Women's Issues

[MaryPage]

Well, exactly, Steph.
I, too, think it was one of the worst decisions EVER that gave corporations the reins to run this government by MONEY.  Excruciating, the pain that clinches my veins when I think on that.
And did the Court select our president?  You bet they did!  I will go to my grave convinced that Gore not only won in Florida, but what about those five hundred THOUSAND votes in excess of Bush's nationwide?  Scheesch!
I applauded Gore's doing the gentlemanly thing and making the running of our nation look good to the rest of the world by backing off gracefully and letting go of it.  He has never, to this day, said a nasty word.  How great must be HIS frustration.
No, life is not fair.  Often, our country takes steps backward just when we rather desperately need, in the better interests of all, to become enlightened and move forward.
But the Court is the best hope we have.  If only it were not chosen politically.
And when those of our citizens who are all consumed by their religious convictions will learn to separate church and state, perhaps even become enlightened as to what that actually MEANS, we can all sleep more peacefully and safely in our beds at night.  Until then we will be constantly under attack to be dragged back into the darkest centuries of humankind, when our total ignorance put us in thrall to the mythmakers with vivid imaginations and colorfully vicious tongues.  I guess hard times and harsh lives made it easy to gull folks into hating other folks.  When I was a child, I thought upon and loved to read all of the beautiful passages of The Bible.  Now, I shudder when it is mentioned and think instead on all of the hate mongering erupting constantly from our Bible Belt!  Too sad.

[mogamom]

Well spoken, Steph.  And people do disagree - without any hatred or malice.   Disagreeing used to be ok; seems now everyone has to accuse each other - so sad.

Have a great day!

[Steph]

i truly hate this business of acting like the other side of an arguement is a horrible human being. I agree that disagreeing used to be gentler, but so did a lot of life. I am too old. This is my second time to think that elements of our country have got off track. In Viet Nam, the lies from the military were terrifying.. Please oh please , let us settle down, get rid of the clown better known as Trump and then pick our candidates for good reasons,

[MaryPage]

I agree with you, Steph, but I disagree that Viet Nam was our only other mistake.  It WAS a mistake, and I became convinced of that in 1969, to this day remembering my moment of truth and horror.  But for us, as a nation, to go into ANY other nation and invade that nation and topple its government and then just pat ourselves on our backs and shake off the dusts of war and cry a tear over the bodies of our own that we bury and cover over the ongoing obligations to our hoards of wounded and beam beatifically, saying that now those peoples can form a democracy, when, the peoples don't even have a clue about a democracy and are accustomed to being TOLD what to do and how to do it;  it just doesn't WORK.  It does not work.
History shows, and why we don't LEARN this is a humongous mystery to me, but History shows you cannot conquer another nation.  Not truly.  You can smash it into the ground, but eventually it will rise back up and be against you and hate you.  If a nation, any nation, is to change, that change must come from within.  Its own peoples must rise up against their tyrants and depose them and set up their new endeavor at government, whatever form it may take, until such time as they get it right.  Then we can befriend the new nation and both countries can benefit.  Israel is a perfect example of this.  They warred and won on their own, and Harry S Truman was the first to recognize the new nation and the new flag.  I remember it well, and how I sobbed for Joy.  The problems they are having now are their own fault:  they should have immediately worked out their differences with their own and the displaced Arabs.  Of course, I am imagining perfection here, and they certainly did not own godlike qualities of prescience.
Fear and hatred of "the other" is the thing that makes my body shrivel in fear.  We have hung and burned "witches," nearly eliminated Native Americans, enslaved numerous tribes of Africans, lynched and otherwise murdered thousands of them, imprisoned countless human beings based simply on their differentness, and now we have a man way up in the polls who does not believe a Muslim should be president.  We have, what is it now?  Eight MILLION plus Muslims?  And yet a boy or girl born in this country and educated under our standards is to be barred from aspiring to be President if they worship the Very Same God we do (by a different name, but still they go back to and CLAIM our same Biblical history, not that this makes any difference) if they are Muslim?  That frightens me.  That threatens my sense of inclusiveness.

[Steph]

I guess I was not thinking, beecause my answer if actually ever since WWII .. i.e. Korea, we keep interfering in other nations and should not. war is wrong.. no two ways about it.

[MaryPage]

There was a marvelous documentary on PBS last night about Noah's Flood and where the story originated, which was in ancient Sumeria and Assyria and the city of Ur and other ancient cities there in Mesopotamia.  When the peoples of Judah were brought to Babylonia in forced labor, a period of time that lasted approximately 50 years and which ever afterwards Jews have referred to as "The Exile," they started writing down, in the cuneiform they learned from the Babylonians, their experiences, which included a version of the exact same flood story.  There were ancient rivers there, between the Tigris & Euphrates, which used to flood disastrously.  Well, we know something about THAT now, don't we!  And a flood like that would seem to encompass the entire known world, back then when those peoples had no clue of this planet.
After the Jews returned to Judah, later forming Israel, they put together their Holy Book:  the Torah, which now comprises the first books of our Old Testament.  There we find the flood story.  Ancient Sumerian texts are almost identical.
And so we have the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament and the Koran, with the Muslims claiming, truthfully, descent from Abraham and kinship to Jews and Christians alike, referring to them as collectively with themselves "The People of The Book."  Islam does not deny the life of Jesus;  they admire and refer to him as a great prophet.  And they do not claim Mohammad as God, but only God's prophet.  Their name for God, Allah, is meant to identify precisely the one and same God others call Jehovah!

[BarbStAubrey]

Really makes you question to what extent would we each go to be really good at something that would benefit others.

[MaryPage]

Very inspiring, Barbara.  What were the years involved?

[mogamom]

What an extraordinarily beautiful and lovely woman.

[mabel1015j]

Wonderful story. I hope they gave her some cudos before she passed away so she felt valued for what she did.

Well said MaryPage! USA is a great country in many respects, but we have had some really insane events in our history. I agree with everything you said. Yes, who in their right mind would believe there would be peace after Israel was "given" their territory at the expense of the Palestinians. I am a huge fan of the Jews having a safe place to go after WWII, but how could anyone have expected the Palestisns to just give up their territory and made to evacuate. I don't understand people of power who behave that way.......oh, i think I'm hearing Putin and Assad and maybe McCain in my head!!! Still behaving like 15 yr old boys.

Jean

[mogamom]

I believe England held the territory pre-WWII and had a plan to divide it for the Palestinians and Jews (whom no one would take in) to each have a nation. The Jews, predominately from Europe, had a wealth of knowledge regarding nation-building skills, which the Palestinians lacked, since they had mostly been under foreign control.  But, both sides were using terrorist tactics against England, so they turned it over to the UN to decide.  Sadly, not the UN's finest moment.

[mabel1015j]

I am reading a really interesting book, Profiles of Female Genius, written by Gene Landrum. He talks about "thirteen creative women who changed the world." Lillian Vernon, Ophra Winfrey, Golda Meir, Jane Fonda, Estee Lauder, Madonna, Ayn Rand, Gloria Steinam, Margaret Thatcher, Mary Kay Ash, Liz Claiborne, Maria Callas, Linda Wachner (first woman owner of a Fortune 500 company, Warnaco [Warner and Olga lingerie, Fruit of the Loom, Valintino, Hathaway shirts, etc]).

He choose women who created their own success and had not inherited their position; had staying power of at least 10 yrs of influence; their success or achievement had international influence; their achievement must have occurred in the last 40 yrs, (the book was published in 1994).  I would like to see who he would choose in 2015!

They were mostly first born or their FATHER's FAVORITE; father often self-employed and a mentor; had FEMALE mentors; READ books early in childhood, creating imagination; goal-oriented workaholics; wanted to win; self-sufficient; charismatic, persuasive personality; intuitive "gut" decision-makers; high energy.

I find all of that very interesting. What a good model for a curriculum for teaching teenage girls, and boys. We need to tell fathers how important they are to their dgts. I remember when reading about the Presidents that many of them had strong Mothers who encouraged them. Landrum had previously written a book about male creative geniuses, where he says the mothers were dominant! Isn't that interesting? All the women idolized their fathers and some disliked their mothers!?!? (Callas, Fomda, Winfrey, Meir, Rand)

"Self-employed fathers and moving a lot in early childhood apears to have instilled confidence (self-sifficiency and autonomy) that prepared them to survive in the new and unknown environments they would face as adults. It gave them the confidence at a very early age, to know that they could survive as independent enities without depending on the corporate organization for economic survival."

Several went to all-girl's schools, interesting! That gave them female mentors who told them they could do anything, plus it gave them opportunities to be leaders. Having time to themselves to ruminate and imagine in combination with reading books was very important. "As children most were voracious readers and fantasized a great deal about larger-than-life heroines." ......" These women were often prima donnas in their families, a result of being first-born, only children or the center of the universe w/in their families."

There are a lot of other significant tidbits about making them creative geniuses. "The majority were intuitive thinkers with an innovative style of behavior, a PREFERENCE FOR BEING DIFFERENT with a right-brain macro-vision of the world of possibilities in life."

I haven't read their individual stories yet, but can't wait to get to them. In fact, I decided to buy the book, i'm reading a library book...........41 cents, plus postage on Amazon!!! What a find!

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

Israel was NOT "given" their territory and YES, at the expense of the Palestinians.

The largest forced migration in modern history as about a million people were expelled from the homes at gunpoint, civilians were massacred and hundreds of Palestinian Villages deliberately destroyed after a group of eleven men, veteran Zionists together with young military Jewish officers, in 1948 put the final touches on the plan to ethnic cleanse Palestine.

Military orders were dispatched that led to laying siege and bombing villages and population centers, setting fires to homes, properties and goods, and finally planting mines around the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning.

Each unit was given a section of the master plan that was the fate the Zionists had in store for Palestine and consequently for its native population. Set forth in the Hagana's Plan Daler was the conquest and destruction of even the rural areas - the aim was to destroy both the urban and rural areas of Palestine

More than 800,000 Palestinians were uprooted, 531 villages destroyed and 11 urban neighborhoods emptied of inhabitants. This systematic catastrophe continues to remain out of the public eye - this is what the 'right of return' is all about.

Read Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Another to read is, Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment

The problem we have is wanting the Jewish people to have a safe place to live not only after the Holocaust but as the call for a Jewish State was first considered as a goal by Theodor Herzl after the Dreyfus affair in France along with the public acknowledgment of the historical discrimination towards Jews in Europe since the time of the Romans. However, the Zionists used purging tactics only less than those of the Holocaust that is also a crime against humanity in the International Criminal Court.

[mabel1015j]

By "given", I meant that it was approved of, and supported by the US and the UN, as though it was their's to decide. That's why I put it in quotes. Not unlike the kings of England "giving" the colonial areas of NJ and Pa, etc, to Wm Penn, et al. as though no one was living there and it "belonged" to the king. Arrrgh, patriarchy and the invisibility of the powerless "other" that MaryPage mentioned.

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

What you mean is the US was hoodwinked into support for Israel by Chief Justice Brandeis, who became a Zionist - and Clarke another supporter of Zionism. Read Against Our Better Judgment - and the folks creating the new Israel had UN approval for a state 'without borders' - fooled by Zionist propaganda.

We know a state without defined borders is actually completely nonsensical. Suppose there were no defined border between Canada and the USA. Israel was reluctant to define its borders according to the Israel Government website, the Provisional Government of Israel met in Tel Aviv from May 12 to May 14 to consider the draft declaration of independence. It was led by David Ben-Gurion as Prime Minister and Defense Minister.

Ben-Gurion re-writes in his home the draft that was considered by the National Council and was approved unanimously on the second vote: so we know that changes were made. The article does not say what they were, suggesting they were minor in nature. Based on the Partition Plan, the Declaration implicitly defines the borders to be those in the Plan, saying the declaration of a new state is a once-only event, whereas borders can be changed later, suggesting an absence of a border definition in the Declaration itself is not significant.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only.

The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan as written was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

Israel was created as a sovereign state by the decision of the Zionist leadership to preempt the process envisaged in the Plan, and to declare the State of Israel immediately on termination of the Mandate.

[mabel1015j]

I may be misreading you, but it appears you believe Zionism to be a negative philosophy, is that correct? If so, what is it, besides the evacuating of the Palestians and taking over their properties, that you don't approve of.

I ask because, even though I was young, I remember at the time, my parents - Methodists - being approving of Truman's supporting a homeland for the Jews and in my history studies I have gotten the impression that that move was a good one, altho not perfect. I agree there should have been provision made for everyone, but my understanding is that there was a recommendation made for the Palestians to share the country and they refused, which I can understand. I also realize that because of the precarious position of many European, including Russian, Jews, there was a concern of solving the issue as quickly as possible.

I know there are Zionists now who believe there has to be a two state solution. But there are many factions of Zionists. I never thought of the general belief of the Zionists, a homeland, as being a negative, it was just the way the process got carried out by those wanting power. Obviously what they did was wrong, bcs here we are 60 yrs later still dealing with the fallout.

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

I do believe Israel needs and should have a safe nation - if they choose to make it a Jewish Homeland that is their business - it is the hiding of how this particular piece of land was chosen and the damage done to the Palestinians as well as the suppression of the careful plan for the displacement, carnage and destruction carried out by the Zionist and how Zionists in this country supported this action and made this land grab happen without giving this nation the information and by manipulating those in power like Truman.

What puzzles me but, that is a fantasy at this point - why a piece of Libya was not chosen since Libya was always friends and supporters of Jews and later after Zionism became a movement they supported the Zionist - neither here nor there - everything, including the insistence of fighting in WWII as an Israeli unit long before Israel was a state and Zionists demanded this unit fight with their newly designed flag created for WWII as a means of supporting the concept of a state as well as giving the Israeli's real guns that had been denied to them by the Brits - plus during the war the whole sale robbery of arms and trucks even faking vouchers for a ghost acquisition of equipment, arms and vehicles and then later in the 80s and 90s encouraging poor Jews from mostly Russia who never would have the resources to own property as immigré settlers to populate newly built settlements built on confiscated Palestinian farmland - there is just so much underhanded action that is not in keeping with wanting to help the Jews after the Holocaust.

I am seeing Israel as two sides of the coin and to ignore the behavior of the Zionists is leaving history as a fairy tale -

This is not about me liking or not liking the Zionists - this is bringing into the light their behavior as common knowledge rather than, suggesting with casual wording that there was not an aggressive land grab and Israel was smoothly created and that Zionists were not capable of having committed atrocities - as hard as that is, since we know of the atrocities towards the Jews but, that does not make the atrocities towards Palestinians worthy of sweeping under the table so that we do not see a fair assessment of Palestinians or for that matter a fair assessment of Zionism.   

Having read Theodor Herzl, his argument for a Jewish State and for the start of Zionism is more than reasonable - however, as the organization to create a Jewish State progressed the Zionist leaders acted as thugs and criminals.

We also have many in the current state of Israel who would be pleased if the Zionist actions were not brought into the light. In affect, washing their hands over the actions used for the real start of Israel and to continue to ignore the legitimate claims Palestine has, if nothing else to be at least compensated for the killing of thousands and grabbing the land after displacing and burning out hundreds of thousands to create Israel -

[Steph]

My mental drawbacks are that the jews were driven out of that area by muslims... I too thought that the original plans were to share the land. The Arabs did not help the situation by declaring their opposition to any sharing and bragging as to how they would massacre the jews. It is sad and useless in the current political climate. Both sides have backed theselves into corners.. and that is sad. Many many of what the muslims regard as holy was originally jewish temples, etc and they destroyed them and raised their own religious objects and that is wrong as well.There is no easy or simply answer

[BarbStAubrey]

Steph it is that kind of thinking that has been the usual - look at history and please read - the land was taken from the Palestinians - it was not that they fought sharing - section by section with a leader for each section homeowners and land holders were forced off the land and the buildings were burned etc. There was no sharing from the get go and then the Palestinians were blamed for what most of us would consider their right.

[MaryPage]

Perhaps we are thinking different millennia here.  True the Jews were driven out of Israel, but that was the Roman Empire and was almost two thousand years in the being before 1948.  "The Jews" had no legal ownership of the land whatsoever by the time 1948 rolled around.  Returning was their dream.  It was the thread running through all of their writings.  It was mentioned in every religious service or even family gathering.  Those lands were legally held by mostly Arab families who had already owned them for generations, or had purchased them from other Arabs more recently.  It had been a long, long time indeed since Israel was held by the Jews.
I wondered at the time how it was being done, but was too young and busy to examine it closely.  Now I look back and realize the immense unfairness of the thing.  Much of the world took in its breath in horror when we heard what was discovered in the Nazi death camps.  We were of a mood to give the Jews HEAVEN ON EARTH if we could.  But just not our little piece of earth.  They want to return to what was their homeland almost 2,000 years ago?  Well, why not?
And how it was to be done was all quite illegal, and the Powers knew it and left the British to fight it off, and the Brits just did not have the support of the rest of civilization, nor the will to continue fighting.  They wanted to go home and put their lives back together, after the upheaval and suffering of a brutal long war.
Yes, it was a thrill to see that white & blue flag raised and hear our President declare recognition of the new state.  I wanted so much for these persecuted peoples.
The humongous amount of human suffering that displaced whole communities and tribes of family units was plowed under in our minds.
And the question I put before us all is this:  why do these descendants of peoples who were there 2,000 years ago hold sway over those who were actually there, or were there (now) within less than 100 years ago?  Is not sentiment, a very old sentiment coated in extreme guilt for averting our eyes and our efforts from the Nazi will to exterminate the Jews, causing us to allow the Jews to now ruthlessly displace yet another tribe of peoples?
Ideally, tribalism should not trump every other card in the deck in every community.  We are, on the whole, rather fond of mixed tribes in our own American neighborhoods; albeit this does not hold true from sea to shining sea, as it were.  But we enjoy the different flavors, especially when they run from pizza to wiener schnitzel to Kung Pao.  Basically, I think tribalism holds people back rather dreadfully, and I think the mindset of the Jews to be altogether in one place from which they had originated (well, as a tribe only, seeing as all human beings originated in Africa) was a huge mistake.  It was a dream come true, dearly held and sung about for thousands of years, yet still a mistake.
But here we are.  And Arabs ARE human beings trying to live decent family lives in peace, with hope for the future for themselves and their children.  Forget for a moment about the power hungry strutting tyrants mouthing off, and remember the hoards of humans:  grandparents, parents, and the children.  Always the little children.  What a huge WHY? must form in their minds when the bombs rain down.

[mabel1015j]

Thank you both for your explanations. Obviously we are now at a huge conundrum almost 70 yrs after decisions were made with emotion and power in the sights of those making them. How many U.S. administrations, and many others, have tried to help work out a solution? Most of their attempts have not worked. I guess the Israel/Egypt one has been the most successful. What a mess and extremists on both sides have kept the pot boiling all those years.

I have a sense that the Allies were feeling very superior after WWII and therefore felt they could direct anything to a successful conclusion. Hubris can be a very dangerous attitude.

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

Jean please read Alison Weir's Against Our Better Judgment It is written so the reader understands what happened in the US not what prompted the actions on the part of Britain or the fledgling UN but it gives a whole new understanding how leaders are influenced. Leaders depend on the advise and information they are given and when it is slanted to a viewpoint they have no clue and that slant alters their actions.

[MaryPage]

I think that is exactly right, Jean.

There was also a sense of hurry and do it and get back to LIFE.  The war changed everything for ALL of us, in one way or a dozen or more, and everyone just wanted to put it all behind us and get on with the scenario Bing Crosby sang about in "My Blue Heaven."

And we did, we did.  I married young, a sailor returned from the war, and we bought a brand new cookie cutter house in a humongous subdivision built on what had been farm pastures, on the G.I. Bill.  Mortgage payments were $64.00 a month, P.I.T.I.!  Televisions became available, and washing machines and hey, stereos!  We had the first stereo on our block, and everyone came over to hear wonders like the sound of feet walking from one set of speakers to the other.  Then 45s came in, and we wondered what to do with all of our 78s.  I look back on it as a sunny time when we were all ignorant as all get out, but happy.  Ike was a great president!

By the way, the answer to the question I raised about how did the Jews have the right to displace the Arabs is THEY WON THE WAR.  The amazing war against the combined Arab armies of the time.  The fact is, down throughout our history, the winner of a war wins all.  I hate it.  Have always hated it.  But it is a truth we have to swallow.

[BarbStAubrey]

Oh MaryPage I would love to agree with the concept they won the war but the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the land taken for Israel happened before any war - and yes, most of us were not tuned into what was going on other than getting back to life and experiencing for the first time the good life since the war years came before the Depression had run its course so there was 15 years of down and we shot out of that like a New Year's celebration.

We certainly have not paid our dues to the Native tribes by not honoring treaties signed 150 to 200 and more years ago - and no we do not have a war in our face over it however, tribes are still trying to get a small bit of their due - we have for the most part at least acknowledged what we have done although at this point we do not know how to rectify it - I think that is all I see for Palestine - they are still angry and there is no attempt to rectify what was taken from them and it has led to not only war but a continuation of attempting to bury history. This is an attempt to make the Palestinians appear to be the bad guys who are squeezed further as time goes on. I could be wrong but I think the truth could balance the scales and foster a respect that comes with acknowledgment that would support a respect that does not exist today.

[MaryPage]

And I think you are right, Barbara.  I think all of the above, all of our concepts of how it was and is, is correct.  Nothing is simple.  My only point was, and yes, your timing is correct, but the final point was and is that they DID quite decisively win that war:  the Arab Israeli War, and all the conflicts since.  By pretty universally held consensus, they therefore have dominion over the territory.  There is just so very much, very upsetting unfairness that does not border on unfairness, but IS unfair.

[BarbStAubrey]

I think you are saying 1967 erases what happened in 1948 - if so than why continue to try to hide it - why continue to have this lack of respect for the truth and to persuade others to avoid the truth - just reminds me of the Iranians who prefer to think the Holocaust never happened. We all know Israel is here to stay regardless how they took the land but by hiding the truth there is more demonetization of the Palestinians - this is what we used to call a war of propaganda.

[MaryPage]

I may be, indeed am, getting confused in my dotage, Barbara, but I thought the Arab Israeli War was the 1947/1948 one and the 1967 was the Six Day War.  Doesn't matter, really.  All of these different aspects are true, but all that should really be on the table now is Life and Liberty for all:  the right to seek happiness in peace, regardless of tribe, color, Faith.

I wish!

[BarbStAubrey]

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/ethnic-cleansing-israeli

http://www.seamac.org/EthnicCleansing.htm

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah's regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :

    "Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah."

On December 19, 1947, Ben-Gurion advised the Haganah on the rules of engagement with the Palestinian population. He stated:

    "we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176-177 and Israel: A History, p. 156)

Ben-Gurion was happy and sad when the U.N. voted to Partition Palestine into two states, Palestinian and Jewish. He was happy because "finally" Jews could have a "country" of their own. On the other hand, he was sad because they have "lost" almost half of Palestine, and because they would have to contend with a sizable Palestinian minority, well over 45% of the total population. In the following few quotes, you will see how he also stated that a "Jewish state" cannot survive being 60% Jewish; implying that something aught to be done to remedy the so called "Arab demographic problem".

In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that war could be used as an instrument to solve the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated:

    "We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)

Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides:

    "Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6)

    It has been customary among all Zionists leaders to use the Bible to justify perpetrating WAR CRIMES. Regardless of the methods used to build the "Jewish state", the quote above is a classical example how the Bible is used to achieve political objectives.

[BarbStAubrey]

Leave it to the women - it may be the influence of women that can get some justice and peace enacted in Palestine and Israel

http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/peace-movements-in-israel

And this one is how this US woman became aware of what happened in 1948 and its affects - which by the way I did not know that the US paid for the wall erected by Israel separating them from Palestine.

http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/

And here is a powerful group - Bat Shalom - who are Jewish and Palestinian women working for peace.
Wow get this...

It is our conviction that all Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 are illegal, as stipulated by international law, and violate the requirements for peace. Palestinian: Israel accepts its moral, legal, political and economic responsibility for the plight of Palestinian refugees and thus must accept the right of return according to relevant UN resolutions. Israeli: Israel's recognition of its responsibility in the creation of the Palestinian refugees in 1948 is a pre-requisite to finding a just and lasting resolution of the refugee problem in accordance with relevant UN resolutions. Respect for international conventions, charters and laws and the active involvement of the international community in the peace process are crucial to its success.

https://sites.google.com/site/jewsagainstracistzionism/bat-shalom-jewish-and-palestinian-women-for-peace-and-human-rights

Now this has to be on my list - this month's books are already ordered so it will have to be next month

http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/ballots-babies-and-banners-of-peace-american-jewish-womens-activism

Here is yet another Jewish Palestinian group of women for peace called The Bridge they are attempting to "promote the status of women, and peace in the Middle East."
http://www.iflac.com/ada/html/bridge.html

This group is not women centered - it is Jews For Justice in Palestine - We seldom hear from or about this group and as long as this kind of effort is active we may yet see some fair play towards those who were 'displaced' from their land and homes in 1948 - the site is slow to upload

http://jfjfp.com/

[MaryPage]

I am convinced that if we did "leave it to the women," the world would be at peace.  Most women lack that combative instinct.  We usually, most of us, first want to try to fix, nurse, minister to, and generally help in difficult situations.  We try to find happy solutions.  Very rarely do you encounter women whose first instinct is to fight.

I will leave this world soon and, while in our own culture and the Western European for the most part women are not looked upon as they were when I was born, as either a man's daughters or wife FIRST and a personality second, most of the planet still has a long, tough road to travel for women to be recognized as total human beings worthy of full lives and citizenship.  Both my father and my first husband became enraged when I did not display total subservience to their lordship over my person.  My instinct to be myself came both from my birth mother's DNA and my going to an all girl prep school.  Both my second and final husbands saw me as a complete equal.  I bless their memories.

By the way, there is a terrific new series on PBS called HOME FIRES.  You will all love it to bits.  English village World War II.  What the women did for their country.  You know, in just one whole heck of a lot of ways, that war was a time of emancipation for us women, both in Great Britain and here.

[Steph]

To slide in something,,, in both
WWI and WWII... the arabs were quite definitely not on the Allies side.. and possibly the UN was looking at that. Actually I just want them to work it out. none of this ... all mine from either side... and that is not going to happen.

[MaryPage]

There is an outstanding, and I really mean that, OUTSTANDING article by Joe Klein in the October 19th (yes, I know, we haven't gotten to that date yet, but magazines are made up and come early these days!) issue of TIME magazine.  Pages 36 and 37.  About the Middle East problem(s), complete with a great map showing the players.

[mabel1015j]

Tomorrow is my 74th birthday and I am going to have a wonderful time having lunch with my best friend Barbara, and we will be discussing two books which I found recently, Women of Ideas and What Men Have Done to Them by Dale Spender (a female) and Profiles of Female Genius by Gene Landrum.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_0_14?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=women+of+ideas+and+what+men+have+done+to+them&sprefix=Women+of+ideas%2Cstripbooks%2C130

http://www.amazon.com/Profiles-Female-Genius-Gene-Landrum/dp/0879758929/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444841272&sr=8-1&keywords=Profiles+of+female+genius

Can't beat $.01 plus postage!!!

The lunch and discussion will be especially bittersweet for me because she is the only person left in my friend circle with whom I could have such a discussion on women's issues, or who might have read the books, I know she has the first book.

But! Boohoo! She is going to be moving to NC in the spring, i'm depressed already. Another dear friend moved to Savannah, last July, she was also one whom I could talk with about women's issues and women's history. Both have been my friends for forty years and all three of us have been very active in the Alice Paul Institute. In fact Barbara was the fulltime volunteer president of API for 15 yrs and led us through the purchase of Alice's effects and then the purchase of her family's homestead which is now the home of the Institute. The Institute is just about ready to open an exhibit on the women's suffrage movement.

But, their most important programing is multiple programs for girls age 12-18 centered around being leaders and learning about women who have been leaders. In fact this past weekend they took a bus load of girls to the UN for the International Day of the Girl. One of the girls was even chosen to make a speech. This group in combination with a group of girls from the Bella Azburg estate recently made a video about where they hope women's leadership will be in 2065.

http://www.alicepaul.org

Jean

[FlaJean]

Impressive video.  Those girls are our future.

[mabel1015j]

They are a wonderful group. They know that Feminist is not a word to run away from, and they are learning that there is a woman's history and women can be capable, strong and independent in a male dominated world.

The Spender book gives a lot of attention to feminists of the past and their writings and how they were hidden, rejected, made invisible by the male dominated societies. She reiterates how much further along women's rights and opportunities might be if we had not had to keep inventing the philosophy because we didn't know anyone had stated it before. Spender starts with writings of  Alphra Behn in the 17th century, but we know there were women writing about being strong and independent persons in the patriarchy long before that time.

Jean

[maryz]

Happy Birthday, early, Jean.  I know how hard it is to have your friends move away.  I hope you can visit from time to time. 

[MaryPage]

It is marvelous to behold how much is being done and how much potential for even more progress there is now that we are in the age of instant search for information and full retrieval of ALL the data there is out there all around this planet.

People used to be severely limited to whatever books they had on hand in any given community.  Such a vastly different and amazing landscape of knowledge out there at anyone's fingertips now.

[mabel1015j]

I used to say to our kids and to my students that the library was the best thing since sliced bread - and its free! I would now have to say "if you have the money to afford it, the internet is the best thing, but if you can't, the library is still the best!!!

Jean

[jane]

Yep...and if you don't have the internet, go to the Library, and they'll have it for you for free. 

[MaryPage]

                                       HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JEAN!