chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) (04/04/85)
David Sherman writes: > ... Israel poses no threat to Iraq nor any of the other > countries in the Middle East, if they'd only leave it alone. Sure, and any invading country is really peace loving, if only the original inhabitants would turn over their homes/possessions/et cetera, and leave the invaders to enjoy them in peace. Many people sympathize with Israel's position, but in Canada and Europe, at least, there seems to be a much more balanced view of the 'unholy' lands than in the U.S. administrations. As long as the Palestinians are living in refugee camps in Jordan there will be Arab hatred of Israel, and many Canadians understand this. In last weekend's Globe and Mail there was an article about Canadian Jews who had moved to Israel for various reasons. One guy had moved to a kibbutz that was described as being built on the site of an old Arab village; the actual line was somthing like "after the original Arab peasants had been driven out." This is a way to build peaceful relations with your Arab neighbours? The amazing thing about this article is that the writer found nothing remarkable about this. There are too many arguments and counter arguments to be made by both sides; I am sure there are good internal reasons for all the atrocities. But that doesn't alter the fact that there are very real hatreds of both parties for each other. Arguing the case here in Canada is, in my opinion, a fruitless and morally sick academic exercise given the murders, detentions, interrogations, bombings, and hatred going on EVERY DAY in the 'unholy' lands. I still stand by my labelling (oh so long ago!) of Israel as a belligerent power. And lumping Israel in with South Africa, as I did, make sense given the high level talks and visits between these two countries. They are both in the same boat as far as hostile neighbours; as well, there is increasing evidence of the poor treatment (i.e. lack of civil rights / legal discrimination) against Arabs living in Israel. Is apartheid far from coming now? (Did you know that all Israeli identity cards give the religion of the bearer? Do you wonder why?) Chris Retterath utzoo!dciem!aquila!chris
eugene@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Kligerman) (04/05/85)
In article <8@aquila.UUCP> chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) writes: >David Sherman writes: > > ... Israel poses no threat to Iraq nor any of the other > > countries in the Middle East, if they'd only leave it alone. > >Sure, and any invading country is really peace loving, if only the original >inhabitants would turn over their homes/possessions/et cetera, and >leave the invaders to enjoy them in peace. Invaders? Original inhbitants? What a load of bullshit. How quickly a world forgets that in the 1920 - 1940's there were a number of pogroms throughout what then was Palestine, and several Jewish communities were destroyed (e.g. in Hebron). I should also point out that all that was happening with at least tacit blessing of the 'non-biased' European country namely England. >I am sure there are good internal reasons for all the atrocities. Whoa! Since you were speaking of 'belligerent' nations such as Israel, I assume that the word 'atrocities' applies to that country as well. What atrocities are you accusing Israel of? I am continually amazed and astonished at how Israel is accused of all mortal sins. Unless you are prepared to support your views, don't throw words such as 'atrocities' around (I, and a lot of other people) get extremely offended. >I still stand by my labelling (oh so long ago!) of Israel as a belligerent >power. And lumping Israel in with South Africa, as I did, make sense >given the high level talks and visits between these two countries. And U.S. is belligerent because it has high level contacts with both Israel AND South Africa? Don't bother answering that. I know your answer, Chris. I see, the countries that do not have 'increasing evidence of the poor treatment of ...' are not really belligirent? Without much surprise, I noticed that in your original list you included such countries as S. Africa, South Corea, etc. Strangely enough you forgot to mention Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Libya, Nicaragua, etc. I guess that those countries do not have 'increasing evidence ...' Your original list was rather one-sided, to say the least. Frankly, I am not sure of your definition of belligirent. Is a country 'belligirent' when it deals with its own citizens in its own way? I always thought belligerence by definition is directed 'outside'. P.S. Soviet Union is, of course, non-belligerent. So I certainly don't see any reason why every citizen carries an internal passport around (yes, with the nationality being in a prominent place). After all, all in Soviet Union are equal -- their rights are guaranteed by the Soviet Constitution. (Somewhere, there is a big smile ":-))", but I don't feel much like smiling right now. much when talking on the subject). -- Eugene Kligerman, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto UUCP: {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsri!eugene
gershon@utcsri.UUCP (Ron Gershon) (04/05/85)
In response to Chris Retterath > Sure, and any invading country is really peace loving, if only the original > inhabitants would turn over their homes/possessions/et cetera, and > leave the invaders to enjoy them in peace. Who is the invading country? Clearly you have forgotten who invaded whom in 1948, 1973, and who was the cause for the 1956,1967 wars in the Middle-East.. > Many people sympathize with Israel's position, but in Canada and Europe, > at least, there seems to be a much more balanced view of the 'unholy' lands > than in the U.S. administrations. Well, maybe there are other reasons for the "much more balanced view" of this issue, namely oil, larger markets for exports, etc. > As long as the Palestinians are living > in refugee camps in Jordan there will be Arab hatred of Israel, and many > Canadians understand this. It is very sad that not too many Arab country leaders have understood this many many years ago. Had they realised that Israel was going to remain in the region, they could have solved the problem, just as Israel solved the problem of Jews all over the world (i.e., relocating the ones (who wished) to Israel, and providing them with the means to start their new lives). The Arabs chose to maintain the refugees in their camps hoping that one day it will turn to a useful bargaining card. > This is a way to build peaceful relations > with your Arab neighbours? Israel's record for trying to build peacful relations with its neighbours is by no means something to be ashamed of. Since its independence, it has asked the Arab leaders directly and indirectly to meet and resolve the problems. In the only two "round-table" meetings (unfortunately, after wars) between Israel and its neighbours (in 1949 and 1974), Israel was NOT the country to walk out. Picking out one line from a newpaper does not say a whole lot about the people's(in this case, Israelis) search for peace. > There are too many arguments and counter arguments to be made by both sides; > I am sure there are good internal reasons for all the atrocities. But that > doesn't alter the fact that there are very real hatreds of both parties for > each other. What atrocities were comitted by Israel? What makes you think that Israelis hate Arabs? Have you ever asked them? Have you ever verified it? The public in Israel in general does not hate the Arabs; as was mentioned before, people want to be left alone and build their country and not fight a war every 5 years. > Arguing the case here in Canada is, in my opinion, a fruitless > and morally sick academic exercise ... Speak for yourself. If you think that arguing the case ANYWHERE is morally sick, then what point is there in your article? > I still stand by my labelling (oh so long ago!) of Israel as a belligerent > power. No problem; in that case, under this classification, Canada and Lybia are in the same categoty. Furthermore, since Egypt and Syria DID NOT attack Israel in 1973 (or did they?), they are also considered as non-belligerent. > as well, there is increasing evidence of the poor treatment > (i.e. lack of civil rights / legal discrimination) against Arabs living > in Israel. Is apartheid far from coming now? What is this increasing evidence? Did they lose their right to vote? Was the number of Arab MKs (Member of Knesset, the Israeli Parliment) restricted? Was their freedom of speech limited? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? > (Did you know that all Israeli > identity cards give the religion of the bearer? Do you wonder why?) Yes, I know, and I wonder if YOU know why? Is it part of the "increasing poor treatment", or was always like that? Have you ever asked the same question about Arab ID cards? Have you checked (or at least asked) about the condition in which Jews live in Arab countries? Do you know if they have any freedom of speech? -- Ron Gershon Usenet: {ubc-vision,utzoo,watmath,allegra,cornell, decvax,ihnp4,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!gershon CSNET: gershon@Toronto ARPA: gershon%Toronto@CSNet-Relay
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/10/85)
In article <8@aquila.UUCP> chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) writes: ||David Sherman writes: || > ... Israel poses no threat to Iraq nor any of the other || > countries in the Middle East, if they'd only leave it alone. || ||Sure, and any invading country is really peace loving, if only the original ||inhabitants would turn over their homes/possessions/et cetera, and ||leave the invaders to enjoy them in peace. Invaders?? Palestine was a British colony when the Balfour Declaration promised it as a homeland for the Jews in 1917. Subsequently (1922), 77% of it was lopped off and handed to the Hashemite Arabs, and became Jordan. Of the remaining 23%, the Jews settled in a large part, primarily in barren, unoccupied areas. In 1947, the U.N. partition plan called for the establishment of two states, one Jewish, one Arab. The Arabs refused to accept this and invaded the newly-formed State of Israel. The "original inhabitants" had plenty of room for their own state. Unfortunately, the Arab mentality does not tolerate the concept of an independent Jewish state nearby. || || As long as the Palestinians are living ||in refugee camps in Jordan there will be Arab hatred of Israel, and many ||Canadians understand this. If the Arabs had used a tiny fraction of their oil money towards resettling the refugees, the problem would have been solved years ago. The tiny county of Israel absorbed approximately 750,000 Jews from Arab lands in the late 40's and early 50's. Those Arabs who stayed in Israel became citizens (and vote, serve in the Parliament, etc.). Those who left are free to go to Jordan, where Palestinian Arabs have automatic citizenship. Why blame Israel? ||There are too many arguments and counter arguments to be made by both sides; ||I am sure there are good internal reasons for all the atrocities. ^^^^^^^^^^^ What? I object to the blanket suggestion that Israel performs or condones atrocities. The Israeli army's standards are exceptionally high. Speak to an ex_Israeli army member sometime. ||as well, there is increasing evidence of the poor treatment ||(i.e. lack of civil rights / legal discrimination) against Arabs living ||in Israel. Is apartheid far from coming now? (Did you know that all Israeli ||identity cards give the religion of the bearer? Do you wonder why?) Did you know that Israeli Arabs can vote in Israel? How many Arabs can vote in any other country in the Middle East? Yes, Israel is a *Jewish* state, so there are certain inherent preferences given to Jews (e.g., the Law of Return). You will find that non-Moslems have almost no rights in many Moslem countries - far fewer rights than Arabs in Israel. If the Arabs don't like it, they are free to go live in any one of the 22 Arab countries. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/10/85)
I want a way to stop people like Zundel from spreading viscious lies about people. I do not think that legislating against ``hate literature'' is the best way, though. A full page editorial in the Globe and Mail outlining what Zundel believes should be very bad for business. What you want to avoid in the extreme is making a martyr out of Zundel. Martyred and opressed fanatics seem to attract more followers than ones who are simply denounced. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura