Things I did not know about Israel/Palestine

Last week I began to think how can the Arab’s believe Israel is taking over the Middle East.  There are 22 Arab and or Muslim nations. Iran is not considered and Arab nation. Israel is surrounded by Arab and or Muslim nations. How can anyone say "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East or trying to take over the Middle East?

The Arab countries occupy 640 times the amount of land as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. How convenient that today's Arab Nations are forgetting that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine". Why are they not demanding Jordan return that area to the Palestinians?

In 1916 control of the southern portion of the Ottoman Empire was turned over to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank" and Gaza ) was given to Great Britain.  Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine.

The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an attempt to rid the land of swamps and malaria and to prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land did not only attracted Jews back to the land it also attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt by the Jews to get rid of the Arabs in the land.

in 1946 Trans-Jordan was renamed to "Jordan". The remaining 18% of Palestine, now WEST of the Jordan River, was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland.  However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then or now. With the help of the British the Jews were forced out of Trans-Jordan!

The British at first tried to maintain order but soon due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East they turned a blind eye. It became clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs and drive out the British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.

The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 18% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State  based upon population concentrations.  The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River. Therefore, the resolution was not carried out and it never became legally binding! The Arabs started the 1948 war.

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war.

The truth is that most of the Arab Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 – between 400,000 to 500,000 – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jews. They left because they believe the Jews would be exterminated and would return afterwards to reclaim their homes, and to inherit Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong.  The Jews  did not throw out all the Palestinian Arabs living in Israel they chose to leave after being encourage to do so by the seven Arab nations that invaded Israel. Those Arabs who did not flee became Israeli-Arab citizens.

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State. From 1949-67 when all of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem were under Arab [Jordanian, Syria and Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Why do many in the world want the Jews to give up part of their country when none of the Arabs were willing to concede any of their land to the 'so called' Palestinian Arabs?

Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist most of its planes were destroyed while still on the runways. Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel, while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel. The Arabs lost the battle in six days they had once again underestimated the Jewish Nation of Israel.  

Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war started by seven Arab nations and fought by three Arab nations the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they would stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel.

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious Israeli General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. I think this was madness. The Arabs would have slaughtered the Jews if they would have had an opportunity to do so and to this day are still trying to. Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza and inside Israel Proper itself. He thought he would be able to build a healthy relationships with the Arabs – how wrong he was.  If he build a bridge to the Arab world it was a bridge to terrorism.

Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. Why do they not give the 'so called' Palestinians their own land to establish a State or Nation. 

Another thing that is interesting to me is the term "Palestinian". The name had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940's, and has been slowly redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. I guess political correctness started much earlier than we thought. 

The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," or in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. The Palestinians are a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs. Yasser Arafat’s family came to Gaza from Egypt and a wealthy family of current PA President Mahmoud Abbas moved to Tzfat from Damascus, Syria!

The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization and in many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

Is Edward Snowden or the Government the villain?

In 2001 the Bush administration secretly ordered NSA to eavesdrop on the electronic communication of Americans without obtaining the warrants required by criminal law. At the time it was reveals by the New York Times it had been going on for four years. Edward Snowden was not the first to reveal the dirty antics of the NSA or the Bush/Obama administrations.

The government justified its actions by saying the threat of terrorism gave the President virtually unlimited authority to do anything to keep “the nation safe”.  This unlimited power has led to abuse. Does this also mean martial law?

The Founding Fathers protested laws that let British officials ransack at will any home they wished. The colonists all agreed the British needed warrants to carry out such actions. They also believe the warrants must specify the name of the person being searched and what was to be searched. The Fourth Amendment enshrined this idea in American law. It was designed to prevent Americans from being searched without probable cause and a warrant. The Founding Fathers would not have agreed to the NSA abuse as Bush and Obama want us to believe.

The purpose of mass surveillance is to suppress dissent and mandate compliance. The procedure has been used by Syria, Egypt, Libya, U.K., French, Germany, East Germany, U.S.A., China, North and South Korea, Iran and most likely all countries that have the capability to do so.

The ability to eavesdrop on people gives immense power to the governments. It is almost certain human nature will lead those with that power to abuse it.

In 2006 Bush denounced American companies for cooperating with China to carry out surveillance of its citizens when at the same time the Bush administration was doing the exact same thing here in America.

The threat of terrorism and fear has given the government a wide array of ways to abuse their power with little dissent from Americans. The Internet should advance democracy by giving those without power the power to express their dissatisfaction with those in power.  But, when it is used by the government to stifle discourse freedom of expression is lost. The Fourth Amendment becomes worthless.

How many Americans know that the government has the capability to activate their cell phones and laptops remotely and use them as eavesdropping devices? How many know even after Edward Snowden made it public? In 2006 a Federal Judge presiding over a mobster case ruled that the FBI turned on cell phones and used them as listening devices and it was legal to do so.

 How many Americans know about the program called PRISM, which allowed the NSA to collect private communications from the world’s largest Internet companies, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Apple, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL and Skype.   How many know today even after Edward Snowden made it public?

The NSA does not operate alone the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand (the five eyes) are willing partners in mass surveillance.  They share information among what they call the “Five”.  What one of the “five” knows they all know.

In 1978 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was created to prevent surveillance abuse that the Church Committee revealed. Eventually FISA itself became corrupt and rubber stamps anything the NSA wanted. FISA ordered Verizon to turn over all its records for communication between the U.S.A. and abroad, including any local telephone calls. That one decision made it possible for the NSA to collect private information on ten million American citizens.

For a one month period ending February, 2013 NSA collected more than three billion pieces of communication. Is it any wonder they missed the attack in San Bernardino.  They do not have the man power to handle that much information – no one does. The terrorist involved in that act had been communicating for over two years via telephones and Internet discussing their plans. Only after the fact did the NSA discover the records. The NSA “Collect it All” program was a complete failure in preventing the terrorist attack.

The Obama administration’s senior national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, lied to Congress when, on March 12, 2013 he was asked by Senator Ron Wyden: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans?” He lied under oath, but was never prosecuted. Edward Snowden confirmed he had lied.

The Obama administration made Americans think Edward Snowden was a liar by asking us to believe that it was impossible for a “HIGH SCHOOL” dropout to do what he claimed he did. They painted a picture of Edward Snowden as being inexperienced, young, seeking fame and “COCKY”.  If a “HIGH SCHOOL” dropout was not qualified then why was he hired in the first place? He dropped out of high school most liked because the public school system failed him. The curriculum probably bored him and the teachers were probably not qualified to teach him. Diploma or not he impressed government officials enough to hire him several times!

 In 2007 he applied for a position with the CIA in Geneva and got the job. He was given diplomatic credentials. He worked undercover. He was handpicked to support the President at the 2008 NATO summit in Romania. It was during his time with the CIA that Edward Snowden began having problems with what the government was doing.  He left the CIA in 2009.

Like many he thought Obama was going to bring transparency and change to government. He soon realized it was all campaign rhetoric and in fact Obama wanted more secret surveillance. It was at that time he began to think of becoming a whistle blower.

Edward Snowden was chosen by the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Counter-intelligence Training Academy to teach cyber counterintelligence at their Chinese counterintelligence course. This does not sound like the incompetent, unintelligent person media in cooperation with the government tried to make Americans believe he was. He was a cyber security expert that NSA was glad to have and had even stated they wish they could find more people like him.

I believe Edward Snowden was willing to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of the greater good!

TO BE CONTINUED…

Do not take my freedom of privacy from me!

I want to begin this piece with saying I am not against ALL  government surveillance. Some spying in my opinion will always be necessary and all countries do it. I am for targeted surveillance, aimed only at those for whom their is substantial evidence to believe they are engaged in real wrongdoing.

It was decided in the 1970’s when the Church Committee revealed abusive surveillance being carried out by the United States government  that the government must have evidence of probable wrong doing before it can listen in on personal conversations. Unfortunately government officials did not follow the law. On their own without consent or knowledge of the people they began the unlawful practice again.

Until recently I was for hanging Edward Snowden. I bought the government's propaganda and the mainstream media’s line that he was a traitor and that he had put government operatives in danger. A close friend had been telling me for years I was wrong and I finally agreed to research the matter and I was shocked at what I discovered. I am sure there are many citizens just like me that are or were making judgments on Edward Snowden without really looking into the facts for themselves.

Is Edward Snowden a villain or not. That is a decision we each must make, but WE should make the decision based on what we learn from taking a critical look at the situation and not just buy into media and government hype.

Here's one definition of a hero: It's someone who, given a choice between doing the right thing at great personal cost or the wrong thing for great personal benefit, chooses the former. I now believe Snowden did the right thing and no one can dispute that he made a great personal sacrifice to do so. Snowden did not gain personally from what he did, he had to leave the country he loved, he had to leave behind his family and girlfriend and he gave up a potential income of around $200,000 a year.  Edward Snowden risk everything to let the American people know how their Constitutional freedoms were being violated by our government. We would most likely never know if not for Edward Snowden.

Unlike others who've controversially exposed government secrets — WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, the latter facing life in prison — Snowden was at least somewhat more selective in his disclosures, and the journalists who received them. It is not true that Snowden’s disclosure put ANY government operative in danger – no identities were released by Snowden. The government has not shown one definitive examples of someone being put in danger. The only government entity harmed was the NSA and the Bush/ Obama administrations. The world became aware of the lies they have told for years regarding national security.

Edward Snowden has forced a public debate on the sweepingly invasive programs that should have taken place before they were created. If continued indefinitely, a secret government database permanently tracking the actions of every American would, indeed, pose a threat to democracy.

Some in media that are more loyal to the government than to the people did the governments bidding and tried to betray Snowden as a person who liked drama. They said He gave himself the code name "Verax," Latin for truth-teller, and he warned a Washington Post reporter that the U.S. intelligence community would be willing to kill to stop the release of the documents. I to would have taken a code name until I was ready to reveal myself – if ever. Most of us take code names when we use the Internet – Tom1942. If anyone believes someone in government is not capable of killing to keep their illegal actions from coming out they are naive. Why would the majority of mainstream media do the governments bidding - for future access to the politicians.

For years the UK and US governments broke the law. For years, they hid the sheer scale of their spying practices not just from the British and American public, but from other elected officials. I bought into the government line, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear.” There is no such thing as a risk free society. I now realize that  myself and most Americans have been dubbed by the government in allowing them to rob us of our guaranteed Constitution rights in the name of TERRORISM! More people are killed each year in automobile accidents than by terrorist and I do not think anyone is willing to give up their freedom to own a car and drive because of the risk of being killed in an automobile accident.

Snowden, now 32, remains in Russia under temporary political asylum after leaking classified National Security Agency documents in 2013. Former Attorney Gen. Eric Holder said Monday that Snowden has performed a "public service" by releasing the information on the agency's vast data-collection programs. This is the same man that wanted him tried, given life in prison or even executed.  This is the same man that lied about Snowden to make the American people and the world turn against him. This is the same man that said a high school drop out would never have access to such classified intelligence. This is the same man that called Snowden a traitor and a liar. Now this same man says Edward Snowden performed a public service, but still wants him tried in the United States for treason. Why would he want him tried for treason if he committed a public service BECAUSE it would be a deterrent to future whistle-blowers. I say pardon Edward Snowden.

I am going to continue this subject in stages, but I want to give you some things to think about as we go forward in days to come. FBI Director James Comey told a Senate committee on Dec. 9 that the two San Bernardino shooters were radicalized at least two years before the terror attack and had discussed on the Internet and telephone jihad and martyrdom as early as 2013. How does Comey know this? Comey was probably relying on communications intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA). Whether that’s true or he learned it some other way, the government looks bad. If Comey’s source is the NSA, then it means persons known to have radical sympathies still managed to enter the U.S. unhindered and stage an attack. So what are we taxpayers getting for the trillion dollars we have given these agencies for over a decade?

Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower who fled overseas in 2013, said the NSA was intercepting far more data than it could possibly analyze. It did so as part of General Keith Alexander’s “collect it all” campaign. The result was an intelligence agency drowning in so much intercepted data that it missed what Comey’s agents found in a matter of days – once they knew where to look. By then, 14 people were dead and 22 injured. We spent a trillion dollars and sacrificed hard-fought civil liberties so the FBI could explain a killer’s motive after the victims were already dead.

It may be that Comey uncovered information about the terrorists’ background by non-technical means. FBI agents knocked on doors and talked to people.  It’s old-fashioned, but still effective.

The NSA still looks bad in either scenario. It means that even with every possible legal advantage and a near-unlimited budget, the agency still missed very obvious signs of radical intent by people who then entered the U.S. and attacked us. That’s not basic security, much less “national” security. That proves Americans are not getting what we are paying for.

FBI Director Comey says it is all our fault – the citizens fault. He claims the citizens are at fault because we prefer to keep our private affairs private and in doing so we are endangering national security. You would have thought their government tactics had worked in San Bernardino. Government officials know how to blame others, but not accept responsibility for their failures.

Washington politicians and government employees serve Washington not the people of the United States. We are getting a bad deal!

Too  be continued…

The government uses fear to make the citizens fall in line

Create fear in people of a common enemy and convince them you are the only source of protection from that enemy and you can gain ultimate control. That technique has been used by the military in basic training for decades. New recruits fear the Drill Instructors and the source of protection from them are your fellow recruits. I was the Barracks Chief at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. I was surprised that the Drill Instructors I knew in private were not the same men when in front of the recruits. They used fear to get the new recruits to depend on each other. Fear is a powerful thing and can be used for good and bad.

9/11 caused Americans to fear. Who could we turn to other than our elected officials for protection? We had no choice but believe the people running our government knew best and the politicians took full advantage of it. We unfortunately did not think for ourselves and began to rely on the government for all our security against terrorism.

My political party – Republican Party – was all for the Patriot Act. That same party espouses the virtues of our Founding Fathers, small government and individual freedoms. Our Founding Fathers would have never supported the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act increased the size of government and the Patriot Act took away some individual freedoms. The Patriot Act led to the NSA abuses which robbed us of some of our guaranteed freedoms.

President Bush shortly after 9/11 signed the Patriot Act. It was done in haste and could not have possibly been well thought out in such a short time. The Patriot Act allowed our government to legally intercept PRIVATE conversations and correspondence and even gave the government the right to enter our homes and businesses for what the Founding Father described as unreasonable search and seizure.  We were willing to accept this intrusion on our privacy for the politicians promise of security at home and abroad from terrorism. There is no such thing as a risk free society.

9/11 was a perfect opportunity for Bill Bratton to gain the fame he so desperately craved. Bill Bratton was a former Boston policeman who became second in command and then went on to become the head of the New York transit police system. Even as a military policeman in Vietnam he had already begun to seek fame.  His colleagues referred to him as an ‘attention seeker’.

If burglaries went up in a particular area he got warrants to bring in every one in the area that had ever been questioned or convicted of burglary. If car robberies went up he set up registrations check points in the area and stop every vehicle. If you did not have the registration papers in the vehicle you went to jail. Crime did decrease, but civil rights were violated. The homeless became a target. New York city citizens complaints against the police department jumped 50%.  The question we all have to ask our selves is what price are we willing to pay for a little more security. Are we willing to tolerate aggressive police tactics (Bill Bratton tactics) and loss of freedoms.

The officials of New York were at first impressed until the law suits were filed and settlements were having to be made out of court in order to reduce losses and two years later Bill Bratton was fired. Bill Bratton moved on to the notorious Los Angeles Police Department as Police Chief.

Following 9/11 people were willing to accept Bill Bratton’s crime-fighting techniques.  People were looking for a PROACTIVE F.B.I., private security force and police force. Most were willing to sacrifice their rights to privacy because of fear. Bill Bratton returned to fame and his police tactics went in to effect in the Federal Government.

I went to a Galveston Bookstore and ask for a book on terrorism and a few days later was visited by two government agents and ask why was I searching for the book. I simply wanted to know as much as I could about what I had to fear. I learned that curious people needed to fear their own government. I had been a supporter of the Patriot Act until then because like many Americans I said over and over if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. Maybe I over reactive, but the visit by government agents instill some fear in me. It seems that since Galveston is a port town extra precautions were being taken in the area.

President Obama and President Bush defended the extensive secret collection of information as critical to fighting terrorist. I believe security had to be stepped up, but I question did they go too far. What I found interesting was Obama saying you can’t have 100% security and 100% freedom. I realized then for sure that just like guerrilla warfare in Vietnam our leaders did not understand terrorism at all. Any American who thinks they are 100% secure are foolish.

In a single vote in 2011 our members of Congress  wiped away what thousands of patriotic Americans died for -- our right to privacy and our freedom of speech. As events in Washington have proven, freedoms lost are hard to regain. The Patriot Act was based on ignorance and fear. We were told the Patriot Act did not curtail any of our rights. We have now found that was not true just as we have found so many things Washington politicians say are not true (Iran Deal). Ben Franklin agreed with the statement: "Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." Politicians are often ill informed (weapons of mass destruction). Human history has proven there will never be an honest excuse for giving away our freedoms.

I will not vote for a politician that voted for the Patriot Act which took away Americans freedoms and then turns around and ask us to support ‘Open Borders’ or ‘Path to Citizenship’ or ‘Amnesty for Illegals’  or welcoming Syrian refugees into America.  This alone is enough for me to vote for Donald Trump.