THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE (ORE 55)

[seemslikeadream]

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE (ORE 55)


link

[Dreams End]

Fascinating stuff, coming as it does at the very beginning of CIA history, I'm amazed, despite its clear opposition to the Israeli state, at how honest this document is. I wonder if you read it carefully, as it does not support the anti-Zionist party line at all, despite the clear anti-Zionist conclusions.

For example:

"Inflamed by nationalism and religious fervor, Arabs in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as well as Palestine are determined to fight against any force, or combination of forces, which attempts to set up a Jewish state in Palestine."

What I am constantly told around here is that Arabs were fighting only in defense and the Zionists were the aggressors.

Here we learn about the Muslim Brotherhood:

Branches of Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) have been formed in Syria and Lebanon, and one of the most active branches is in Palestine. The Ikhwan regards Westernization as a dangerous threat to Islam and would oppose any political encroachment of Zionism on Palestine with religious fanaticism. Should a "Jihad', or Holy War, be declared, the Ikhwan would be the spearhead of any "crusade". The Grand Mufti, as head of the Moslem Supreme Council, can count on the unanimous support of all members of the Ikhwan, who are assured of entrance into Paradise if they die on the field of battle.

Again, this document is supporting the view that upon partition the Arabs will attack.

Despite never calling potential Arab combatants "terrorists", a term used to describe the Stern gang (correctly), we learn from this document that

The conditions of Beduin life have developed a hardy type of fighting man, not only imbued with a warlike tradition (combining religious fanaticism with an enthusiastic devotion to looting, plundering and raiding)....

I mention this because the document is clearly anti-Zionist and yet this is the way the CIA refers to the Arabs.

The Arab League political committee warns that they

"shall not be able to restrain the feelings of their nationals revolting against the oppression falling on them....but rather they be compelled to take every decisive action which will guarantee resistance and the restoration of justice".

Here's what the document says will be likely to happen in the event of partition of Palestine (not, please note, in the event of Zionist military attacks":

1. ....large numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries will join the Arabs residing within Palestine for the war against Zionism.

2. " Since 1917 (and Balfour)...(Jews) have had to bear the brunt of Arab antagonism to the development of political Zionism in Palestine. In the event of partition, the lives of the million Jews throughout the Arab world (including Palestine) will be imperiled.

3. The lower element in the population would look forward to attacks on Jewish quarters because of the excellent opportunity for looting-as illustrated at the time of the Baghdad revolt in 1941 when the Jewish quarter was attacked.

Then, after telling us that the Jews in Israel and throughout the Arab world will be imperiled, we learn that

"The Zionists will continue to wage a strong propaganda campaign in the US and in Europe. The "injustice" of the proposed Jewish boundaries will be exaggerated, and the demand for more territory will be made as Jewish immigration floods the Jewish sector. In the chaos which will follow the implementation of partition, atrocities will undoubtedly be committed by Arab fanatics (not terrorists..."fanatics"); such actions will be given wide publicity and will be exaggerated by Jewish propaganda. "

Continuing:

The manner and timing of the British withdrawal will be an important factor in the fighting, which is expectd to increase steadily in intensity after the British withdrawal, eventually taking the form of an undeclared war of attrition against the Jews.

As I mentioned, the document never uses the term "terrorist" to describe the Arabs, but does have this to say about what they are going to be up to:

The quasi-military groups composed of ex-army men and townspeople, will specialize in direct assaults on Zionist colonies, demolition of bridges and railroads and other sabotage. The tribesmen will engage in activities not requiring technical training or extensive coordination such as attacks on isolated villages (hence the issues with the sprawling borders), assassination, continual sniping to prevent cultivation of the fields, and attacks on transportation, communications, and supply lines. Persistent harassing attacks can be expected in time to wear the Zionist economy to the breaking point. (that part didn't happen.)

Now let us turn to the character of the Zionist forces. There are three divisions. Hagana, Irgun and the Stern Gang.

The vast majority of Zionists support Hagana "because of its defensive work, its restraint and its non-extremist intentions."

And back to the indefensible borders:

The Jewish sections of a Palestine partitioned in accordance with the UNSCOP majority report will be vulnerable to attack by the Arabs. The northeast sector is entirely surrounded by Arabs: Palestinian on the south and west, Lebanese and Syrian on the north and Transjordanian on the east. The central Jewish sector is flanked on the east by the central Arab sector, while the southern Jewish sector is surrounded by Palestinian Aranbs on the west and north, Transjordanian on the east and Egyptian on the south. The Arab sectors contain the strategic highlands of Galilee and those surrounding the proposed international zone of Jerusalem.

Thus:

The establishment of strong defensive positions, within which normal economic life can be maintained, and the protection of transportation routes will be th main strategy of the Jewish forces.

Large scale Jewish efforts to penetrate territory adjoining the contemplated Jewish state are unlikely because such actions would necessitate over-extending the already vulnerable supply lines and would entail the risk of combined rear, frontal and flanking attacks by Arabs.

And for those familiar with the U.S. position on Greece at the end of and just after WW2 (see "Truman doctrine") this paragraph was particularly sad to me:

The poverty, unrest and hopelessness upon which Communist propaganda thrives will increase throughout the Ara world, and Soviet agents (already being smuggled into Palestine as Jewish DP's) will scatter into other Arab states and there attempt to organize so-called "democratic movements" such as the one existing today in Greece.

Wouldn't want that....

I don't know what the purpose of posting this document was. I had just finished writing about how the CIA and State Department have always been anti-Israel, and the tone of this document confirms this. However, the substance of the document in no way supports the anti-Zionist mythology of peaceful Arabs sipping tea until the evil Jews set out to drive them from their land. It is very clear about Arab intent to attack the Jews once partition was declared.

[Horatio Hellpop]

Hey Dreams End - I'm coming over to live at your place on the weekend so could you please clear the fuck out? And please don't get aggressive with me when I arrive or everyone will see what a sham your 'peacefulness' is.

Fuckhead.

[Jeff]

I had just finished writing about how the CIA and State Department have always been anti-Israel, and the tone of this document confirms this.

Agreed. And regardless of what people think of Israel, its policies and Zionism, there's a lot to support this. And it helps establish context when CIA veterans today, allied with both "9/11 Truth" and the "anti-war movement," use Israel to blunt anger towards US policy.

[yathrib]

But you are ignoring the fact that the Zionists initially moved in on an Arab land with the intention of creating an alien political entity, knowingly or unknowingly taking advantage of Arab disunity and political naivete at the time. Sure, the Arabs were the aggressors, *if* you ignore the previous 75 years or so.

F

What I am constantly told around here is that Arabs were fighting only in defense and the Zionists were the aggressors.

.

[Dreams End]

But you are ignoring the fact that the Zionists initially moved in on an Arab land with the intention of creating an alien political entity

Well, that is AN argument but it is not THE argument I was talking about. Around here, people keep saying that not only did the Zionists want to move in but were planning to wipe out the Palestinians from the beginning. The Zionist movement has been described as a genocidal plot, with a primary goal being to wipe out Arabs.


Also, though the Holocaust is not a very popular topic around here, I found it rather offensive that the situation in Europe, (remember the war had been over less than two years) is not mentioned with regard to motivation for Jews moving to Israel. And I hope we will be spared the typical rightwing nutjob b.s. about how the Jews engineered the Holocaust for this purpose.

In any event, I could make stronger arguments but the point was that this document that slad posted, which comes from the CIA and is hostile to Israel, debunks a lot of the very anti-Zionist myths which get repeated here, ad nauseum. So rather than argue any particular points, I let the document speak for itself. Everything I wrote came from the document slad posted. It's possible he put this document up for criticism that the CIA didn't go far enough....but slad posted no comment so I don't know.

I was very well behaved. The document mentioned the Grand Mufti and I didn't mention that he was a very big admirer of Hitler and had traveled to Germany and expressed Nazi sentiments repeatedly. That's him in this picture on the left.


Horatio, I hope those meds kick in soon.

[yathrib]

Another thing: Everyone is describing the document as anti-Israel, but I don't see it. I would say it is more negative than positive, but more realistic than anything else. Which of the predictions made there did not come true, at least in part?

And then there is the paranoia about the Soviet Union and Communism, possibly emerging from some sense that all Jews are communists, or all communists are Jews. But even that is not excessive, and at least some of what they were saying was true. Much Israeli weaponry did come from Czechoslovakia, and the USSR was indeed more pro-Israel than not, at this time and in this situation. I don't see them saying anything overtly negative about Jews, or even about Zionism as such.

[seemslikeadream]

Everyone loves pictures, don't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F98k3eXec4


Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Hans plays with Lotte, Lotte plays with Jane



Jane plays with Willi, Willi is happy again



Suki plays with Leo,



Sacha plays with Britt





Adolf builts a bonfire,



Enrico plays with it



- Whistling tunes we hide in the dunes by the seaside



- Whistling tunes we're kissing baboons in the jungle



It's a knockout
If looks could kill, they probably will



In games without frontiers - war without tears



If looks could kill, they probably will



In games without frontiers - war without tears



Games without frontiers - war without tears



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Andre has a red flag, Chiang Ching's is blue



They all have hills to fly them on except for Lin Tai Yu



Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games



Hiding out in tree-tops shouting out rude names



- Whistling tunes we hide in the dunes by the seaside



- Whistling tunes we piss on the goons in the jungle



It's a knockout
If looks could kill they probably will



In games without frontiers - war without tears



If looks could kill they probably will



In games without frontiers - war without tears



Games without frontiers - war without tears



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres



Jeux sans frontieres

[5E6A]

Herzl originally pushed for a homeland in Argentina. He had backup plans for areas in the United States and Africa. It was not until his eventual marginalisation by more religious members of the movement did Palestine become a focus for settlement. Lest one think that there very few tribesmen in the region up until UNSCOP decided the course of action, you should check out a biography of Alphonse de Rothschild.

Up until the 1880's, the two cultures of Judaism and Islam lived quite peaceably alongside each other in the Levant. Ottoman rule had set up a system whereby each had their own justice system and economic system. Still, they traded with each other and were content to let the other live as they wished. Little if any inter-faith strife was known in the region. Then came the land grabs and mass settlement of persons persecuted in the pogroms of Czarist Russia. Using oil money, Rothschild financed the purchase of land, and the transportation of settlers. The sudden influx of persons not so willing to live like the natives gave rise to unrest under which land and water disputes along with trade embargoes began. The result was a growing tension between age old enemies which had to date lived quite amicably side by side.

All this aside, we still are left with the question of what was the justification for creating a partitioned Palestine at the time it was. The age old and hackneyed line goes that it was in lieu of the Holocaust. More than 11 million died in that atrocity. Many of the other groups targeted, gyspies/homosexuals/mentally or physically challenged, never got even a passing consideration yet they are still discriminated against to date. It is also interesting to note that at the same time sovereignty for the oppressed was considered for descendants of David, Ho Chi Minh was trying to get sovereignty placed on the UN agenda for Viet Nam, much as he had done at Versailles after the close of hostilities in the first world war. Minh was barred from entering his articles by machinations of the French Government, who had all too great an interest in keeping Michelin afloat with Vietnamese rubber.

Truman was a holdout on the decision. Although his company clerk in WWI, Edward Jacobson, and later business partner was Jewish, Truman's wife was such an anti-semite that he could never set foot in Truman's house. Chaim Weizmann would later breakdown Jacobson's reluctance to politicise his relationship with Truman in order to gain access to the President. In the end Truman decided that it was in the interest of the United States to throw down on the side of re-apportioning the Levant. In the end it seems that Truman knew the US needed a presence in the region for the coming exploitation of fossil fuel deposits.

It is a bit ironic that the forces of colonisation have given rise to an environment which continues to reveal the mistakes which have been made in the region. Finally in control of large portions of what was once their land, descendants of David have had access to historical sites for study which were previously not accessible. The result? According to one Jewish archeologist,

[T]he formative stages of the People of Israel were utterly different from those the Bible articulates. Nonetheless, such views have not percolated into the awareness of the public at large...that the People of Israel did not sojourn in Egypt, did not wander in the wilderness, did not conquer the land of Canaan in a military campaign, and did not pass it on as inheritance to the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

-http://www.prometheus.demon.co.uk/04/04herzog.htm

This conclusion was published in the article, "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho," by Zeev Herzog in the Journal of Palestine Studies (29 October 1999). Regardless of who might have what influence to any extent over which government's decision, the end result is a cluster. We have a region inflamed by the aspirations of a group that has used a religious text as historical fact, when that seems to be an impeachable conclusion. It would be one thing if both sides could get along. They can't. Hell, the muslims can't even agree on who has the correct way to carry on Muhammad's work. They've been killing off each other over that since the day he died.

So, we are left with the mess of religious inability to act spiritually in confluence with an economic ideology that can not live according to the basic limits set up by the system that gave birth to the consciousness that imagined it. I doubt very much the Jews own Washington, but what has given rise to that perception is the greed of Washington having some sympathy to their plight only because it is self serving for capitalism. Someday we will wake up to all the lies and stop feeding these depraved bastards. Or not, and the planet will get to deal with our atomic aftermath in a way that will continue life on the planet without our species and the bulk of what roams the surface today.

[StarmanSkye]

Re: Israel being used to blunt Arab anger against US policies: Yes, but as strategic part of US realpolitic in the bigger picture.

I think the key here from an opportunistic post-war geopolitical perspective lies in the first part of the following conclusion: "In the event that partition is imposed on Palestine, the resulting conflict will seriously disturb the social, economic and political stability of the Arab world, and US commercial and strategic interests will be seriously jeopardized." -- in which it can be argued that the unstated premise is long term potential benefits (US prestige and control) outweigh the short term actual costs. Accordingly, US interests might be better-served through being prepared to exploit the opportunity and challenge of greatly increasing its regional stakes and influence through manipulating alliances and incentives tailored to meet the differing needs, expectations and interests of the variety of involved parties -- which is precisely what the US DID do. The State of Israel has become the unwitting wildcard foil used by the US to fragment, frustrate and defuse the percieved 'threat' of Arab unity, as US foreign policy statesmanship pitted neighbor against neighbor with brinksmanship strategies and shifting alliances of 'friends' vs 'foes' in an elaborate Cold War high-stakes musical chairs marathon poker-tournament, as per the dictum: In chaos and conflict lies opportunity.

Classic (or rather, Postmodern) Machiavelli, eh?

[Dreams End]

slad, why are you spamming your own thread?

yathrib, you said:

Another thing: Everyone is describing the document as anti-Israel, but I don't see it. I would say it is more negative than positive, but more realistic than anything else. Which of the predictions made there did not come true, at least in part?

Yeah, it is anti-Israel but in the pragmatic sense you suggest. All tactics and geopolitics. It's not some seething hate document. That was my point. It clearly takes a position against the founding of Israel and yet I think gets a lot of things right. The war unfolded exactly as predicted, except for the part about Israel losing the war of attrition. Don't know if the CIA was taken by surprise at the short timespan of the war or was exaggerating a bit to make the case that the US should be pushing behind the scenes to stop partition.

I think the places where the biases not based on geopolitics sneak out are the way that the only mention of "terrorist" is connected to the Jews, while the document suggests the Arabs themselves will be engaging in sabotage and assassination and also the way it fails even to nod in the direction of the immediate past. Jewish "immigration" is taken as purely a result of a sudden increase in Zionist sentiment and not put in the context of what had just happened to the Jewish people. Still, it is mostly dry analysis.

It has value in another way. That b.s. about preventing another Greece, is almost like a little code. One piece of advice I like to offer is that the elites and politicians rarely do things for the reason they SAY they are doing things. This document was "secret" and so was not for propaganda value. However, the cold war reference at the end was a way to suggest how to frame this discussion for public consumption. That's my interpretation, of course. Mainstream history would suggest that the authors of this report believed this cold war b.s. but I think this was very often NOT the case. Review the history of the "Truman doctrine" which emerged in the light of the Greek "crisis." Truman announced to the world that the U.S. could intervene in other countries if that country were threatened from without or from a "minority" movement from within. In short, it said the U.S. could intervene in other countries' affairs whenever we felt like it.

For example, when the U.S. overthrew Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, the overt reasoning offered was to offset Soviet influence there. Underneath that, however, you find very clear evidence that it was done primarily at the behest of American and British oil companies. By the way, I suggest everyone study that coup closely as the people involved, such as Kermit Roosevelt, were very open about their role...proud of it even...and have written about it in detail. So there's no need for speculation and you can watch how these guys work. The parallels with Venezuela are very disturbing, in my view, by the way.

These reductionist ideas about Zionism as the sole cause of strife in the Middle East obscure so much more than they illuminate. They minimize the historic exploitation of that region long before there was an Israel and also the reasons behind that exploitation...oil and also to some extent some geopolitical concerns regarding the USSR, access and control of certain waterways, etc.

They also obscure the fact that there's not much unique about what the U.S. is doing in that region. If you look at Central and South America you see the exact same sorts of games being played. Sponsoring corrupt dictators, fomenting coups, all in the name of anti-Communism (back when the cold war was still with us.)

If anyone cares to read it, which I doubt, here is a mainstream critique of the Walt/Mearsheimer piece that suggests that in purely realpolitik terms, Israel has been useful to the U.S. In other words, there are reasons other than some mystical ability by Israel to bend U.S. presidents to her will, that explain U.S. support of Israel and, separately, both Gulf Wars.

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/07 ... arsheimer/

My answer, to anticipate my conclusion, is this: United States support for Israel is not primarily the result of Holocaust guilt or shared democratic values; nor is it produced by the machinations of the “Israel Lobby.” American support for Israel — indeed, the illusion of its unconditionality – underpins the pax Americana in the eastern Mediterranean. It has compelled Israel’s key Arab neighbors to reach peace with Israel and to enter the American orbit. The fact that there has not been a general Arab-Israeli war since 1973 is proof that this pax Americana, based on the United States-Israel alliance, has been a success. From a realist point of view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of the Middle East, managed by the United States from offshore and without the commitment of any force. It is, simply, the ideal realist alliance.

Note that ALSO since 1973 Israel has been under very rightwing government via Likud. Likud is the descendant more or less of the Irgun, the rightwing faction of Zionism (called "Revisionist Zionism"...many of the shocking Zionist quotes you see..the ones that aren't wholly fabricated or taken out of context and changed around...come from such folks.) that did not command the support of the vast majority of Zionist Jews. I would be very interested to see how the confluence of the war of 1973, the "oil crisis" and U.S. typical desire to have rightwing rather than leftwing "allies" in any given region, came together to produce this political reality. I haven't read much about this, but that rightward shift is important and I'd be very interested to find out what role the U.S. played in making that happen.

[seemslikeadream]

on edit I don't think I said that loud enough


ONE POST IS SPAMMING? SHUT UP!

[Dreams End]

No, slad, one post that takes up acres of screen real estate with a dozen large pics which are unrelated to the post is spamming. Call it whatever you want.

At least, Sega, you admit that there WAS persecution in Tsarist Russia. I guess that's a start. But this Rothschild business. So all Jews who immigrated to Israel in the time period you are talking about (which is unclear...1880's to when?) was purchased by the Rothschilds? Can you not see how reductionist that is? Have some reality:

Despite its slender human and material resources, the Hibbat Tziyon (early Zionist movement of Jewish immigration to Palestine) movement managed to establish a number of new Jewish agricultural settlements in Palestine, referred to in Hebrew as moshavot (“colonies” or “settlements”). It soon became evident, however, that Hibbat Tziyon was incapable of sustaining a settlement project on this scale, and within a few years many of the new settlements were on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse. They were rescued by the generosity of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, an assimilated French Jew who had little interest in Hibbat Tziyon's romantic nationalism but was aroused by the plight of the east European Jewish masses and favored their resettlement—though preferably not in France, where an influx of poor Jews from the east might fan the flames of antisemitism and undermine the tenuous place which the Rothschilds and other assimilated Jews had secured in French society. Rothschild, and later other European Jewish philanthropists, assumed control of many of the settlements and provided them with large-scale financial support, along with technical assistance and a large dose of paternalistic supervision.

By 1900 there were twenty-two moshavot with a total population of about 5,000. Most of these settlements had come to be organized on the Algerian colonial model preferred by Baron Rothschild and his agents, with European Jewish farmers employing local Arab peasants to cultivate their vineyards, citrus groves, and fields. Zionist historiography has tended to focus on this segment of the growing Yishuv, seeing in these struggling farmers the forerunners of Zionism's settlement and state-building project. Yet the great majority of Jews in Palestine, including most of those who arrived in what would later be dubbed the First Aliya, the 1881–1903 wave of Jewish immigration, preferred to live in towns, and much of the Yishuv was still quite distant from the vision of Jewish national-cultural rebirth in Palestine put forward by Hibbat Tziyon, much less the vision of Jewish statehood which Herzl's new and explicitly political Zionist movement would articulate.

http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId ... and=eschol

Not only does this "Rothschild bought up all the land for the Jews" theme oversimplify...it's just flat out wrong. Meanwhile, surely you notice what sorts of results you get when googling up the Rothschilds + Zionism. To make an understatement of large proportions, the information returned this way is very questionable. Does that set off ANY alarm bells for you?

I don't really get your point about all the others killed in the Holocaust. Why does this negate the need for a Jewish homeland? Others besides Jews were killed, therefore the Jews should not make efforts to secure a safe haven? It makes no sense.

I'm aware of colonial oppression in Vietnam but again have no idea what that has to do with the founding of Israel. Are you suggesting that no injustice be addressed until ALL are addressed? Should we not have supported the civil rights movement because Vietnamese were not free?

Meanwhile, as suggested above, the U.S. has a variety of reasons for supporting the state of Israel, which is why such a thing could get past the UN while addressing French colonialism in Southeast Asia would not.

Zionism was not some monolith. When one defends against anti-Zionist arguments, one is asked to defend every decision of every Zionist, even when those decisions are contradictory. Rothschild was a wealthy elite...so he adopted a colonial model as the method he preferred to support. I don't defend that model. But it's not the only model that was attempted and as this above article shows, it doesn't even account for the vast majority of Jewish settlement during the first Aliyah. Also, he was quite classist and I imagine the bit about not wanting to stir up anti-Semitism in France also hid embarrassment at these lower class Jews from Eastern Europe. This exact same thing happened in the U.S.

I, myself, in posts from some time ago have talked about class divisions within World and U.S. Judaism. Ironically, the Jewish upper class, represented by the American Jewish Committee was primarily ANTI zionist, despite the prominence of some of those folks in current Zionist conspiracy theory. The more grassroots movements generally supported Zionism and were far more vocal in organizing responses to the plight of the Jews in Germany.

I am asked to justify every excess, ever bit of ideological extremism of anyone claiming the mantle of Zionist while no one here even bothers to respond to the very clear history of Nazi involvement in the formation of the forces which would later attack Jews in Palestine and, after that, the state of Israel. The documentary evidence that this was not just a war of liberation but a war specifically against Jews as a "race" is very clear, and comes from the leaders of those movements themselves. The head of the Arab Higher Committee was that man pictured above.

Meanwhile, how convenient that the emphasis on the Jews ignores the colonial games being played by the British. Anger and rebellion against British colonialism conveniently got channeled into violence against the Jews. And it turns out the Brits were in on that as well.

Where is the discussion of Sykes Picot? Where is the understanding of the betrayal of the Arabs by the British and French for their role in defeating the Turks? But the promises were never for an independent Palestine...I think that area was supposed to be part of a greater Arab homeland comprised primarily of Syria.

Even the the weird pro-Zionist British religious groups were a cover...funding "biblical" archaeology expeditions to the Middle East which were, in actuality, military mapping expeditions. (T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) was involved in several such missions).

It is a vast and complicated history and the only people who benefit from these reductionist views are those peddling a very narrow view of world history. I expect this on the far right, but it is sad and alarming to see how this is taking hold on the left.

Now, excuse me while I go collect my check from the Rothschild Family. They pay real good.

[seemslikeadream]

Oh unlike you

a thousand words worth one picture

[seemslikeadream]

Dreams End

It also appears you had NO problem with the OP. That was a "bunch" of pictures too. I guess pictures are in the eye of the beholder.