louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) (03/13/88)
I wish to commend Joe Clark on showing the courage of his convictions
in his speech to the Canada-Israel Committee. It is refreshing to see
a politician who will say the same thing to both South Africa and
Israel (Canadian branch) when he sees (and we all see) violations
of human rights.
Of course if you consider Palestinians non-human, the there can't
be any violation of their "human" rights. They are at least animal
and from what I have seen, the SPCA would object to the treatment.
Three cheers for Joe Clark. Maybe he has become real Prime Minister
material.
--
Louis Schmittroth My employer has no opinions.
Computer Science
Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision, ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!louiscraig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) (03/14/88)
In article <560@auvax.UUCP> louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) writes: >I wish to commend Joe Clark on showing the courage of his convictions >in his speech to the Canada-Israel Committee. It is refreshing to see >a politician who will say the same thing to both South Africa and >Israel (Canadian branch) when he sees (and we all see) violations >of human rights. Agreed. Now if only we could get him to convince Brian Mulroney to stop standing so close to the dictators-for-life of the little rathole `frontline states' north of South Africa whose human rights records are all consistently worse than the R.S.A.. There's a word for those who disapprove of whites oppressing blacks, but don't mind blacks oppressing blacks: racist. Dismissing these `tribal squabbles' as normal events, rather than as the genocidal wholesale slaughters they often are, shows up the self-righteous of all races who are not interested in human rights at all: The white ones who care only about the `bad behaviour' of fellow whites. The black ones who don't object to blacks killing blacks, but only to whites killing blacks. Both of these types, and you can find lots around, including Mulroney, make Mr. Botha seem almost honest. >Three cheers for Joe Clark. Maybe he has become real Prime Minister >material. It was the media that sunk him in the first place. Now that Mulroney's popularity has rightfully gone to hell, the Tories should stop squabbling long enough to bring him back. Most of the Tory bad apples that Clark had in his cabinet have been forced to resign by now anyway! Turner can't make up his mind about anything and can't talk straight to save his life. Not surprising as his party is full of lawyers. Broadbent appears to be a capable guy, but his party was built and is run by special interest groups (like the U.S. Democrats) and adheres to the socialist religion, and except for a few gutsy people like Svend Robinson, to look at his backbench and imagine them as a cabinet is to *know fear*. Clark looks mighty good right now. Too bad it fell apart for him in 1979. The real shame is, there *are* enough competent people around. But the parliamentary system fragments them and doesn't let them cooperate. Instead, they spend all their time hunting for scandals. Contrast this to the U.S. Congress, where Senators and Representatives of different parties often agree, and of the same party often disagree. The administration has to garner support for what it does, instead of just doing what it pleases. Admittedly, regional interests and porkbarrelling and vote-trading can hold more weight, but everything I've ever seen *during* a term of office, as opposed to during an election year, indicates to me that more attention is paid to issues and less to digging up dirt, which is *all* our opposition parties seem to do. At least that's what you see when politicians are together on television. Just an opinion, Craig Hubley, Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont. craig@Unicus.COM (Internet) {uunet!mnetor, utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!craig (dumb uucp) mnetor!unicus!craig@uunet.uu.net (dumb arpa)
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/15/88)
In article <560@auvax.UUCP>, louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) writes: > I wish to commend Joe Clark on showing the courage of his convictions > in his speech to the Canada-Israel Committee. It is refreshing to see > a politician who will say the same thing to both South Africa and > Israel (Canadian branch) when he sees (and we all see) violations > of human rights. It would be refreshing to hear him say something about 100 other countries whose violations of human rights are far more severe. > Of course if you consider Palestinians non-human, the there can't > be any violation of their "human" rights. They are at least animal > and from what I have seen, the SPCA would object to the treatment. No-one is suggesting the Palestinians aren't human. Israel's policy has been one of restraint. Why do you think only 40 Palestinians have been killed so far? In almost any other country (and certainly any country in the Middle East), rioters throwing rocks and threatening the lives of soldiers would suffer far greater casualties. What happened in India, with Sikh riots in the Punjab? Hundreds of dead in a matter of a few days? Thousands? Israel's mistake, if anything, is that by acting with restraint they've allowed the riots and relatively minor causalties to continue for weeks, which lets the problems "build up" through the Western media. Where were Joe Clark and Louis Schmittroth when Syria wiped out the entire population of Hama (20,000 people) a few years ago? What about the Iran-Iraq war, with its millions of casualties? What about human rights abuses in 30 countries in Africa, or throughout Eastern Europe? Central America? Kampuchea? Afghanistan? Panama? Fiji? Can you say "double standard"? Yes, there have been some excesses in the actions of Israeli soldiers. Yes, the violence is regrettable. I don't enjoy hearing or reading about Palestinian Arab deaths. But I have little sympathy for the Arab cause, the victim of its own actions. The Arabs have consistently refused to accept the existence of one tiny Jewish state in their midst. The Palestinians could have had their state in 1947. And I cannot agree with those who, sitting in safety in Canada, can purport to tell Israel how to handle riots. Remember that in 1970, it took only two kidnappings and a murder to trigger the War Measures Act and the arrest of hundreds. And Canada is hardly in danger of being pushed into the sea. Toronto Star, March 14, 1988, page A4, reporting on a demonstration in Toronto on Sunday: "We must have truth, justice and war, war, war until Palestine is liberated from Zionism and U.S. imperialism," Imam Bilal Muhammad told the cheering group. "We don't want part of the pie, we want the whole thing." Given that that's the Arab point of view, there's nothing to negotiate about. Israel's only choice is force. We Jews have learned the hard way that we have to take care of ourselves. David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) (03/17/88)
In article <1988Mar15.024839.27444@lsuc.uucp>, dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) writes: > In article <560@auvax.UUCP>, louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) writes: > > I wish to commend Joe Clark on showing the courage of his convictions > > in his speech to the Canada-Israel Committee. It is refreshing to see > > a politician who will say the same thing to both South Africa and > > Israel (Canadian branch) when he sees (and we all see) violations > > of human rights. > > No-one is suggesting the Palestinians aren't human. Israel's > policy has been one of restraint. Why do you think only 40 > Palestinians have been killed so far? In almost any other > country (and certainly any country in the Middle East), rioters > throwing rocks and threatening the lives of soldiers would suffer > far greater casualties. I like your statistical morality. During the great slaughter of Armenians by the Turks during World War I, about 1.5 millions died. During World War II, 6 millions Jews died, and maybe 20 million Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Army. Hence we can arrange our criminals on a nice scale. Japanese, Germans, Turks. A very minor correction, though, it is 100 Palestinians by Israeli count. Makes the Jews of Israel seem downright benevolent doesn't it? > What happened in India, with Sikh riots in the Punjab? > Hundreds of dead in a matter of a few days? Thousands? > Israel's mistake, if anything, is that by acting with restraint > they've allowed the riots and relatively minor causalties to > continue for weeks, which lets the problems "build up" through > the Western media. I saw the CBS videos of Israelis torturing young Palestinians, and that was not put one for the media. In fact the Israelis didn't know the cameramen were there. > > Where were Joe Clark and Louis Schmittroth when Syria wiped > out the entire population of Hama (20,000 people) a few years > ago? Where was Dave Sherman when the peasants of the Ukraine were starved into submission, or when Tamberlane overran ..., or ... I know where Louis Schmittroth was during World War II -- serving in US Army. > What about the Iran-Iraq war, with its millions of > casualties? What about human rights abuses in 30 countries > in Africa, or throughout Eastern Europe? Central America? Kampuchea? > Afghanistan? Panama? Fiji? Can you say "double standard"? > Joe Clark and Louis Schmittroth condemn all violations of human rights, in all these places, and we even now are able to condemn the violations in Israel. > Yes, there have been some excesses in the actions of Israeli > soldiers. Yes, the violence is regrettable. I don't enjoy > hearing or reading about Palestinian Arab deaths. But I have > little sympathy for the Arab cause, the victim of its own actions. > The Arabs have consistently refused to accept the existence of > one tiny Jewish state in their midst. The Palestinians could > have had their state in 1947. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody anywhere who gets the short end of the stick, and my sympathy extends to the Palestinians who are being oppressed now, and those who were forced from their homes to make way for the state of Israel. I have been reading an almost heart-rending account of the oppresion of Palestinians by Israel, written a young Israeli journalist, David Grossman. The title of the book is the Yellow Wind, and will be published in New York by Farrar, Straus. He is 32, born in Israel, and speaks Arabic. This is an absolutely shocking book. Israel was born in violence and terroism, and it looks like it will continue in violence and terrorism. People whose ancestors had lived in Palestine for hundreds of years all of a sudden were told that since God had promised Palestine to the tribes of Israel, they would have to leave. The creation of the Jewish state was one of the biggest mistake of the postwar era. HOWEVER, that is done, and cannot be undone! Now is the time to consider some way out the hate and violence. The first step is for Canadian Jews to realize that Israel is not always right, and that the repression and brutality of the occupation of the remaining Palestinian lands cannot go on forever. > And I cannot agree with those who, sitting in safety in Canada, > can purport to tell Israel how to handle riots. Remember that > in 1970, it took only two kidnappings and a murder to trigger > the War Measures Act and the arrest of hundreds. And Canada > is hardly in danger of being pushed into the sea. > > Toronto Star, March 14, 1988, page A4, reporting on a demonstration > in Toronto on Sunday: > "We must have truth, justice and war, war, war > until Palestine is liberated from Zionism and U.S. > imperialism," Imam Bilal Muhammad told the cheering > group. "We don't want part of the pie, we want the > whole thing." > That is one Palestinian's view. To be fair you should quote the many who want peace, who are willing to work for peace. And you should quote both the moderate and extreme Israelis. I hope that moderate forces come to power in Israel, and that citizens of Canada who are Jews will support the Palestinian cause. > Given that that's the Arab point of view, there's nothing > to negotiate about. Israel's only choice is force. We Jews > have learned the hard way that we have to take care of ourselves. My ancestors came from Germany in the mid-19th century, and when I was younger I felt ashamed for my racial origins when I saw what the state of Germany did during the Nazi time. But I notice that many American Jews are now ashamed of the actions of Israel. It is really sad to see Israel turned into a country that knows no other way but force and brutality. -- Louis Schmittroth My employer has no opinions. Computer Science Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision, ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!louis
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (03/18/88)
It seriously worries me getting into this controversy, particularly in this medium, because the subject is one of faith, nationalism and historical injustice - guaranteed to generate irrational, bigotted and hysterical outbursts (even if not from the people directly quoted here) which at best will assume any wrong justifies another, and at worst, that the end justifies any means. However, having said that, here we go.... >In article <560@auvax.UUCP>, louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) writes: >> I wish to commend Joe Clark on showing the courage of his convictions >> in his speech to the Canada-Israel Committee. It is refreshing to see >> a politician who will say the same thing to both South Africa and >> Israel (Canadian branch) when he sees (and we all see) violations >> of human rights. To this, dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman), in article <1988Mar15.024839.27444@lsuc.uucp> replies: > >It would be refreshing to hear him say something about 100 >other countries whose violations of human rights are far more >severe. Agreed. Indeed it *was* refreshing to hear him say something about the Russians, when he did, and the South Africans, when he did that also. Yes, there are many, many other areas of civil rights oppression. How many of them should we cover before the Israel/Palestine situation becomes appropriate? > >No-one is suggesting the Palestinians aren't human. Israel's >policy has been one of restraint. Why do you think only 40 >Palestinians have been killed so far? In almost any other >country (and certainly any country in the Middle East), rioters >throwing rocks and threatening the lives of soldiers would suffer >far greater casualties. > The fact that others take more extreme actions does not justify one's own actions in another similar situation. >What happened in India, with Sikh riots in the Punjab? >Hundreds of dead in a matter of a few days? Thousands? Irrelevant, see above, the mistakes made in India having *nothing* to do with what is going on in the Gaza, and can be no justification for it. >Israel's mistake, if anything, is that by acting with restraint >they've allowed the riots and relatively minor causalties to >continue for weeks, which lets the problems "build up" through >the Western media. Hmmm. Exactly the thought processes of the Apartheid Gang - "It's the media's fault these oppressed people are reacting against their oppression, so blame the media, *ban* the media, then we will not have to be pressured by public opinion". Oh, by the way, how can one be killed in a "relatively minor" way, by a soldier acting with "restaint"? Occupation Soldiers Beating Up Kids are Occupation Soldiers Beating Up Kids, whether they are being photographed or whether they are doing it in a dark cellar. Whether we can hear their screams or whether we can not. Whether the soldiers' kids had themselves been beaten by *other* soldiers, or not. Armed Agressive Oppression is Armed Agressive Oppression, whether we are talking about Palestine, Afghanistan, Sharpville, Derry, Kent State, jew, gentile, white, black, catholic, protestant, islamic. > >Where were Joe Clark and Louis Schmittroth when Syria wiped >out the entire population of Hama (20,000 people) a few years >ago? > As I said above, Joe, whose party I *don't* support politically by the way, started on the Russians, then "picked-on" on the South Africans and has only now moved on to the Israelis. As the original poster put it "I wish to commend Joe Clark"! > What about the Iran-Iraq war, with its millions of >casualties? What about human rights abuses in 30 countries >in Africa, or throughout Eastern Europe? Central America? Kampuchea? >Afghanistan? Panama? Fiji? Can you say "double standard"? > Exactly! Fantastic, you agree with me, you have just classified the Israel situation with the above list of other situations which you imply are injustices. So, if that's what you believe, be consistent, and live with the consequencies of this classification. Can *you* say "double standard"? Your argument is that because we don't or can't take action on *all* injustice, then we should take action on *none*! Nonsense! Hurrah! We have started, and are continuing, to take a stand as a nation against human rights abuses throughout the world. That's Israel dealt with, now who shall we choose next? (:-) Israel was forced on the Middle East by the stupid Brits (I'm one of them) and we're all paying for that fact. I can't blame the Palestinians for wanting 'their' land back. I can't blame the Israelies for protecting what they now find themselves with. This doesn't justify oppressing the whole region to ensure their own "security". "Security" can be defined in any terms, didn't Hitler have something to say on that subject as a reason d'etre for some of his actions?? Would a visitor from another planet, witnessing *the actions of* the blackshirts in Germany in the 30's then the Israelis in the Gaza Strip or Jerusalem in the 80's justify one situation but not the other? [*note the emphasis*] No part of the history of the jews, or any other group of people, including the holocaust, gives them the right to act in the same abominable way that they have been acted against! Methinks I rant on a little too much..... As this started in can.politics, I leave it there. However if anyone feels they want to re-post it to some other wider group for hotter flaming, please feel free to do so, I feel pretty flameproof today. Ray Dunn. ..{philabs, mnetor, musocs}!micomvax!ray
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/21/88)
This discussion has very quickly gotten to the point where it belongs in talk.politics.mideast. I have posted two fairly long articles, written by others, which fairly summarize my views on the current conflict. I will reply to some points below and then leave the matter: In article <568@auvax.UUCP>, louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) writes: > I know where Louis Schmittroth was during World War II -- > serving in US Army. And I would have been in the Canadian Army had I been alive (and old enough) at the time. > I have been reading an almost heart-rending account of the oppresion > of Palestinians by Israel, written a young Israeli journalist, David > Grossman. The title of the book is the Yellow Wind, and will be > published in New York by Farrar, Straus. He is 32, born in Israel, > and speaks Arabic. This is an absolutely shocking book. > > Israel was born in violence and terroism, and it looks like it will > continue in violence and terrorism. People whose ancestors had lived > in Palestine for hundreds of years all of a sudden were told that since > God had promised Palestine to the tribes of Israel, they would have to This is absolute nonsense. First of all, the vast majority of Jewish settlers were not religious and would not be quoting God at anyone. Yes, the Jewish people have had ties to the land for thousands of years. There has always been a Jewish presence in the land. When the Zionist settlers first began arriving in large numbers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the country was swamp and desert. (Read Mark Twain's account of Palestine as a total backwater.) Yes, there were Arab communities. The Jews didn't kick them out. They bought land from Turkish and Syrian landowners and reclaimed thousands of acres of land, making the land bloom again. There was plenty of room for both peoples on the land. It was the Arabs who totally rejected an independent Jewish presence in their midst. Remember that 77% of Palestine was carved out by the British and handd to the Hashemite clan to form Trans-Jordan, too. The "Palestine" which remained was then divided up into two countries by the UN proposal. It was the Arabs who rejected that proposal and attacked Israel. The Jews weren't just fighting for a state -- they were fighting for their lives. And still are. Israel held out the olive branch of peace from before it was formed; it was the Arab leaders who told the people to leave to leave the way clear for the Arab armies to wipe out the Jews. Since World War II some 70 milllion refugees have been displaced and found new homes. Israel absorbed over a million from Arab countries. Why could the Arabs not find a way to resettle the Palestinian refugees? Because they are more interested in wiping out Israel than in helping their brethren. > leave. The creation of the Jewish state was one of the biggest mistake > of the postwar era. HOWEVER, that is done, and cannot be undone! Now Mistake? I don't think you have the slightest conception of what Israel means to the Jewish people, Mr. Schmittroth. We've learned the hard way what happens when we have no home of our own, thank you very much. The world gives its sympathies to dead Jews; we prefer to stay alive and offend the world. > is the time to consider some way out the hate and violence. The first > step is for Canadian Jews to realize that Israel is not always right, > and that the repression and brutality of the occupation of the > remaining Palestinian lands cannot go on forever. Granted on both counts. But giving in to rioting is hardly the way to encourage a peaceful solution. Israel has always been prepared to negotiate with its Arab neighbours, or with representatives of the Palestinians. But there's no point negotiating with an organization whose sole objective is to destroy you. > > And I cannot agree with those who, sitting in safety in Canada, > > can purport to tell Israel how to handle riots. Remember that > > in 1970, it took only two kidnappings and a murder to trigger > > the War Measures Act and the arrest of hundreds. And Canada > > is hardly in danger of being pushed into the sea. I didn't see a reply to this point. > > Toronto Star, March 14, 1988, page A4, reporting on a demonstration > > in Toronto on Sunday: > > "We must have truth, justice and war, war, war > > until Palestine is liberated from Zionism and U.S. > > imperialism," Imam Bilal Muhammad told the cheering > > group. "We don't want part of the pie, we want the > > whole thing." > > > > That is one Palestinian's view. To be fair you should quote the > many who want peace, who are willing to work for peace. And you Wake up and look at the facts, please. The PLO charter calls for the destruction of Israel. PLO officials have been quoted many times that a Palestinian state on the West Bank would be only a "first step" towards a Palestinian state on all of "Palestine". Note the "cheering group" in the quote above. Just who is Israel supposed to negotiate with, since Jordan won't come to the table? (See the other postings.) >From: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) >Oh, by the way, how can one be killed in a "relatively minor" way, by a >soldier acting with "restaint"? One can't. Thousands can. Thousands haven't been. > >Occupation Soldiers Beating Up Kids are Occupation Soldiers Beating Up Kids, >whether they are being photographed or whether they are doing it in a dark >cellar. Whether we can hear their screams or whether we can not. Whether >the soldiers' kids had themselves been beaten by *other* soldiers, or not. Whether the "kids" had just been throwing rocks and bottles at the soldiers, with intent to maim, or not... >Armed Agressive Oppression is Armed Agressive Oppression, whether we are >talking about Palestine, Afghanistan, Sharpville, Derry, Kent State, jew, >gentile, white, black, catholic, protestant, islamic. Yes, and whether or not the alternative is national suicide. Whether or not the people occupied previously used the land to attempt to destroy the now-occupier. Whether or not the people occupied are willing (after having LOST the war, for goodness' sakes) to make some accommodation and try and solve matters peaceably. >>Where were Joe Clark and Louis Schmittroth when Syria wiped >>out the entire population of Hama (20,000 people) a few years >>ago? >> > >As I said above, Joe, whose party I *don't* support politically by the way, >started on the Russians, then "picked-on" on the South Africans and has only >now moved on to the Israelis. As the original poster put it "I wish to >commend Joe Clark"! None of which answers my question. If Israel is evil in killing 100 rioters, does that not make Syria 200 times worse? Should we not have heard 200 times the amount of screaming from Joe Clark and Louis Schmittroth (and Ray Dunn)? And the same in so many other situations? >> What about the Iran-Iraq war, with its millions of >>casualties? What about human rights abuses in 30 countries >>in Africa, or throughout Eastern Europe? Central America? Kampuchea? >>Afghanistan? Panama? Fiji? Can you say "double standard"? >> >Exactly! Fantastic, you agree with me, you have just classified the Israel >situation with the above list of other situations which you imply are >injustices. So, if that's what you believe, be consistent, and live with >the consequencies of this classification. Can *you* say "double standard"? The double standard comes in the way Israel is always in the spotlight, always taken to task, when so many other injustices exist. Yes, Israel is not perfect, and I noted in my last posting that there have been excesses. (Note the recent convictions and jailings of some soldiers on such counts. Heard of any internal discipline of PLO terrorists? Or Syrian soldiers? Or etc. etc. etc.?) >Israel was forced on the Middle East by the stupid Brits (I'm one of them) Nonsense. Britain did everything it could to *prevent* Jewish immigration and support the Arab cause. Israel came into being through the sweat and blood of Jews. >and we're all paying for that fact. I can't blame the Palestinians for >wanting 'their' land back. I can't blame the Israelies for protecting what >they now find themselves with. This doesn't justify oppressing the whole >region to ensure their own "security". "Security" can be defined in any >terms, didn't Hitler have something to say on that subject as a reason >d'etre for some of his actions?? Stop bringing up idiotic analogies. Go back and read a paper from May 1967 and learn about security. Read about how the Arabs were going to push the Jews into the sea and kill them all. Look at a map and figure out what Israel is like without the West Bank. While you're at it, count up the number of square miles in the Arab countries and the number of square miles in Israel, and ask yourself why Israel can't be left alone. >Would a visitor from another planet, witnessing *the actions of* the >blackshirts in Germany in the 30's then the Israelis in the Gaza Strip or >Jerusalem in the 80's justify one situation but not the other? [*note the >emphasis*] I find your analogy offensive. Would a visitor from another planet witnessing *the actions of* a World War II partisan beating or killing an SS officer justify that situation? That's just as meaningful a question. >No part of the history of the jews, or any other group of people, including >the holocaust, gives them the right to act in the same abominable way that >they have been acted against! I find this even more offensive. If you think the Israelis are acting towards the Arabs the way the Nazis treated the Jews, you don't know the first thing about (a) the Holocaust or (b) the present situation. Go back to the 100 dead and ask why it's not thousands, or hundreds of thousands, if you seriously think you can make that analogy. The Palestinians who are being "attacked" are those who are rioting. Not a pleasant situation to be in, having a mob approach you with rocks and bottles. >Methinks I rant on a little too much..... Perhaps far too much. David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave