midkiff@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/13/86)
>I hadn't realized that Khaddafi had become our standard of permissible >international behavior. If he does it, it must be OK, right? -- gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET) No, but when Crapoffi does something, it greatly reduces his right to bitch when someone else does the same thing against him. My rationalization is that Israel is at war with terrorists, and if this means that Libyan planes arrive at their destination a little late, so be it. Or would you prefer they adopt the tactics of their enemies and begin pushing people in wheel chairs into the Mediterranean?
gil@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Gil Neiger) (02/18/86)
In article <11000121@uiucdcsb> midkiff@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >My rationalization is that Israel is at war with terrorists, and if this >means that Libyan planes arrive at their destination a little late, so >be it. Or would you prefer they adopt the tactics of their enemies and >begin pushing people in wheel chairs into the Mediterranean? How fortunate it is that the Israelis have never had to kill any innocent people in their holy war against terrorism! -- Gil Neiger
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (02/19/86)
In article <11000121@uiucdcsb>, midkiff@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > >I hadn't realized that Khaddafi had become our standard of permissible > >international behavior. If he does it, it must be OK, right? > -- > gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET) > > No, but when Crapoffi does something, it greatly reduces his right to > bitch when someone else does the same thing against him. > > My rationalization is that Israel is at war with terrorists, and if this > means that Libyan planes arrive at their destination a little late, so > be it. Or would you prefer they adopt the tactics of their enemies and > begin pushing people in wheel chairs into the Mediterranean? Rather, Israel's enemies have unfortunately begun to use its tactics. It was Jewish terrorists in the mandate era who introduced indiscriminate terrorism to the Middle East. They were the first to refine it into an instrument of policy. Palestinian terrorists are responding to decades of terror against them by Israel. Even after the creation of the state of Israel, Israeli terror did not leave Israel's neighbors alone. Raids on neighboring villages and killings of dozens of innocent villagers punctuated the "quiet years" before 1967. The way Israel terrorized the vilages of South Lebanon with regular shelling, the way Israel hunted and assasinated prominent Palestinian intellectuals (writers and poets known not to be involved in violence), and the way Israel today terrorizes the Palestinians under occupation and the Lebanese in its "security buffer zone" are well documented. It is also worthwhile to note that long before the recent rash of incidents in the mediterranean and Europe, Israel shot down a Libyan commercial jet in a manner not different from the Korean airliner incident. As usual, there were plenty of people to rationalize its action, which caused the death of over 200 innocent passengers.
brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) (02/21/86)
> > Rather, Israel's enemies have unfortunately begun to use its > tactics. It was Jewish terrorists in the mandate era who > introduced indiscriminate terrorism to the Middle East. They Wrongo. It was the Arabs( who objected to Jewish immigration and accomplishmnts on what was once useless land) that made raids on Jewish land and, hence, began terrorists. > were the first to refine it into an instrument of policy. Sounds to me like you're giving a perfectly good description of several Arab countries that come to mind. > Palestinian terrorists are responding to decades of terror > against them by Israel. Even after the creation of the state > of Israel, Israeli terror did not leave Israel's neighbors This is bulshit. Israeli action has always been premeditated by Arab agression. > alone. Raids on neighboring villages and killings of dozens > of innocent villagers punctuated the "quiet years" before > 1967. The way Israel terrorized the vilages of South Lebanon > with regular shelling, the way Israel hunted and assasinated > prominent Palestinian intellectuals (writers and poets known Even if Israel had shelled Southern Lebanon, would this justify murdering schoolchildren in Kiryat Shmona. You have a short memory. Any shelling of villages in Southern Lebanon was a result of shelling of Northern Israel. BTW, in some cases, radical Palestinians had a strange way of expressing disagreement with "prominent Palestinian intellectuals" (THEY killed 'em) You have your mind mixed up. > not to be involved in violence), and the way Israel today > terrorizes the Palestinians under occupation and the Lebanese > in its "security buffer zone" are well documented. Again, any action taken by Israel (searches) are a result of indiscriminate terrorist shellings and murdering. > It is also worthwhile to note that long before the recent > rash of incidents in the mediterranean and Europe, Israel > shot down a Libyan commercial jet in a manner not different > from the Korean airliner incident. As usual, there were plenty > of people to rationalize its action, which caused the death > of over 200 innocent passengers. I must confess my ignorance here (I'm sure someone else can address this.) You try to make Israel the scapegoat for all the problems. You conveniently get the facts mixed up and twist them. Frankly, I'm getting sick of reading ignorance and lies that you and Farzin and Chedley go around spreading. You state your cases and when they're disproved you dig up another lie. One that sticks out in my mind is the one about how Arafat and the PLO recognize Israel and the UN resolutions and all that. I guess King Hussein isn't as well-informed as you are. Didn't he just give up on the PLO (I didn't say the Palestinians) because they refuse to denounce terrorism and recognize Israel?
simon@simon_pc.UUCP (Simon Shapiro) (02/22/86)
As the man said, If you spread enough lies, repeat them enough times, and present yourself as the poor/victim enough times and loudly enough, some naive kid will belive you, EOF(lame) Palestine of the 19th century was a half empty desert/swamp. Some jewish idealists started emmigrationg/getting out of the getho, settled in this God forgotten Othman province (buying the right to settle, farm the land, etc. Prosperity brought emmigration..... Read the rest in the library, or ask my mother in law. Also ask what country put the palestinian refugees in camps & KEPT them there and what country took them out of there. Also you can ask who tought kids in school to sing "...and when peace will come.." and who was it that tought arithmetic in the following manner: "If each brave Fadayun can kill 3 jews a day, how many jews will three Fadayun kill in a week..." (I have seen these books). All of this is not to say that Fanatic idiots do not exist on both sides of the border and that we should not try to put this murderous anarchy behind us. Simon.
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (02/23/86)
In article <618@ihlpl.UUCP>, brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) writes: > > > It was the Arabs ( who objected to Jewish immigration > and accomplishmnts on what was once useless land). They made > raids on Jewish land and, hence, began terrorists. Jewish settlements were mostly built on choice land taken away from tennant farmers (see for example "Zionism, False Messiah" by Nathan Weinstock, publ. by Ink Links 1979, p. 80). > > were the first to refine it into an instrument of policy. > Sounds to me like you're giving a perfectly good description > of several Arab countries that come to mind. From the same reference (p.250), "the Haganah adopted a ruthless reprisals policy in order to terrorize the Arab population, blowing up large numbers of houses in the Old City of Jerusalem and in often absolutely inoffensive Arab villages." As a further example, from David Hurst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (Faber and Faber 1977), about the terrorizing of Iraqi Jews in 1951, "They learned that the three explosions were the work not of Arab extremists, but of the very people who sought to rescue them; of a clandestine organization called 'The Movement', whose leader ... had received this letter from Yigal Allon, ..." The full story is told on p. 157. > This is bulshit. Israeli action has always been premeditated > by Arab agression. From Livia Rokach's "Israel's Sacred Terrorism:A Study Based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary" (AAUG 1980) the following quote by A former prime minister of Israel, "I have been meditating on the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and on the many clashes we have provoked which cost us so much blood, ..." The book describes a wide range of Israeli acts of provocation. I believe the original Hebrew text is available in Israel, though not in this country. > Even if Israel had shelled Southern Lebanon, > would this justify murdering schoolchildren in Kiryat Shmona. I suppose Israel's bombs were killing only "evil murderous terorists" ? > BTW, in some cases, radical Palestinians had a strange way of expressing > disagreement with "prominent Palestinian intellectuals" (THEY killed 'em) > You have your mind mixed up. In his book "The Zionist Connection" (North American 1978, p.840), Alfred Lilienthal lists nine people killed in the span of one year in 1972-1973, including Palestinian playright GHassan Kanafani, poet Kamal Nasser and writer Wael Zuaiter. Israel's Mossad claimed the credit for most of these incidents, many of which took place in Europe. Since that time, many others have fallen in the same manner. > > It is also worth while to note that long before the recent > > rash of incidents in the mediterranean and Europe, Israel > > shot down a Libyan commercial jet in a manner not different > > from the Korean airliner incident. As usual, there were plenty > > of people to rationalize its action, which caused the death > > of over 200 innocent passengers. > I must confess my ignorance here (I'm sure someone else can address this.) The incident took place on February 21, 1973, and resulted in the death of 110 (not over 200, sorry) passengers and crew (Lilienthal p. 372). > You try to make Israel the scapegoat for all the problems. You conveniently > get the facts mixed up and twist them. Frankly, I'm getting sick of > reading ignorance and lies that you and Farzin and Chedley go around > spreading. You state your cases and when they're disproved you dig up > another lie. One that sticks out in my mind is the one about how Arafat > and the PLO recognize Israel and the UN resolutions and all that. The references I have quoted are corroborated by others. Arafat has accepted ALL UN resolutions on Palestine, collectively. These resolutions in various places recognize the state of Israel, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own. The PLO is not prepared to accept resolutions 242 and 338 in isolation because they do not address Palestinian rights, but simply "the refugee problem". Further, they have expressed their willingness to start negotiations without reference to these resolutions, as long as they are considered an equal partner. This the United States and Israel have refused. > I guess King Hussein isn't as well-informed as you are. Didn't he just > give up on the PLO (I didn't say the Palestinians) because they refuse > to denounce terrorism and recognize Israel? I am not informed on the nuances of Hussein-Arafat negotiations. However, these involve a variety of ticklish issues apart from the question of resolution 242.
simon@simon_pc.UUCP (Simon Shapiro) (02/24/86)
In article <58@cad.UUCP>, hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: > In article <140@simon_pc.UUCP>, simon@simon_pc.UUCP (Simon Shapiro) writes: > I guess the two camps can throw s*** back and forth ad infinitum. > I, for one, do not care for that approach. Not only is it not in > the least bit educational, but it is not flattering to the s*** > thrower. As I said in the original posting, the tragedy is with having two nations, (both of them ancient as a culture and new as a political force) claiming the same piece of land as a home. S***** throwers and hot-head fanatics are present (in too large numbers) in both camps. Reviewing old history books will not get us anyhwere. Striving towards a solution will. It is my opinion that there are no rights or wrongs in politics, only winners and losers. I would like VERY much for my son not to go into the army to fight another stupid war drummed up by some old senile or ruthless politician (be it Israeli, Palestinian, American or Soviet). I do NOT care! I want to leave in peace! I will do everything I can to strive for peace. However: as long as peace alludes us, it is very important to keep strong and healthy and I will continue doing that. SOF(lame) I did not see much in a way of denial to most of my points. I am happy to see that. Maybe there is hope after all. EOF(lame)
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (02/25/86)
>As the man said, If you spread enough lies, repeat them enough times, >and present yourself as the poor victim enough times and loudly enough, >some naive kid will believe you, Exactly right. Well said. This is the essence of propoganda and a vital part of exploitive political systems. Still, noone has explained to me yet: How did the Israeli's get the information that led them into forcing the plane to land? Was the whole thing a mistake? Was it a trap set by a foreign intelligence agency? Or is there something going on that the public story is covering up? Other suggestions? These are the interesting questions, I think. Noone who can think should be surprised that such an incident can take place during wartime, or act like some moral outrage has taken place. (OK, bring on the flames ...)
drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) (02/25/86)
A recent posting has criticized the frequency with which the Arab-Israeli debate in this newsgroup degenerates into shrill invective and vicious accusations. I sympathize with that writer's opinion, but I would like to point out that those of us who feel strongly about the issue face the following dilemma: Suppose that someone is repeatedly making vile accusations against your mother, twisting the truth, embellishing it with lies, and using malicious language. You have three alternatives: you may ignore the attacks; you may respond with calm reason; or you may respond in kind. Most of us agree that the first approach is best, until the frequency and virulence of the attacks require some kind of response. Then, a calm, reasonable reply is the best. Of course, when it's your mother they're running down, the temptation to be somewhat more emphatic than mere reason entails can be quite compelling. "But", you ask, "wouldn't giving in to this temptation be playing right into one's tormentor's hands?" Would that it were that simple! For example, what if the attacks take place in front of a large audience (the usenet, perhaps) ? If you reply with reason, or, worse, try to ignore the attacks, how long does it take before the spectators start to suspect that there may be some truth to the accusations? We all like to flatter ourselves that we find reason more persuasive than innuendo or invective, but, in fact, innuendo beats reason every time on the debating floor. Let's take the following typical anti-Israel posting as an example; I'll respond with nothing but earnest, rational defenses to the given arguments, avoiding all counteraccusations, name-calling, or rhetorical tricks. Let's see what happens.... > > Jewish settlements were mostly built on choice land taken away > from tennant farmers (see for example "Zionism, False Messiah" by > Nathan Weinstock, publ. by Ink Links 1979, p. 80). > "Your mother stole land from poor tenant farmers!" Jewish settlements were mostly built on land purchased from wealthy landlords, using money collected by Zionist organizations worldwide. Some of that land was, no doubt, farmed by tenants. Nevertheless, the accusation is rather distorted. > > From the same reference (p.250), "the Haganah adopted a ruthless > reprisals policy in order to terrorize the Arab population, > blowing up large numbers of houses in the Old City of Jerusalem > and in often absolutely inoffensive Arab villages." > "Your mother blows up innocent people's houses!" This accusation is too vague to respond to with references. However, the author quoted here is the same author whose credibility was badly strained by the previous accusation. > As a further example, from David Hurst's "The Gun and the Olive > Branch" (Faber and Faber 1977), about the terrorizing of Iraqi > Jews in 1951, "They learned that the three explosions were the > work not of Arab extremists, but of the very people who sought > to rescue them; of a clandestine organization called 'The Movement', > whose leader ... had received this letter from Yigal Allon, ..." > The full story is told on p. 157. > "Your mother blows things up and blames it on other people!" This accusation refers to an incident of which I've never heard, and strikes me as not only hard to swallow, but suspicious in its lack of details (What explosions? What 'Movement'? What did Yigal Allon write? To whom?). Of course, I can't PROVE that nothing of the sort ever happened. That's why accusations like this are made. Even if they amount to nothing, the damage is done. (What's this I hear? My "sweet reason" is starting to seem unconvincing?) > > From Livia Rokach's "Israel's Sacred Terrorism:A Study Based on > Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary" (AAUG 1980) the following quote > by A former prime minister of Israel, "I have been meditating on > the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, > and on the many clashes we have provoked which cost us so much > blood, ..." The book describes a wide range of Israeli acts of > provocation. I believe the original Hebrew text is available in > Israel, though not in this country. > "Your mother even admits it!" Is the quotation accurate? What is the context? To what incidents is he referring? The Israeli army is not like North American armiesin that the soldiers are all conscripts, and include Israelis from all walks of life. Incidents and hostilities cannot simply be "invented" in such an army, nor can provocations be engineered, without the entire country knowing about it. If it really happened the way this quotation IMPLIES, shouldn't Moshe Sharett be a national villain in Israel, for all those "clashes" he initiated "which cost (Israel) so much blood?" How long could such a policy have been allowed to continue in a democratic country? ("Still," you think to yourself, "that quotation seems pretty damning. I mean, If it IS true....") > > In his book "The Zionist Connection" (North American 1978, p.840), > Alfred Lilienthal lists nine people killed in the span of one year in > 1972-1973, including Palestinian playright GHassan Kanafani, poet > Kamal Nasser and writer Wael Zuaiter. Israel's Mossad claimed the > credit for most of these incidents, many of which took place in > Europe. Since that time, many others have fallen in the same manner. > "Your mother kills poets and playwrights!" The Mossad is a top-secret intelligence organization, which doesn't even reveal the name of its current chief. It goes without saying that it doesn't reveal anything about its activities, let alone take credit for acts that would be embarrassing to Israel (such as, say, the murder of innocent poets). It has been rumoured that Israel did in fact assemble a hit squad to assassinate the men who took part in the 1972 massacre of athletes at the Munich Olympics. I haven't a clue whether or not it is true; it has certainly never been acknowledged by any branch of the Israeli government. ("Yeah", you think, "but that doesn't mean it DIDN'T happen just like he said...") > > > It is also worth while to note that long before the recent > > > rash of incidents in the mediterranean and Europe, Israel > > > shot down a Libyan commercial jet in a manner not different > > > from the Korean airliner incident. As usual, there were plenty > > > of people to rationalize its action, which caused the death > > > of over 200 innocent passengers. > > I must confess my ignorance here (I'm sure someone else can address this.) > > The incident took place on February 21, 1973, and resulted in the death > of 110 (not over 200, sorry) passengers and crew (Lilienthal p. 372). > "Your mother shoots down civilian aircraft, just like the Russians." Well, I just happen to be informed about this one; I've read the UN International Civil Aviation Organization's report on the incident, so I can respond with the whole story: The Libyan airliner referred to had strayed way off course into the middle of the Sinai Peninsula. It also apparently had radio trouble, making it unreachable by voice communication. Israeli jets intercepted it, and, using the standard international visual signals, ordered it to follow and land at a nearby military airstrip. The airliner almost did land, but at the last second, it pulled up and flew away--apparently (the flight recorder later indicated) the pilot was unsure whether the runway was long enough for a landing. Because of recent threats by terrorist organizations to commandeer a passenger jet and crash it into an Israeli city, and because of the suspicious appearance of the aborted landing, the plane was shot down. It was a terrible mistake, for which Israel formally and publicly apologized. ("Still", you think to yourself, "they DID shoot down an airliner, just like the Russians, sort of...") > > The references I have quoted are corroborated by others. > "What's more, everything I said about your mother is true, and my friends will back me up. They saw it, too." This is the punchline, of course. If enough people corroborate each other's stories, anything is believable. That's how the Holocaust revisionists back up their claims that Hitler's massacre of Jews never happened. Source after scholarly source is cited, each one quoting the other, and so on...but wait! Am I implying that the author of the above article is on the same plane as the anti-holocaust pseudo-historians? What a malicious accusation! I ought to be sticking to pure reason, not casting aspersions. The evidence presented here has all been rather suspect, and its sources have all been less than inspiring in their impartiality. But that's not the point, is it? The ideas have been planted in your mind, and even if SOME of it IS true, well, then.... Notice that I have not once resorted to hurling countercharges at those who are determined to prove Israel the root of all evil, but who never bother to defend their friends, the PLO and Israel's Arab neighbours. It is an unfortunate but unassailable fact that it is easier to level accusations and denigrate your opponent than to defend the reasonableness of your position in the face of these attacks. For this reason, "defences" of the positions of the PLO or other groups invariably focus on Israel's alleged crimes. Any attempt to defend the conduct of Israel's enemies (of which terrorism is only one component) would be hopeless; the only hope of the PLO supporter is to drag Israel's reputation down to the point where she seems no better than her opponents. Is it any wonder arguments in defence of Israel tend to become just as full of invective and counteraccusations as the attacks against which they defend? Daniel R. Simon
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (02/26/86)
Subject: Re: Forced Landing > Rather, Israel's enemies have unfortunately begun to use its > tactics. It was Jewish terrorists in the mandate era who > introduced indiscriminate terrorism to the Middle East. They > were the first to refine it into an instrument of policy. [Raif Hijab] One of the ways of refining terrorism into an instrument of policy was the demonstration that jewish as well as Arab civilians could become victims of zionist terrorism if it served a political purpose. A good example is the blowing up of S.S. Patria in the Haifa harbor on November 25, 1940, killing 276 illegal Jewish immigrants. The decision was made by the Haganah (the official arm of the Jewish Agency) General Staff and was intended to make the British "understand that Jews could not be driven from their own country". The story was told ten years later by David Flinker, Israeli correspondent of the Jewish Morning Journal (the largest Yiddish daily). --- Farzin Mokhtarian
simon@simon_pc.UUCP (Simon Shapiro) (02/27/86)
In article <7568@watlion.UUCP>, drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) writes: > A recent posting has criticized the frequency with which the > Arab-Israeli ... I will not quote this excellent article but would like to add some personal comments; It is hard for me to sit and calmly watch or counter argue such melicious lying. I do not know the middle-east too well (I was born, raised, fought three wars and have family that has lived in Israel for 12 generations, sp far), so I will limit my comments to personal experiance and family memories only. Most of the hate and national violance between Jews and Arabs are relatively new. To understand it you have to go back to the British mandate times. So much of this hatred is a result of fanatic propaganda and is entranched so deeply in the young generation's mind (see my comment about school books from two weeks ago) that it will be impossible (almost) to resolve this situation. My comments about who is doing what to whom are not part of an ugly accusation game. It is a mere observation intended to suggest a solution. When we will see (sometimes violent) demonstrations in Arab countries for PEACE with Israel at any cost, like they happen in Israel, then wie will know time for peace has come. Untill then most all israelies (peace movement supporters and 'hawks' alike will protect their home and do it very well. There are enough internal, social controls in israel to curb violent terrism. Noone is interested in it or will support it (with the exception of the american born and raised :-) Rabby Cahannah). Actually, with this Cahannah creature, I doubt very n=much to what length will he go to prove his point. Remember, he has never been to the army, never fought a war, never lost a friend in battle. It is easy for him to talk. One Arab leader was realistic and practical enough to see that military victory against Israel is impossible (we have too much to loose) and signed a peace treaty with Israel. I do not think this action will be repeated. Blood feuding and hate are too deeply entranched in the middle east. I would like to close this blabbering with a repeat of my hope: I hope my son will not have to grow up like I, or my father did. I hope there will be peace before he is 18 years old. I want to loose sleep over mortgage, car payments, becoming a grandfather too soon, and not wether my sone will come home dead or alive. Simon.
simon@simon_pc.UUCP (Simon Shapiro) (03/01/86)
In article <93@ubc-vision.UUCP>, mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: > Subject: Re: Forced Landing > > > Rather, Israel's enemies have unfortunately begun to use its > > tactics. It was Jewish terrorists in the mandate era who > A good example is the blowing up of S.S. Patria in the Haifa harbor on > November 25, 1940, killing 276 illegal Jewish immigrants. The decision > As a matter of fact, the story needs to be told more accurately. The entire populace of the ship knew about the explosion ahead of time, the british were warned about it and the explosives load was very small (on the scale of 2-5lbs total, but the ship was old and quite rotten, the damage was far greater than expected, the people responsible were indicted, the whole operation was condemned, It was NOT performed against any enemy, and the purpose was to delay the exile, not to kill innocent people. Also, please remember the time (just DURING WW II while jews were turned into soap and lampshades (not killed by other jews in a mixture of blood fued/soviet bloody tactics) so PLEASE, DO NOT BULLSHIT us anymore. We were there, we know what it it like, and to take things so badly out of context, distort them, lie about them, exedurate about them and confue issues will not bring peace. It is a cheap, unexcused form of propaganda that serves no one! Simon.