PRIDGER'S OBSERVATIONS
John Q. Pridger
AMERICAN CULTURE
"Towering ignorance under a thin veneer of media-induced sophistication and cosmopolitanism has worked wonders." Pridger
"Yes, Americans, in particular, have become much more sophisticated. That's why so many can be functionally illiterate yet appear to be the epitome of an enlightened electorate." Pridger
"We've really grown up and become a mature nation and people in the last three decades. Today even the children use sophisticated adult English. Like smoking during an earlier era, Hollywood has shown us how cool, normal, and how wide-spread it is. The many advantages and profitability of pornography and immorality promoted in professionally produced entertainment has helped remake this the country into what it is today." Pridger
"A recent (2002), National Geographic Study has found that very few Americans have the least understanding of geography. Of the several relatively advanced nations included in the study, only Mexico scored lower than the U.S.A. We've come a long way." Pridger
"American ignorance in geography is why so many Americans vaguely knew that the white apartheid regime in South Africa was responsible for drought, famine, and starvation in Ethiopia and Somalia, and repeated natural calamities in Bangladesh." Pridger
"American culture really started turning on its head in the Sixties. The combined effects of the Civil Rights Struggle and the white counterculture movement (a form of Uncivil Rights), set it off — aided and abetted, of course, by the fact we were engaged in our very first really unpopular war. Something had clearly been wrong with the status quo — our nation clearly had not been living up to its ideals. So, the government, the NAACP, hippies, and embittered returning Vietnam veterans combined to throw the baby out with the bath water. Whamo! Our culture (such as it was), was totally transformed within a decade or two. We ceased being a nation that knew what it was supposed to stand for, and became perpetually confused. Civil Rights and Uncivil Rights combined into a literal Pandora's Box, which flew open and reinvented the land of the free and home of the brave. It will never be the same — nor will it ever again approach being what it once aspired to be — "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." Pridger
"We are still a nation very much in transition from what was once a Constitutional Republic founded on Christian values to a diverse and increasingly fragmented and troubled nation. No longer either largely Anglo, Teutonic, Celtic, and Nordic-American nor even a melting pot of western European races in general, we have become a witch's brew of diverse races and cultures without a cohesive political or philosophical ideology. Beyond the idea that diversity, free trade, and international interdependence are good and must be defended in the name of freedom, we have no national mission — except maybe to fight terrorism. It is hoped that perpetual war will be able to keep the country together while it is being interdependent, but that formula will not work for long. The divisions are too great in our society, and we are too dependent on the rest of the world to retain great nation status. The American century has passed, and what many are now referring to as our One World Empire, will undoubtedly be short-lived. In less than a century, another power will rise up and the seat of power will continue its seemingly endless westward migration around the globe." Pridger
"Oh yes, there could be a temporary (or even permanent) stop to it. We have gained the potential for wiping civilization out entirely, and that will always be a potential and increasing possibility. While we fret that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, and might use them, we are the only power that has actually used nuclear weapons, and we effectively gifted them to the world. There are dozens of nations with weapons of mass destruction, and nearly a dozen with nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. The technology was largely disseminated from and by the United States. When India and Pakistan became acknowledged nuclear powers, one must assume that many other nations have also become secret nuclear powers, or are on the brink of becoming nuclear powers." Pridger
INCOME TAX — FAIR TAXES
"The words 'The IRS,' when combined, spell "THEIRS"— meaning that which is Caesar's." Anonymous
"Governments last as long as the undertaxed can defend themselves against the overtaxed." Bernard Berenson in Rumor and Reflection
"Income should be redefined to exclude the very 'labor' of the working poor. Everybody should be allowed a minimum living, before the taxman steps in to take a share." Pridger
"For those who say everybody, even the poor working stiffs, ought to be required to pay his 'fair share' for big government, I say that the poor working stiff pays his fair share by the sweat of his brow. Taxing his wage is to subject him to double taxation."
"A man's labor should not be taxed, because there is no profit in labor. One trades his labor for its value in the labor market. Thus, it is an even trade. Taxing it is the very definition of slavery." Pridger
"There should be no income tax on a mere living wage. Let us call the minimum wage a living wage for tax purposes. The Standard deduction for an individual should be no less than the living wage. At $5.77 per hour, that would be about $12,000, or $24,000 for a married couple. The child deduction should be at least half of the individual standard deduction, or about $6,000." Pridger
"Individuals should be able to deduct expenses for the costs of being a worker, such as the cost of commuting to work every day, even if they do not itemize. This is a cost of doing business, whether as a laborer or a office executive. Why should businesses and corporations get better treatment under the tax codes than individuals?" Pridger
"In this way our present graduated income tax could almost be made fair for the working poor. Of course, taxes would start above those standard deductions and allowed business deductions. Those making more than the minimum wage would pay taxes on their 'profits' (that amount above the official poverty level), as if it were a business profit. This would be the profit that skill, education, or business acumen would impart to the worker's wages or business efforts." Pridger
"Of course there are those who would object to this, saying that intelligence and success should not be penalized. But, as we all know, there is no such thing as a completely fair tax system — but, under our system, somebody has to pay the taxes. Why not the well off, the rich, and the super-rich who happen to be the most successful? Naturally, most of them already do — but they do very well in spite of it. Why, in their positions of comfort and prosperity, would they wish to see the poor shorn of any part of their meager earnings? The rich, of course, would get the very same breaks as the poor — provided they use the standard deduction." Pridger
"Many corporations generate large profits, and thus should share significantly in the income tax burdens. Of course, there are those who would say, corporations should not be taxed, because in the final analysis, people pay the taxes anyway (i.e., 'Corporations don't pay taxes, people do!'). This is true, but it ignores the fact that the profits of corporations are generated on the backs of generally underpaid labor (often, in the global economy, almost slave labor), and distributed to society's wealthiest people. Corporate taxes, of course, are ultimately paid by whoever the corporation can most easily charge — whether labor, consumer, or stockholder. But since labor is usually already underpaid, most of the burden would fall upon consumers of corporate products or services, and stockholders." Pridger
"Even more than being generators of necessary public revenue, income taxes are a means of government regulation and control. The founders of the republic did not intend for the government to exercise micromanagement control over individuals. In fact, the income tax is diametrically opposed to the intents of the founders and the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The very concept of 'limited government, by the consent of the governed,' was abolished when the Income Tax Amendment was ratified. To the degree that individuals are directly taxed on wages, they have become subjects of and to the state — something our founders certainly intended to prevent. Under our Constitution, individuals were meant to be free and sovereign. Corporations, however, are creations of law via the state, and ought rightly to be regulated and controlled thereby so that they best serve the public good. One way they can serve the public is by paying a reasonable share of their profits to the public treasury." Pridger
"Trade and international commerce should also be taxed, for both 'protection' and revenue — and for humanitarian reasons. The protective tariff was not only protection for American industries, but for American labor and the American standard of living. Since the advent of free trade and globalization policies, tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of America's best jobs have gone east and south to Asia and Latin America, along with hundreds of factories and some whole industries. In the process we have squandered some of our greatest national capital, and grossly undermined national security in the process." Pridger
"We have gone from being an independent nation with a largely independent national economy, to an interdependent (dependent), nation. At this late date we are dependent on foreign trade not only for oil and strategic minerals, but practically everything we once manufactured for ourselves. Increasingly, we are even becoming dependent on foreign suppliers for many of our foodstuffs. We did this, not because we had to, but because of willful and suicidal national policies which could only be described as criminal and treasonous, on the part of policymakers and our mis-representatives in Washington." Pridger
"The humanitarian reasons for national protectionism, would be several fold. (1) To give the American industrial and textile worker, and the great American middle class a second chance. (2) To give the American family farmer a chance to once again provide the nation with its best ever insurance policy. (3) To cease generating the growing number of Third World sweatshops (with slave-like working conditions) that manufacture an increasing amount of our consumer goods. (4) To stop the increase in the semi-slavery of indentured servitude in the manning of those sweat shops in Asia and elsewhere. (5) To forestall the destruction of local economies and agriculture wherever large corporations set up business in the Third World. (6) To forestall the accelerating exploitation of both labor and natural resources around the world. (7) To encourage economic independence, agricultural and industrial self-reliance both at home and abroad. (8) To forestall or completely avoid the huge humanitarian disasters that a completely interdependent world will certainly suffer when the infrastructure of that global interdependence is interrupted through future (and inevitable), natural catastrophes, general and regional warfare, or an economic cataclysm of proportions never before seen in the world, due to the degree of global interdependence we have helped to formulate and accomplish." Pridger
"If the global economy implodes, as could happen if the air leaks out of Wall Street stocks fast enough (and the unmistakable hissing of rushing air can distinctly be heard right now), the kind of humanitarian disasters that we are accustomed to seeing (and sometimes causing), in foreign nations could visit the environs of the Continental United States. What would we do, for example, if our China trade alone were suddenly cut off? If oil supplies were seriously curtailed, we'd be in a heck of a pinch, as everybody knows. But the China trade! Few have thought to worry much about that (though the ten day port lockout on the West Coast got a few people thinking for a few days). Wal-Mart would go the way of K-Mart, Enron, Global Crossings, World Com, and several Airlines. If Wal-Mart goes, where will we get our stuff?" Pridger
"If Wal-Mart ever goes bust due to a curtailment of the China trade, we'll find out what the domino theory was all about. Wall Street will be shaken to its foundations." Pridger
"What could cause the China trade to be cut off? War, of course. Not in Iraq, but in Asia. Sooner or later Red China is going to cross the Taiwan Strait and liberate what was once called Free China. War in Iraq, however, could provide China with a great opportunity to move while we are occupied in the Mid-East and unlikely to back up our big talk in the Far East. In such an event, my feeling is that we will give up Taiwan and let China have its way, just to keep Wal-Mart from crumbling and tripping up an already fragile economy." Pridger
Pridger's "Quick Takes" on 9-11
and the
WAR ON TERRORISM
"Finally, the perfect 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace' scenario!"
"Finally we got what our policy managers and intelligence agencies have been fearing (or was it courting and expecting, or even planning?) for at least two decades. The only surprise was that it took so long to happen, and the spectacular magnitude of its 'made for live TV viewing' success."
"There is little doubt the Bush presidency is far preferable to a Clinton presidency. But now the Bush administration has been Bushwhacked (or high jacked), by the events of 9-11."
"In the wake of 9-11, there was little choice. President Bush had to do something, even if it was wrong."
"The president has handled himself very well since the attack. Too bad about the direction he's leading the country. He's showing himself to be a true leader and avid war enthusiast."
"The Bush 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' response is straight out of the Old Testament."
"Wait until Israel gets its teeth into this war on this unlimited war on terrorism idea! Woe unto the Palestinians!"
"It can easily be seen that we occupy the high ground here (but not necessarily the moral high ground), looking down on slippery slopes on all sides. And at the bottom there appears to be a sea of quicksand."
"When the world's only remaining superpower declares all-out global war on a rag-tag and widely scattered bunch of international terrorists, that's pretty scary."
"Every man, woman, and child is a potential terrorist. They're everywhere!"
"The so-called USA Patriot Act makes true Patriots cringe."
"Fulltime patriots have become rather quiet since 9-11. The USA Patriot Act is that scary!"
"The USA Patriot Act enshrines a new war-cry; 'Give us safety and security at any price!' and 'More Power to the Federal Government!"
"Once a rebel patriot cried: "Give me liberty or give me death!" And a great nation, with a Constitutionally limited government, was born."
"With the recent enactment of legislation creating a new the Department of Homeland Security, a true and 'legal' federal police state has been approved by our mis-representatives in Washington. It amounts to a final nail in the coffin of constitutionally limited government, and any notion of the 'consent of the governed'."
"Well, I take that back. 'The consent of the governed' means whatever the electorate will stand for. An electorate that cries, 'Give use safety and security at any price' has voted for unlimited government."
"The president has vowed to fight until terrorism has been eradicated. Finally perpetual job security for the standing army!"
"Bush promises that the War on Terrorism will be like the Energizer Bunny. It'll keep on going, and going, and going..."
"...until either the Republic defaults on its indebtedness or Hell freezes over." Pridger
"This War, and maybe one with Iraq, may keep us occupied until the next superpower becomes strong enough to openly challenge us. One such potential challenge could come over Taiwan, while we are tied down taking out al Qaeda and Saddam, and defending freedom in everywhere else in the world except the Fifty United States." Pridger
MORE ECONOMICS AND WAR
or the Economics of War
"The United States can't default on its debts. It's as impossible as it is inconceivable. The whole New World Order hinges on Uncle Sam's ability to pull economic rabbits out of his hat. If he ever fails, the whole apple cart will flip over. Nobody wants that. War, of course, has always served as a preventative measure, and it appears we have that remedy in mind again. What else could explain president Bush's determination to start a war? Yes, we're so desperate that we are will to start one ourselves this time, and the sooner the better. We've got to do it before the economy does what the World Trade Center Towers did after being hit by large commercial jet aircraft. (No, the fallout from that catastrophic event isn't over yet by any means! And I'm not thinking of Osama bin Laden and the rest of his bunch who are still out there.) The problem today, is how to have a big enough war to work the necessary magic without putting our leaders at an unacceptable degree of risk. Unfortunately, a war with Iraq would be pretty small potatoes, and insufficient to get us out of the deepening economic swamp. But, maybe something much bigger will come of it. A Mid-East-wide conflagration might fit the bill rather nicely. All the pieces seem to be in place. If the United States can come to control the entire area, Arab Oil would effectively become an American asset. That ought to keep the creditors happy and gas prices down." Pridger
"Short of a huge war, Congress merely has to raise the debt ceiling. There's theoretically no limit on how high it can go, and nobody's big enough to collect if we ever get in a jam with the creditors." Pridger
"It appears that we may have to go it almost alone in a second war with Iraq. Not really. When push comes to shove, most of the European Union will know which side of the bread the butter is on. Asia will string along because it will be profitable for them too. Even China will gladly furnish whatever we need to keep Wal-Mart's shelves stocked. They'll do that right up until the time is right for them to take over Taiwan—then (when Wal-Mart is threatened with bankruptcy), we'll have to knuckle to a new scheme of things around the China Coast or face a consumer revolt." Pridger
"Ironically, Great Britain, the mother country (the one from whom we once gained independence, and the only other nation that has invaded the continental United States), is the only nation openly standing behind us in our hoped-for war in Iraq. This reminds me that Cecil Rhode's once had a grand vision of the United States reuniting with the British Empire to rule the world. Could his plan still have some relevance in the post-colonial world? It's an interesting thought." Pridger
"Oddly enough, NATO, whose original post-war purpose was "to keep Russia out of western Europe, keep Germany down, and keep the United State involved in European affairs" is being expanded far beyond the G-7 nations. The G-7 are the economic powerhouses of the industrialized world. The post U.S.S.R., non-G-7, NATO newcomers are buffer states, brought in to broaden the military and economic parameters of what is essentially a huge, western European, economic empire. Germany, no longer the WWII pariah, is its major continental member and strongest military power. But Germany is significantly out of step with the United States and Great Britain with regard to the impending war on Iraq. So are most of the other members of NATO and the European Union. So is Russia. So are the Arab States, and most of the rest of the world. The implication is that the United States and Great Britain may combine to outmaneuver and effectively wag NATO and the rest of the world. Both NATO and the UN are pretty toothless without U.S. support. Russia has too many problems of its own to be a serious threat to U.S.-UK intentions. Perhaps Rhodes scholarships are finally bearing fruit." Pridger
"Just think. Only a few years ago, when the Evil Empire collapsed, the WARSAW Pact wilted away, and the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, we had the threat of world peace staring us right in the face. It looked for a while like we would be stuck without a credible enemy! It even seemed NATO was irrelevant, and that there would be a huge economic "peace dividend" to spend at home. But we needn't have worried. We've got all of Israel's enemies available to us! Of course, our leaders knew that. They weren't really worried. But they never leave anything to chance. Just in case, we've been helping Communist China become an economically and militarily strong potential adversary. It never hurts to plan ahead." Pridger
"Saddam Hussein has ample reason to consider the United States his enemy. If he rejoiced over 9-11 and lent material and moral support to al Qaeda, it would have been perfectly understandable. Yet, try as they have, our men in black have been unable to link Iraq al Qaeda or the 9-11 terrorists. On the other hand, we have continued to be at war with Iraq since the Gulf War — both economically and militarily. We have been bombing in Iraq regularly for over ten years! (These events are so routine that they hardly rate any news coverage.) If these bombings are not blatant acts of war, then I don't know what acts of war are. The excuse that we only do it when Iraq tries to defend its own airspace is very disingenuous." Pridger
"We have been directly responsible for untold suffering of the Iraqi people for over a decade. It would be perfectly understandable if Iraq had been developing weapons of mass destruction, in hopes of someday delivering themselves from U.S. and British oppression. Yet the American people seem to be perplexed and annoyed that any nation would entertain such ideas." Pridger
MIDDLE EAST
Finally a somewhat comprehensive, and relatively balanced, history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been presented to the American people in the form of a seven part NPR (National Public Radio) series entitled, "The Mideast: A Century of Conflict." (Aired between 30 September and 8 October, 2002) The transcripts and related material, including maps, may be seen on the NPR web-site at http://www.npr.org. Of course, it will do little good, since so few Americans listen to NPR, and since so few Americans really know where the Middle East is. Most probably think it is located somewhere between New York and the Mississippi River.
It's about time Americans were told that for all their suicidal fanaticism, the Palestinians didn't create the Mid-East conflict, but have merely been reacting to problems created for them by others. The NPR series points out that the problem started, not in 1948 with a magical and spontaneous birth of the State of Israel, as most Americans have been led to believe, but over half a century earlier with the birth of political Zionism — and more specifically when the British decided to use both Arabs and Zionists as pawns for their own strategic purposes during World War One. The result has been a century of conflict, with no end in sight. The British Empire ultimately fell partly because of it, and the United States eventually inherited responsibility for subsequent geopolitical events (though this is not pointed out in the series). Because the anguished cries of Palestinians were ignored for so long, the the problem has become totally intractable. Ultimate blame for today's ongoing crisis in Palestine rests not with the Palestinians, nor even with the Jews, but firmly in the court of the great powers that have shaped the modern world and Middle East since World War One.
England betrayed the Arab States after World War One. Then, in its attempt at a modicum of justice for the Palestinians, betrayed the Zionists just prior to World War Two. The United States betrayed the British Empire while helping it win WWII, and the sun finally set on the British Empire. While the sun was setting on the British Empire, the sun was rising on the Soviet Communist Empire. It expanded, as the result of our WWII victory, and became our major global adversary and finally a competing superpower. The world was divided into two hostile camps, with western capitalism and international communism vying for global hegemony. Consequently, the United States inherited the position of global superpower and protector of Israel.
Of course, it would be too much to expect the NPR report would be totally honest and unbiased in its coverage of the Middle East. One glaring example of pro-Israel bias was the mention of the Israeli attack on the American intelligence vessel, USS Liberty on the fourth day of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war:
SHUSTER: "On day four, the Israeli air force mistakenly attacked a U.S. intelligence ship near its coast, the Liberty, killing 34 Americans, and wounding 171."
Shuster (presumably knowingly), perpetuated a lie and official cover-up. The attack was certainly no mistake or accident. The obvious intent was to sink the Liberty with all hands and blame it on the Egyptians. Do a Google search on 'USS Liberty' to learn more about the attack and U.S. Government response and cover-up.
THE FOLLOWING ARE SNIPPETS OF PALESTINIAN HISTORY (not
from the NPR series)
Unless otherwise credited, the quotes are Pridger's
"Palestine has been Palestinian for thousands of years. The Palestinians are an Arab people descended from numerous races and tribes, including Canaanites and undoubtedly the ancient Hebrews of Biblical times. Many ancient Hebrews became Christians and Moslems both before and after the Jews were driven from Palestine."
"The Jews enjoyed only a relatively brief period as the dominant ruling tribe in the Holy Land. As such, they were invaders and conquerors, and their conquest was very transitory. Even according to their own religion, they got their just deserts for failing in their God-given mandate. The Bible provides our only insight into what their holy mission entailed. Essentially, God told them the Promised Land would be theirs if they killed everybody they found there."
"Modern Jews are descended from a multitude of races. Many (if not most), are not in the least related to the ancient Hebrew peoples except through religious tradition. Many modern Jews originated in Eastern Europe and Russia, descended from the ancient Khazars, a non-Semitic people. At best, present day Jews represent some small remnants of the ancient Hebrews. Yet their claim to Palestine is based on the promises God supposedly made to the Israelites in the Old Testament. The descendants of the Children of Israel, however, are probably more represented in the blood-lines of the Palestinian people than the Jews of the Diaspora. Judaism, however, kept the dream of returning to Palestine alive in tradition for two thousand years, remembering (in their ritual), "Tomorrow Jerusalem!" The Palestinian Arabs, however, have always been in Palestine and, after thousands of years of continuous occupation, their claim was about as solid as any territorial claim could possibly be."
"Palestine had been administered as part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire for centuries prior to World War One. The Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany against the British when the great war erupted in Europe. The English turned Zionist aspirations to its benefit with the promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine—essentially as the spoils of war. (This, in spite of the fact that they had made conflicting promises to the Arabs.) Jewish settlement in Palestine only got cranked up after WWI, and was from the beginning resisted by Palestinians and surrounding Arab States. Jewish influence in the United States had helped to bring the U.S. into Europe's great war — thus British victory, and the resultant Jewish homeland in Palestine under the British League of Nations Mandate."
"One of the greatest fallouts of Great Britain's promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine is seldom appreciated today. When the Zionists aligned themselves with the British Empire against Germany in World War One, it had effectively declared war on Germany on behalf of International Jewry (though very few Jews knew what was going on). If Germany was not previously a hot-bed of anti-Semitism, it's no wonder that it was soon to become one. It should be noted that the headquarters of the Zionists had theretofore been in Germany. (Theodor Hertzl, the founder of political Zionism, was a German, and quite proud of his German nationality, heritage, and German culture.) But it soon moved to London, for obvious reasons. The fallout, of course, led directly to Hitler, Nazism, World War Two, and the Holocaust. Such things are the 'unintended consequences' of war and perverse policy, now sometimes called 'blow-back'."
"After World War Two, Jewish immigration to Palestine (principally from Eastern Europe), increased dramatically, and England could no longer control the political destiny of Palestine."
"Prior to the commencement of serious Zionist settlement in Palestine, a Jewish minority had resided in peaceful tranquility among the Arabs of Palestine for over two thousand years. It was only when the natives Arabs of Palestine perceived a serious threat in continued Jewish settlement that anti-Semitism became a factor in the region. In fact all of the Arab States had, largely amicably, hosted Jewish minorities since Biblical times. These somewhat cordial relations ended when the great powers decided the destiny of Palestine."
"The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Jewish controlled Palestine (1920 through the present), remains an all-time classic example of the phenomenon. A persecuted people became a persecuting people, protected from effective restraints (at least after WW II) by the 'Holocaust guilt complex' shared collectively by the United States and Western Europe. The Holocaust has been the hammer with which Jews have been able to squelch all opposition and criticism. Opposition to Zionism and Israel are equated with anti-Semitism. Thus, the Jews have been able to do to the Palestinians what Hitler did to the Jews (short of an actual campaign of extermination, of course), without an outcry from the Christian world. In fact, many Christians believe the creation of Israel to be the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus support the Jewish State right or wrong."
"The significance of this is that it is happening in modern times, before the eyes of an allegedly 'caring international community' of enlightened nations. These things are no longer allowed, according to so-called 'International Law'."
"When the North American continent was ethnically cleansed, it happened over a period of centuries. In those earlier times what we now call genocide was an accepted practice. It was a matter of progressive conquest by an enlightened civilization over an inferior one. It was during a time when both slavery and foreign colonization were perfectly acceptable—since the colonial powers were the only ones capable of setting international standards. America, once a collection of runaway English colonies, was born in that period. The institution of chattel slavery died in America in only 1865, some decades before the ethnic cleansing of native lands was finally concluded. The long period of European overseas empires didn't come to an end until after World War Two. A few small remnants of empires still exist."
"The New World Order that international leaders rave about today is a direct result of European colonial conquest of much of the world. Can anybody imagine what the world might have been like today had the European powers not colonized the Americas, Africa, and much of Asia? Whether or not it would be any better is highly debatable. It certainly would have remained a lot more culturally diverse, and a lot more interesting. The so-called European enlightenment would have been confined to the warring kingdoms of Europe, and the noble savage would have had full range of the Americas and sub-Sahara Africa."
"There would have been no world wars. The nations of Europe would have had to remain satisfied with warring among themselves and near neighbors, on their own real estate. Of course, the rest of the world's peoples would have been warring too, among themselves and their neighbors — probably mostly with spears and bows and arrows."
Between World War One and 1948, when Israel declared its independence, the population of Mandatory Palestine went from about 9:1 Palestinian to 9:1 Jewish. This reversal of ethnic makeup and land ownership was accomplished at first through semi-peaceful means, though the Palestinians resisted Jewish settlement from the beginning. But the means became increasingly violent, in spite of British efforts to keep a lid on the situation and preserve Palestinian rights. Finally, raw terrorism was employed against both the British and the Palestinians. The British finally threw up their hands and gave up, and several hundred thousand Palestinians fled their homes and villages in terror. Thus the Jewish State of Israel was born."
"It is the presence of the Jewish state of Israel on territory that was once Palestine that causes the Middle Eastern problem, whose magnitude cannot be exaggerated. It has been and remains the most intractable problem of world diplomacy. For years even Henry Kissinger avoided it, because, as he said, it was impossible to solve and he hated to fail." Steven E. Ambrose, American Foreign Policy (later Rise to Globalism), 1971
"The land of Palestine belongs of right to a people uniquely favored of God..." Robert Stookey, quoted by Ambrose
"Part of the Palestine problem is that both Israelis and Arabs believe that the above sentence is describing them. In short, the Middle East sets true believer against true believer with survival as the issue. No wonder... solutions are hard to find... warfare has been so bloody and costly... continuous... that hatreds run so deep... each (American) president has tried... to pursue an even-handed policy, if only because he needed both Arab oil and Jewish campaign contributions." Ambrose
"It should be noted that the 'even-handed policy' of American administrations only dealt with Arab States, and not with the Palestinians themselves. The Palestinians have always been ignored, or considered the internal problem of Israel and Arabs states to which they had fled. Little wonder that the Palestinians have become so shrill in their frantic efforts to attract attention to their plight. The purpose of suicide bombers is to attract attention to a great injustice." Pridger
(Between 1948 and 1956) "Israel looked to Russia, not to the United States, for the arms she needed to defend herself... In 1956 the Israelis joined in a conspiracy with Britain and France to launch a surprise attack against Egypt... But Ike (president Eisenhower) would not allow it, nor would Khrushchev... Nasser praised the Russians, who were building the Aswan High Dam for him and... they abandoned their decade-old policy of support for Israel." Ambrose
"...the two main results of the Six Day War (1967)... were Israeli occupation of Arab national territory and the creation of a fully developed, and fanatic, Palestinian nationalism... the Palestinians would not rest until they had their own national state... A third result of the war (was that the Israelis)... began to think of themselves as invincible. So did other observers, including the C.I.A. These impressions were strengthened in 1970 when Nixon began selling arms to Israel on a wholly unprecedented scale. A fourth result was to drive the most moderate of the Arab states solidly into the anti-Israel column, because of the occupied territory, the Palestinian problem, and because Israel now had possession of the old city of Jerusalem. Most Arabs agreed that the Israelis could have peace, or they could have territory, but they could not have both." Ambrose
(After 1967, the United States) "...looked the other way as Israelis began building permanent settlements in the occupied territories." Ambrose
"It's difficult to believe we have been looking the other way for thirty-five years while the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the building of permanent Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, has been front and center on the global stage? After all, aren't we the global policeman? Could we be a corrupt cop, or just a blind one?" Pridger
"With two eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth peoples in a bloody embrace in Palestine, there is little wonder that we find a perpetual conflict." Pridger
"There is little question which side has had the upper hand in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It's the side that receives military aid plus $3 billion annually from Uncle Sam. The score (body count), consistently runs three to one in favor of the Israelis." Pridger
"The west, including the United States, has never been overly fond of the Arabs, and the feelings have been mutual. Arabs have always been viewed as a radical and ruthless non-Christian race. The Crusades had cemented the pattern for perpetual hostility. The Infidel has never been welcome in Arab lands. The Arabs, of course, considered all Infidels as enemies of true religion. Barbary Pirate depredations on American ships early soured the American perception of Arabs. Western explorers who ventured to Arab lands were often under the threat of death if they were discovered. Shipwrecked American seamen who were unfortunate enough to find themselves castaways on an Arabian coast were enslaved by Arabs. A few of the luckier ones were ransomed and thus regained their freedom." Pridger
"After WWII, the discovery of vast reserves of oil in key Arab nations forced a change of attitudes and brought mutually beneficial business relationships between the western powers and the Arabs. The west needed Arabian oil, and the Arabs needed western technology, expertise, and markets in order to exploit their newfound wealth. To prevent the Soviets from gaining too much influence in Arab states, the United States became very friendly with the major oil-producing Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and others. The Israeli Palestinian problem, however, was to become a perpetual fly in the ointment of that ongoing relationship." Pridger
"The western powers (England and the U.S.) had done their best to install friendly regimes in the Arab and Persian Gulf States. The Shah of Iran was a friendly ruler who we installed, cultivated, and armed to help protect western interests in the region." Pridger
"Iran is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world." Jimmy Carter, 1977
"Then, after the Shah of Iran was deposed, Iran became a pariah state. When Iraq attacked Iran, Iraq became our favored nation, and we armed another future enemy. On 17 March, 1987 (during the Iran Iraq war), Iraq did to the USS Stark what Israel had done to the USS Liberty in 1967, hoping to blame it on Iran. As with Israel before, the administration excused the incident as an unfortunate accident." Pridger
"When Iraq attacked Kuwait (apparently thinking it had the go-ahead from the United States), Iraq became the number one pariah state of the Middle East, and the Gulf War ensued." Pridger
"Another war on Iraq appears to be President Bush's fondest dream. Apparently he hopes his legacy will be to have killed Saddam. That's a rather odd ambition for a Christian president. Aside from oil concerns, Iraq is considered a great military threat to Israel. Ironically, Israel illegally acquired weapons of mass destruction long ago, without the slightest protest from the United States (though president Kennedy had apparently protested)." Pridger
"Iraq is the keystone of the entire Persian Gulf area, and possesses large untapped oil reserves. If the United States, or friendly western corporations, could control those oil reserves, we would be in a position to control oil markets. With a permanent military presence in Iraq (known as 'nation building'), the potential power of OPEC would be largely neutralized." Pridger
"The problem, of course, is how to become a regional colonial power without seeming to be a colonial power. The way it would be done, of course, is through installing a friendly regime which would give favored corporations de facto political and economic control over the country." Pridger