you lived in israel as what: an american soldier during the gulf war? i'm sure that was a good time to get an objective view of the arabs. seriously calig,i dont think i could explain it to you in a month of sundays but i'll try. read closely before you explode on me again because i'd really like you to have an informed dislike of me rather than your typical simple knee-jerk reaction you learned from your conditioning.
read the timeline stsanta posted as a starter. it is informative and will give you an overview. this is one of the most crucial parts here and the crux of my disdain for israel:
— November 29: A UN plan for dividing Palestine into two countries, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem as international zone, is presented. This plan was immediately met by violent protest from the Arabs. 590,000 Jews and 1,320,000 Arabs live in Palestine (31%).accurate, but a little short on in depth. when they say "is presented" it makes it sound as if the united nations sat down and everyone agreed it would be a great idea. its a lot more complicated than that.
before the UN adjourned for thanksgiving break there were two propsals on the table. the one originally sponsored by the arabs and the one sponsored by the jews. at the break the arab plan was the leading plan by an estimated 14 votes!! the arabs went into the holiday assured of victory. the jews went into the holiday on overtime mode.
here is a super-simplistic breakdown of the two plans:
jew: the current area is divided into two states a jew state and an arab state. some land that is currently privately owned by arabs will go to the jews. the jews decided which land they want and the UN enforces it for them. The arabs have no say in it and no unfettered access to the jewish state even if it used to be their home.
arab: the arabs proposed making israel one state inhabited and ruled by both jews and arabs. this is kind of amazing considering they were the chief inhabitants of the land at the time. the government model would mirror that of the united states. a congressional body would be set up with representatives for each region. the amount of reps each side got would be based on the population. it would be a democratic government where everyone could share the land and power.
the jews were outraged by this proposal. they wanted it all for themselves. remember, "god" told them they should live there thousands of years ago. they are the 'chosen ones' after all, and you and i are, i guess - the 'unchosen ones' or something, so it doesnt really matter what we think anyway -
as the UN took it's leave the jews started their lowly grab for power. they started bribing small countries to get more votes for their plan. they also threatened and coerced anyone they could. they went straight for the jugular on anyone they thought they could mussle around. here are just a few examples that are known. there are many books on the subject and i have only read a few:
- robert nathan, a rich american jew warned harvey firestone (another rich american jew - ever heard of firestone tires?)that he had better change the small african country of libera to vote for the jew plan or he would find himself out of business. nathan threatened to drag firestone's name through the mud in the jewish community til he was out of business. since american jewish business thrived on their network this really would have meant the end for firestone.
firestone owned huge tracts of land in liberia for his rubber plantations and payed gobs of tax money to the state. he immediately warned liberian president william tubman that if they did not change their vote, he would not go through with a deal to expand the acreages of their plantation and therefore liberia would lose one of its only sources of income other than ship registry. quite suddenly liberia changed their vote. (
O' Jerusalem larry collins and dominique lapierre, bnei brak publishing: steimatzky; 1982)
- citing further examples from the text above, phillipines president carlos rojas was expecting a huge congressional credit at the time of the formation of israel and was in favor of the arab plan. over this brief break he was contacted by 26 senators and 2 supreme court justices to change his plan?! he received a telegram from one of our sworn imparital justices that said simply " the phillipines will isolate millions of american friends if they contiue in their efforts to vote against the partition" for those of you not educated in roadkill - thats a threat. later that day the phillipine ambassador recalls being ordered to the whitehouse for "a blunt and intensive briefing". now who says the US controls the UN?
the phillipines changed their vote.
- Haiti's vote was changed by the promise of a loan (more american jews at work) of 5 million dollars! haiti also changed their vote. imagine that! (
la siecle d'israel, paris 1994 pg 403 and
abba eban 'an autobiography' pg 95-97, new york 1977)
- a jewish committe met with paraguay, uruguay and greece(amongst others) over this period and soon after all countries decided simply to obstain from the vote. many have offered speculation as to the terms of the change of heart but since i am trying to keep this part strictly factual i will omit that part. i'm sure you get the picture regardless. (
israel and the arabspg 27-28, ahron bregman and jihan el-tahri, new york, 2000)
- further from the above cited text, ethiopia also decided suddenly to abstain during this period.
- prince wan of thialand was also convinced to be out of the country and thus no vote which counted as an abstention vote. ( from
eban cited earlier -p 97)
anyway before this becomes a gargantuan essay on how to bribe and threaten your way into a country - they got the votes they needed one way or another. the arabs lost faith in the UN at that moment.
why is that so bad? i mean no gunfire right......? the least moral plan won that's why. the plan most against our founding ideals won. the most un-american plan won. the plan that meant injustice to some won - and we have upheld it ever since.
the arabs had put up a fair and accurate proposition and only got sneered at when closed door conversations and big bucks sealed their fate. the palestinian arabs didn't have big money to throw around and big connections in washington. they felt cheated and that the people who decided their fate were pawns of the jewish lobby. their end of the bargain was that foreigners would now come and say "excuse me coming thru - you now live over there see ya" and they were powerless to stop it. what would you do?: "oh sorry sir, yes sir, may i work for you now please sir? - oh the faucet is kinda tricky lemme show you how to work that" BS! - if you were half a man you'd stand up for yourself.
additionally - you misinterpreted my remark that the current debacle in israel is not the sole fault of white guy land owners. somehow - and i am still not sure how - you interpreted me as espousing aryan virtues or something/ lemme break it down piece by piece.
a- stsanta blamed the current problem on former colonial rule in the region. its a valid argument and partially true IMO, granted, but my point was a simple argument against that notion being the exclusive cause of it all. an equitable resolution could have been reached anyway had it not been for the lobbying/bribing efforts of old money jews in the US. no one had to be displaced. my point was that a bunch of mean colonial white guys didnt just sit down and decide - rather many races created the current israel and most of all, old money jews in the US. it wasnt a dig, just a rational disagreement. i dont like to defend colonialist sins but i dont like shifting the blame to them either. the colonial power in question, britain, put it to the world to decide (thru the new UN) and they did. how you got a white power message from that escapes me but doesnt surprise me somehow.
i don't appreciate they way the arabs were displaced and brushed aside caligula and since a huge portion of my tax dollars go to support them every year i have an opinion on this just like you do.
i will freely criticise the jews on this whether you call me a nazi or not. something in pop culture's conditioning tells them to call someone a nazi when they are critical of the jews. why is this such a given? can only nazis disagree with jews? it is a pretty powerful mind control tool that if anyone critices you - you are immediately lumped in with history's all time bad guys. defense of your ideals becomes as simple as tieing your detractor to a dead politcal party from 60 yrs ago.
how about fundamentalist christians or moslems? who flies off the handle when they are criticised? i've heard moslems called dogs and worse many times on this board alone - what's the matter - no sitcom example for you to fall back on telling you how to characterise people who feel that way? no heartbreaking moslem examples for you to sympathize with? no endless reminders of their plight? no tv miniseries about their troubles? hmpf..... no one says a word or objects when moslem, christians, hndus or any other religious group are criticised because they are approved targets.
over a million tibetans died with the chinese occupation there - why aren't you boycotting chinese procucts and up in arms about that? they killed people due to their being a specific nationality why dont you call them nazis? seems you'd have a better argument.
your characterization of me as some nazi aryan freak is silly and simplistic. fyi- when my children are born they will be half white and half chinese. do you have the balls to do that? run that past your own family before you answer. you may think you do but you dont even now the half of it.... every day i deal with silly harmless racism when my wife and i walk up to a counter and both set our purchases down and they ask with a blank look "oh are you together?" and that's in san francisco - you should see how we go over in placed like utah
do i flip out? hell no - they have every right to wonder because we are the exception not the rule. it is our burden to be patient, not society's. the general rule is that people marry their own kind so i dont get upset when people dont immediately put it together. we are the abnormality not them. (and dont read abnormality as bad)they are usually far more embarassed than i ever am. how many times do i flip on the tv to see some stupid white guy doing an insulting chinese impression. or hear the endless jokes mocking their speech or habits. i dont get upset why should i? half the time their generalizations are accurate and we get a laugh too. people are brainwashed into being so touchy. i'm not that glass-jawed and neither is my wife-we'll do what we want and to hell with our enemies-if i criticise one people and praise another through generalizations then so be it. i am tired of society telling me not to use my common sense and have no respect for your system of what is taboo, and dont care if it distances me or not. i dont care what the idiot skinheads say on one side or the ill informed brainwashed pavlovian martyrs like you on the other.
it is too bad that most of the people spouting off about any one group are usually idiots like the skinheads or the kkk. most of the time they are members because they need to belong to something or they suffer from irational fears and insecurities or they are just plain uneducated and fall for the propaganda. sometimes they are well meaning people that just don't know any better. it just means that if you dont like what someone is saying you simply group that person with a hate group and their credibility is squashed. that is the cheap way out and it avoids any real discussion that might shed the light on an injustice and lead to real changes.
israel does get special priveleges and that is a fact.
i dont agree with their tactics in dealing with the palestinians and i think they are ruthless and self absorbed. i dont like their monstrous lobby in the US or their constant pressure on our government to play their little game.
i hate my country being a puppet to anyone! americans just arent that way. we need to shed our skin of them and let the chips fall where they may. we need to get our own house in order.
you see it as israel defending herself - i dont see that they had any just right to be there in the first place and they are now reaping their bad karma. there are as many israeli groups dedicated to the eradication of the arabs as their antithesi.
you said:
"And BTW if a law passed the the american indians could pick one white person every week and kill him,I`d totally aggree with it.
Even if it was me who they pick first"
why? do you feel they were given a raw deal? some of them were removed from their homes by treaty; was it any less Egregious? why are you sympathetic to them and not the arabs when their facts are similar in many instances?hmmmmm....... maybe we need more arab commemorative coins and collectors plates detailing their plight and we could change the minds of the sheople. i've always said that the native americans needed a better public relations firm. if the arabs launched a brief publicity campaign on tv and in the media at large they would have you and countless other sheep up in arms in no time. unfortunately most americans are divorced from fact and in love with petty drama. fortunately not all. not yet.
the holocost was a tragedy, not a carte-blanche to commit whatever crime suits the moment for the rest of eternity. my eyes are wide open despite the constant reinforcement to the contrary, dumped on us daily in pop culture. one day the magic will wear off and people will see the scene as it is. let them reap what they've sown - in the end despite all the spin and quiet murmurring, they will either way.
