupation. There were even some arabs that claimed
Hitler was appropriately dealing with the Jews. The Jews use
these claims as an excuse for the taking of land for security
reasons, however, I think most of the readers who go through
the LoN documents might understand the emotions behind these
very hideous statements. The critical element in the policy is
the ententions of the Arabs in 1948-49 war, and whether
consistent policy now between the principles (Syria, Jordon,
Iraq and Egypt) will be in accord with this policy or not.
Only one country of the three fails to recognize the right for
the Jewish state to exist, and currently its activities are
devoted to Iraq.
Even syria would probably back off its current policy if a
palestinian state in accord with the current authority is
brought into place and Jewish settlements are widely pulled
back. The situation with Iraq and Israel is currently a non-
issue, but I suspect that after america leaves Iraq will break
apart, the Sunnis becoming a political ally of syria but
without their monetory resource base. The Shia becoming part
of Iran or allied to Iran, who could raise trouble with
Israel, worse with southern iraq hundreds of miles closer to
Israel. The Kurds would not engage in the issue at all as
there principle concern would be the turks and Sunnis. The
bedoins of S. Iraq are in essense the same bedoins of Saudi
Arabia, during the early mandate period the Wahabbis under bin
ladin's family organized raids of Israel, the British mandate
of Jordon was organized to stop them, and after the war they
broke from britian but the united states supports Jordon and
its army for essentially the same purpose.
There were about 120,000 bedoins that moved in and out of
palestine during the period of 1920s lost the rights as Jordon
hunted down and exterminated many and convinced the remainder
to settle (i.e. join the jordanian forces) or leave the
western semite region altogether (i.e. Sinai and S. Arabia).
Currently the extremist of this population have globalized and
so the issue is no longer Israel and bedohins its the West and
Wahhabistic Islam. It is critical to understand that
culturally the southern semites are the oldest and most
culturally similar to ancient semites, those that remain free
roaming nomads have changed little except in areas were oil
has developed. We tend to think of the Jews as being Tenaceous
peoples. The Bedohinds are even more tenaceous in their
beliefs and culture. This is something Mohammad saw as he
reflected on his travels into the levant, tribalistic beliefs
run very deeply. While Mecca became a center for cultural
changes, these centers moved to constinople, turkic republics
and iraq, and eventually the region reverted to in essence the
formal traditions with a new variation. The peoples
surrounding this religious icon may not neccesarily represent
the common beliefs of the muslim world, and their customs may
influence others like the taliban to take on more tribal
beliefs. There is in essence no way to change these beliefs
without changing the climate of Arabia. While we take these
beliefs as offensive to use, the longer term survival of
bedohins is what really matters, it is a harsh life with
restrictive and harsh rules.
I read an article in a palestinian newspaper concerning
Wahhabiism with 2 countering points of view, I had grave
concerns even with the moderate statements of the clergy, and
clearly these are a minority. At issue to Israel is the
concepts of Mecca idolatry as conceptualized under the Pillars
of Faith in Islam and the principle issues of holy sites and
shrines and the occupancy of foriegners, non-arabs or non-
muslims at these sites. One of the critical points that I hear
is that moderates want to make peace with Jews, but they seem
to have a problem with what "jews" are, whereas the extremist
are very blunt in arguing that a 'western jew' is not a Jew
and that these holy lands are for arabs, a sort of extremist
precrusadic belief. Wahhabism is not specifically a Jewish
problem, its simply that Israel will continue to be a hotspot
of contention for wahhabist, something the diasporic Jews
cannot change even under a reduced sized Israeli state.
Wahhabist have shown however they will engage soft targets,
and Israel is not that soft. They may not target Israel but
will target Israeli interest over seas, the World Trade Center
as sort of a representation of Jewish power in America.
Syria was once the center for Pan-Arabism, and extremist in
Syria run the spectrum of Islamic beliefs and idiosyncracies,
which one finds similar beliefs as Wahhabism. Whether or not
the government of Syria recognizes these beliefs is secondary
to the issue that it tolerates them and sponsers them when
convinient. Changing the policies of Syria is plausible with
alot of work on Israel's part. I think it is rather clear
after the skism between Syria and Egypt following the 1972 war
that Pan Arabism will never work, thus this particular
interest of a mechanism of forcing out Israel or forcing them
to become culturally arab will not work. Changing the lost
grazing lands of wahhabist bedohins remains a key issue.
The bottom line here is that Jewish immigration triggered
understandable feelings amoung Muslims and arabs and the
development of the Israeli state is something forced upon them
be trickery, manipulation and wars (some of their own perilous
creation), these are not conspiracy theories, most of the
common claims are supported by league of nations
documentation. Other terrorist issues are not under this
umbrella, and represented deeply seated tribal beliefs and
mythos that precedes Jewish immigration and is rooted in the
geographical needs of nomadic peoples, issues that will
resolve as internationalism obviates the nomadic lifestyle.
I want to also border this issue of Wahhabiism and not
neccesarily deal with the internationalized version of it. The
issue of backward peoples and tribal beliefs have to be taken
into perspective. I was watching CBS last night on the Duron
peoples of the Andaman chain. It is apparent that this culture
uniformly was aware that a tsunami was about to happen and
fled. Within this they have a mythos that protects them,
accordingly the God of sea gets hungry over many years and
comes up to feed, 7 waves he consumes houses and boats and
foolish people allowing the peoples that remain to rejuvenate
themselves and refresh their surroundings. Not to altogether
different from the semetic flood myth. A critical point that
these people sea when they look at others, particularly those
that perished is a 'greedy sophistry' and I would add often
reliant on technologies they don't understand and of course
think more highly of than they actually are. In Israel one has
the pentultimate technology based state, the perception of
events that transpired, again public lands taken by immigrants
and entrepreneurs and developed fall into the catagory of
'greedy sophistry'. And amoung the bible one finds both
christian and judean ethos, particularly the book of Job, that
go after these activities. From western point of veiw these
indigeonous peoples just disappear as we move in, we are not
clear where they go.
The grandchildren of the man who was telling them to
retreat up the island called the man a liar, and he finally
had to show them the sea was acting strangely they understood
danger might occur. This is a transition between the old and
replacement cultures where these children hire into modern
societies and adapt. The backdrop of course to our flood myth
is in the bible, corruption, non-beleif in god, and concerns
about accumulations of wealth. What point I am trying to make
here is perspective, what is terrorism and what constitutes
immoral behavior can be veiwed from different perspectives.
>From the standpoint of an indigeonous people who are adherant
to their traditions for survival reasons, one has to make it
clear to these people not only is advancement going to benifit
them (as Israelis believe the palestinians should understand)
but also that these benefits will be long lasting and non-
catastrophic in nature, and in very tenaceous peoples with
long history of oral traditions, proof may take many decades.
There is a beleif in western society that society can continue
to improve as it has, but by the same token all these
advancements are based on a non-renewable surrogates for
labor. A sceptical child can look at the issue and claim that
western social strategies will fail, it would be better to
resist change, and the west and the east, in fact, is doing
everything it can to reinforce those beliefs. So that the
saying reform you own house first before trying to reform
others houses is something to consider in the general
treatment of arab societies, and consider the very long held
written and oral traditions for the region, we can go back to
the bible and see what advancement has sometimes brought.
Many in the west see an obvious black/white situation,
emotions are at play and fundementalism has gotten involved,
however clueless it is to the situation in the middle east.
However the common experiences of middle easterners is one of
watching foriegn 'pest' invade and be pushed out, in general
unless the foriegn bring something of long lasting value (such
as wheat) they are eventually pushed out. Their contribution
is diluted. Our ideas in the west have a tremendous and
astronomically amplified volume which spreads its short term
wisdoms all over the world; however, we don't frequently ask
the question whether it will stand the test of time, whether
these peoples will at some point snickering under breath about
our catastrophic failure. And also not to mention that our
activities, begun in malice or trickery often end under
malicious circumstances or fall apart under the weight if its
own corruption (such as the Ottoman empire which triggered the
events). The guy who stands at halftime rolling his distended
painted beer belly in front of cameras at a loosing team is
often not seen at the end of the game after the losers rally
and double the score over their opponents with their
inevitable victory.
.
- Prev by Date: Supernova 1987A: Fast Forward to the Past (Forwarded)
- Next by Date: Re: CMBR and neutron stars
- Previous by thread: Re: *HURRAY!* Google Groups gets act together
- Next by thread: EC-funded Research Visits: Application Deadline 31/08/2005
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
