orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/25/85)
War is a singularly irrational and uneconomical institution. Yet people continue to defend it as somehow worthwhile. Sometimes their defense is cloaked in idealistic phrases like "saving the world for democracy". Other times it is cloaked in more blatantly self-interested terms like "saving Middle East oil for Exxon". This argument for self-interest is really quite absurd, yet here it is: > > There is, in fact, quite a bit of doubt over who benefits more > from this relationship, the U. S. or Israel. One analysis > by Edward Teller (quoted yesterday on PBS's Firing Line > with William Buckley) has it that the U. S. could not hold > out from war with the Soviet Union over the Middle East for > more than five years following any (G-d forbid!) destruction > of Israel. This is because without Israel, there is no > democracy in the Mideast which has the right to defend itself > against Soviet aggression. Without Israel an "Exxon War" > would ensue as the Soviet Russians advance into the region. > You may not get the entire gist of this scenario from the > above, but there can be no disagreement with the conclusion > that Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast and therefore > the only democracy which can legitimately use military force > to oppose the Soviets should they threaten Israel. > Over the past 5 years every child, woman, and man in the U.S. has paid $4348 in order to pay over a trillion dollars to prepare for War. Part of this trillion dollars has gone to pay for "Rapid Deployment Forces" to be able to go to war immediately in several regions of the world at once. Several hundred billion dollars has gone to build yet more nuclear weapons. Billions have gone to provide arms to governments all over the world. Even if one argues that some of this money must be spent preparing for war in our own defense, the question of "what is the return on our investment?" for billions of dollars spent to protect such things as Middle East oil is never asked. Imagine that those billions were spent on research, development and production of alternatives to Middle East oil. Such investment, besides avoiding all the destructive consequences when arms are actually used (e.g. oil fields blown up and set on fire,etc.), might very well provide alternative energy sources that could provide energy for both ourselves and the rest of the world. Instead of investing in destruction, we could be investing in *production*, in the creation of new wealth. The oil companies undoubtedly find huge military expenditures to protect their economic wealth at the taxpayers expense worthwhile. It is not so certain such expenditures help either the ordinary taxpayer or the victims of the arms we buy or provide. tim sevener whuxn!orb
mcgeer@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (10/28/85)
(1) Israel is worth defending because it is the only Western nation in the Mideast, and (with the possible exception of Egypt) is the only nation in the area which professes the ideals of individual liberty and human dignity that we hold dear, not because of some spurious link to mideast oil. (2) Israel is further worth defending because it is the homeland of the most-persecuted people in history. (3) The United States is relatively independent of mideast oil: less than 5% of our supply comes from the middle east. (4) Europe, however, is highly dependent on middle eastern oil: almost all of Europe's supply comes from the middle east. This makes Europe extremely dependent on middle eastern oil, and hence defense of mideast oil is simply an extension of our 40-year commitment to European defense. It may be the case that the oil companies would suffer from a mideast oil cutoff: not that I noticed the seven sisters suffering in either 1973 or 1979. However, Europe would suffer far more, and would be extremely vulnerable to either Soviet or Arab pressure. I would bet that the US government is far more concerned with European security than Exxon's profits. (5) The only feasible alternatives to oil are natural gas, coal, and atomic energy. Of the three, coal is very dirty and natural gas suffers from transportation difficulties. Fission energy is here right now, is competitive with oil in price/kw-hr, and is very clean...but is politically incorrect, for some reason I've never been able to fathom. If Europe had plentiful fission energy right now (or if we did) we could use gasified coal to power our automobiles and be independent of the Arabs. Undoubtedly we could then defend Israel with more vigour than we do now, and as well redeploy or withdraw some of our overseas forces. Perhaps some of the groups that are opposed to our current buildup should redirect their energies to ending political restrictions on the development of fission power. (6) Our current strategic buildup is unrelated to events in the middle east: it is a response to the Soviet acquistion of a first-strike capability. Rick.
amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) (10/30/85)
In article <10822@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > >(1) Israel is worth defending because it is the only Western nation in the >Mideast, and (with the possible exception of Egypt) is the only nation in the >area which professes the ideals of individual liberty and human dignity that >we hold dear, not because of some spurious link to mideast oil. I am sorry to disappoint you, but if you look at what is happening in the West Bank, you will realize that the "ideals of individual liberty and human dignity" are being completely disregarded, e.g. it is under semi-permanent occupation, traveling by Arabs is very much restricted, detentions, blowing-up of houses apply routinely to Arab "terrorists", and not Israeli "terrorists", etc. Amr El Abbadi
mr@hou2h.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (10/31/85)
> In article <10822@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > > > >(1) Israel is worth defending because it is the only Western nation in the > >Mideast, and (with the possible exception of Egypt) is the only nation in the > >area which professes the ideals of individual liberty and human dignity that > >we hold dear, not because of some spurious link to mideast oil. > I am sorry to disappoint you, but if you look at what is happening in > the West Bank, you will realize that the "ideals of individual liberty > and human dignity" are being completely disregarded, e.g. it is under > semi-permanent occupation, traveling by Arabs is very much restricted, > detentions, blowing-up of houses apply routinely to Arab "terrorists", > and not Israeli "terrorists", etc. > Amr El Abbadi I think you have a bit of a wrong idea here. The Gov't of Israel supply all Arabs living in Israel with Education, social programs, and a variety of other social services. If I may add, at a great cost to the country. Travelling is not as resticted as you may think, anyone with a car can travel to any part of the country (The licence has the city of origin on it - same as a state in USA), The busses run everywhere, and arabs are not restricted from the busses. Detentions are done ONLY when there has been terrorist action in the area as is with blowing up of houses. Houses are only blown up when the authorities are damn sure that there have been terrorists in the house. Another issue, when the so called Israeli "terrorists" were being apprehended the whole village was detained until it was ascertained who exactly were at fault. It pays to think and look at facts before you speak. Mark
sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) (11/01/85)
Mr. Rindsberg [1124@hou2h.UUCP] in replying to Mr. El Abbadi [232@cornell.UUCP] says: >I think you have a bit of a wrong idea here. >The Gov't of Israel supply all Arabs living in Israel with Education, social >programs, and a variety of other social services. If I may add, at a great >cost to the country. How generous the state of Israel is to the arabs, which have been living for centruries in Palestine along with jews that have chosen not to abandon Palestine. Now, comes the state of Israel and kick the arabs out of their homes ( or you think that they happen to have a free spirit and would rather live as refugee in crummy tents? ) and treat them as second (oops, it should be fourth, since the western jews come first then the eastern jews then the falashas and then the arabs) class citizen and they're not graceful that they get some of the leftover, that they're still alive.. ? >Detentions are done ONLY when there has >been terrorist action in the area as is with blowing up of houses. Houses are >only blown up when the authorities are damn sure that there have been >terrorists in the house. Another issue, when the so called Israeli "terrorists" >were being apprehended the whole village was detained until it was >ascertained who exactly were at fault. It pays to think and look at facts >before you speak. > > Mark Mark, you don't disagree with amr, you're just reiterating what he said. Houses of terrorist jews are never blown up even when the israeli government is damn sure that they have been there. Finally I agree with you, it pays to think and look at the facts (all the facts not only the ones that suit you) before you speak. hisham...
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (11/02/85)
>In article <10822@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >> >>(1) Israel is worth defending because it is the only Western nation in the >>Mideast, and (with the possible exception of Egypt) is the only nation in the >>area which professes the ideals of individual liberty and human dignity that >>we hold dear, not because of some spurious link to mideast oil. In article <232@cornell.UUCP> amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) writes: >I am sorry to disappoint you, but if you look at what is happening in >the West Bank, you will realize that the "ideals of individual liberty >and human dignity" are being completely disregarded, ^^^^^^^^^^ Not COMPLETELY disregarded. Let's just say heavily compromised. >e.g. it is under semi-permanent occupation, traveling by Arabs is >very much restricted, detentions, blowing-up of houses apply routinely >to Arab "terrorists", and not Israeli "terrorists", etc. Actually, prison, not house-blow-upping, is the punishment for terrorists. Blowing up the house is the punishment for those who harbor terrorists. Furthermore, I read that Israel HAD recently caught and imprisoned a ring of Israeli terrorists. Are they not still in jail? As to the issue of individual liberty -- that applies only to citizens. Most nations monitor the movement of foreign nationals. Of course, if the West Bank Arabs all decided to demand Israeli citizenship, this would force Israel to decide whether they intend to keep the territory indefinitely (in which case citizenship must be granted), or whether the territory is indeed to be returned some day as part of a peace settlement (to the displeasure of the Likud party). Frank Silbermann
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (11/04/85)
>> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer): >>(1) Israel is worth defending because it is the only Western nation in the >>Mideast, and (with the possible exception of Egypt) is the only nation in the >>area which professes the ideals of individual liberty and human dignity that >>we hold dear, not because of some spurious link to mideast oil. > > [...] if you look at what is happening in >the West Bank, you will realize that the "ideals of individual liberty >and human dignity" are being completely disregarded, [...] > > Amr El Abbadi In fact, **even on the West Bank** there is more political and personal freedom than in most Arab countries. There is, for instance, more freedom of the press and of speech. Why does Israeli government allow West Bank newspapers to be published that tell it to go to hell, when no Arab government allows such things? Precisely because the Israeli culture does profess the ideal of a free press, and so the Israelis will allow freedom of the press unless they feel they have a good reason not to. We can argue whether the specific restrictions they put on are indeed justified by the circumstances, but we must not miss the point that for the Israeli culture, to restrict freedom of the press, even in occupied territory, needs a substantial excuse. This is not the case in any other Mid-East country, and it is this kind of difference that McGeer is pointing to in his original posting. No, Israel is not perfect, but neither is the United States. What matters is that on issues like personal and political freedom Israel is in the same general league as the United States, and no other country in the region is even close. If you believe the US should support the existence and spread of these freedoms, either for reasons of morality or of self-interest, then of course the US should support Israel.
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (11/05/85)
> From: sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam @ U of Washington Computer Science) > > [...] the arabs, which have been living > for centruries in Palestine along with jews that have chosen not to abandon > Palestine. Jews did not "choose" to leave Judea. They were forcibly expelled by the Imperial Roman military, who then renamed the area "Palestine" to wipe out any association between the country and Jews. Thus, *** "Palestine", not Israel, is the creation of European Imperialism *** If Blacks in South Africa gain the right to live legally in what are now whites-only areas, would you refer to "the Afrikaaners, which have been living for centuries in Johannesburg along with those Blacks that have chosen not to abandon Johannesburg"? > Now, comes the state of Israel and kick the arabs out of their homes False. The arab refugees left because their leaders said "get out of the way while we throw the Jews into the sea." > and treat them as second (oops, > it should be fourth, since the western jews come first then the eastern > jews then the falashas and then the arabs) class citizen Of all the nerve! Arab countries brutally mistreated the "eastern jews", and did everything they could to keep the Ethiopian Jews starving in refugee camps. (A Sudanese official was recently executed for his role in allowing the rescue of Ethiopian Jews.) And you have the gall to complain about how the "eastern" and Ethiopian Jews are being treated in Israel? Even the Arabs in Israel are better off materially and in terms of personal and political freedom than the average citizen of any Arab country. (They do have a problem in that they live in a country whose dominant culture is not Arab, and that is under constant attack from other Arabs.)
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/05/85)
> ? > >Detentions are done ONLY when there has > >been terrorist action in the area as is with blowing up of houses. Houses are > >only blown up when the authorities are damn sure that there have been > >terrorists in the house. Another issue, when the so called Israeli "terrorists" > >were being apprehended the whole village was detained until it was > >ascertained who exactly were at fault. It pays to think and look at facts > >before you speak. > > > > Mark > Mark, you don't disagree with amr, you're just reiterating what he said. > Houses of terrorist jews are never blown up even when the israeli government > is damn sure that they have been there. > Finally I agree with you, it pays to think and look at the facts (all the > facts not only the ones that suit you) before you speak. The Israeli underground is not out to overthrow a government. The sole purpose of the Israeli underground was to protect Jewish citizens of the state of Israel. Those Arabs who were in the Israeli section of the partition got a choice of either accepting Israeli citizenship or rejecting it. The hostile element on the West Bank are sworn to the destruction of Israel ( and probably the killing of many Jews along the way ). Putting the Israeli underground in jail was enough of a deterent to stop further actions. Putting the Arab terrorists in jail did not stop the attacks, so a further punishment was needed to act as a deterent. Eliyahu Teitz.
brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) (11/06/85)
> >I think you have a bit of a wrong idea here. > >The Gov't of Israel supply all Arabs living in Israel with Education, social > >programs, and a variety of other social services. If I may add, at a great > >cost to the country. > How generous the state of Israel is to the arabs, which have been living > for centruries in Palestine along with jews that have chosen not to abandon > Palestine. Now, comes the state of Israel and kick the arabs out of their > homes ( or you think that they happen to have a free spirit and would > rather live as refugee in crummy tents? ) and treat them as second (oops, > it should be fourth, since the western jews come first then the eastern > jews then the falashas and then the arabs) class citizen and they're not > graceful that they get some of the leftover, that they're still alive.. The fact that you ignore is that the Arabs were not kicked out of their homes. Middle and upper class left because they could afford to. You seem to ignore that leaflets were distributed in, for example, Haifa urging the local Arab populace to stay put. Their so-called leaders were gonna get rid of the Jews quick. And it's unfortunate that they left. I have sympathy for them. But tell me, what have their Arab brothers done for them. (Except keep promising to drive Jews into the sea). If the refugee camps were in Israel, I suppose you could blame Israel for the living conditions. But they're in Arab countries and all the Arab countries do (instead of helping them) is keep them there so they have an excuse to kill. And by the way, Israel created educational opportunities for Arabs where there were none before. Israel created universities for Arabs. If anything there are more opportunities for Arabs in Israel now than there ever were in Palestine. Anyone visiting Israel can attest to that. I sincerely hope that someday, Arabs and Jews can live side by side in Israel. Unfortunately, Arabs have to learn to live with Arabs first.
sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) (11/07/85)
Mr. Steinber writes: <4156@topaz.Rutgers> >No, Israel is not perfect, but neither is the United States. What matters >is that on issues like personal and political freedom Israel is >in the same general league as the United States, and no other country >in the region is even close. If you believe the US should support >the existence and spread of these freedoms, either for reasons of >morality or of self-interest, then of course the US should support Israel. According to Israeli statistics, the number of arabs in Israel including (the west bank and Gaza) are 45-50% of the population in Israel. In a free, democratic,etc.. society a group with such percentage should have enough power , at least for protecting its own members houses. The fact is Arabs in the west bank and elsewhere are being evacuated from their homes to make room for new settlements. Probably, they have a freedom of speech, but for sure that's where their freedom ends. Other arabic countries are no better than any other third world country (e.g., central and south america). I agree that the Israeli society has more freedom than other middle-eastern countries. But it's the same freedom that white people in South africa enjoy. Arabs are not even considered citizens (may be not even humans by some). The US is supporting Israel because it protects its strategic interest in the middle east. the same way it was supporting the Chah in Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua,etc... The US gov. has been objecting to the Israeli policy of expanding settlements in the west bank. hisham...
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (11/07/85)
> in the region is even close. If you believe the US should support > the existence and spread of these freedoms, either for reasons of > morality or of self-interest, then of course the US should support Israel. I can see the US supporting Israel for reasons of "morality" (Democracy, freedom of press,...) but certainly not for reasons of self interest. IF the sel-interest reason was predominant, the US would have dumped Israel a long time ago, in favor of the Arabs and other oil producers. After all we support dictatorial regimes much worse than any Arab regime, precisely for sel-interest reasons. The dispersion and divergence of the Arab states, their constant bickering at each other and their dis-union is the main reason why the US can afford a strong support to Israel for moral reasons with negligible cost for its self-interest reasons. However, one should remember that "Nations do not have permanent allies; they only have interests."
sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) (11/07/85)
Mr. steinber writes: <steinber@topaz> > > From: sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam @ U of Washington Computer Science) > > > > [...] the arabs, which have been living > >for centruries in Palestine along with jews that have chosen not to abandon > >Palestine. > > Jews did not "choose" to leave Judea. They were forcibly expelled by > the Imperial Roman military, who then renamed the area "Palestine" to > wipe out any association between the country and Jews. Thus, As you can see I said "those who have chosen not to abondon" NOT "those who have chosen to leave". The difference is I (and most people I believe) can understand why people left but they admire those who didn't leave despite the oppression. Palestinians (a majority of them) have decided not to leave their lands even if it meant death for them. I'm not trying to imply that jews who fled the oppression don't deserve any consideration. I'm trying to say that the palestinians deserve a consideration too. > False. The arab refugees left because their leaders said "get out of the > way while we throw the Jews into the sea." Do you think any sane person would accept living in crummy camps and leave his own home, because his leader told him (even if his leader was a sane person). Besides, they didn't get out of the way. They have been involved in every war and massacre since 1948. > Of all the nerve! Arab countries brutally mistreated the "eastern jews", > and did everything they could to keep the Ethiopian Jews starving in > refugee camps. Do you have any concrete example of "BRUTAL" mistreatement. Anything close, or even comparable, to what happened in Europe? hisham...
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (11/07/85)
> [H. D. Weisberg] > The fact that you ignore is that the Arabs were not kicked out of their homes. > Middle and upper class left because they could afford to. You seem to ignore > that leaflets were distributed in, for example, Haifa urging the local > Arab populace to stay put. > Their so-called leaders were gonna get rid of the Jews quick. > And it's unfortunate that they left. I have sympathy for them. But tell > me, what have their Arab brothers done for them. (Except keep promising > to drive Jews into the sea). If the refugee camps were in Israel, I suppose > you could blame Israel for the living conditions. But they're in Arab countries > and all the Arab countries do (instead of helping them) is keep them there > so they have an excuse to kill. ------- The above is generally correct, except where it concerns the policy of Jordan. Alone among the Arab countries, Jordan has routinely granted Jordanian citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees, and has integrated most of them into society, although a minority are still in camps. You are correct about the behaviour of the rest of the Arab countries. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
martillo@mit-hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/09/85)
Muslims over the past millenium have subjected non-Muslims under their rule to systematic humiliation and degradation which are mandated by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Further the contempt which Islam encourages Muslims to feel toward non-Muslims has caused periodic persecution and pogroms directed at non-Muslims in all corners of the Islamic world. In the previous century, the only decent places in the Muslim world to be a non-Muslim were those lands most strongly under European (or Chinese or Hindu) domination. Subjugation and conquest of Muslim lands by Europeans or other non-Muslims is therefore from the standpoint of the oppressed peoples of the world a progressive act. In the case of Israel, most of the Jews in this nation have origins in the Islamic regions least under the domination or influence of Europeans, Chinese or Hindus. Therefore the Israeli population has a long history of humiliation, degradation and persecution at the hands of barbaric Islamic overlords. Legitimately Jews may view the PLO and all attacks by Muslims upon Jews as part of the continuum and the modern expression of traditional Islamic Jew-baiting. Further, Islamic nations periodically declare war on Israel and threaten the Jews with anihilation. Moreover, no Islamic political, intellectual or religious leader has ever conceded that the mandated Islamic treatment of non-Muslims is a reprehensible and wrong way of dealing with non-Muslims and that just perhaps non-Muslims, who have been or are under Islamic subjugation, might have some legitimate grievances against the Islamic world and that they might have some legitimate claims for compenstation for Islamic mistreatment. In fact, in no country ruled by Muslims are non-Muslims treated on terms of mutual respect and equality by the dominant Muslims (and I have lived in Turkey and Tunisia). Until Muslims renounce sleazeball Islam and Muslims change there scuzz attitudes toward non-Muslims, Israel, India, Singapur, the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia and other nations in similar situation have a legitimate right and obligation to their non-Muslim populations to suppress Muslims under their control. The removal of territory from Islamic control is therefore a positive achievement for the good of all humanity and an act of which any nation should be proud.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (11/10/85)
In article <39@uw-june> sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) writes: > >According to Israeli statistics, the number of Arabs in Israel including >(the west bank and Gaza) are 45-50% of the population in Israel. >In a free, democratic, etc.. society a group with such percentage should have >enough power , at least for protecting its own members houses. >The fact is Arabs in the west bank and elsewhere are being evacuated >from their homes to make room for new settlements. >Probably, they have a freedom of speech, but for sure that's where their >freedom ends. You've hit upon a serious controversy in Israel -- Is the west bank and Gaza part of Israel, or not? So far, only Jerusalem has been officially annexed, and Arabs living there have been offered Israeli citizenship. Other Arabs living within the pre-1967 border have always had Israeli citzenship, along with the associated rights and privileges. Some (notably the Israeli Druze population) even serve in the Israeli army. Israelis haven't been able to agree about what to do with the Arabs living in the west bank and Gaza. Until a general settlement can be worked out, most Israelis would like to give them as much self-government as security requirements permit, but everytime a Palestinian leader decides to negotiate, PLO gorillas (mispelling intentional) assassinate him. The Israelis will not negotiate with the PLO, until the PLO stops teaching its soldiers terrorist tactics. At least the Syrians and Jordanians fight fair. >I agree that the Israeli society has more freedom than other middle-eastern >countries. But it's the same freedom that white people in South africa >enjoy. Arabs are not even considered citizens (may be not even humans by >some). This not a very good analogy. As mentioned above, many Arabs ARE citizens of Israel. As an aside, the speculation that some don't consider Arabs to be human is ludicrous. >The US gov. has been objecting to the Israeli policy of expanding >settlements in the west bank. > hisham... Many Israelis also object. Frank Silbermann
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (11/11/85)
> Hisham Sweillam: > > According to Israeli statistics, the number of arabs in Israel including > (the west bank and Gaza) are 45-50% of the population in Israel. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Arabs in these areas (the areas that came under Israeli control in 1967) are NOT citizens of Israel, nor do they want to be. Indeed, this has been one of the standard arguments made BY ISRAELI'S against simply annexing these areas - if the residents were citizens (as Arabs in Israel proper are - see below), they will soon be a majority, but if the residents do not become full voting citizens they would then indeed be second class citizens, and few Israelis are willing to contemplate that. It's a lot simpler to let them have their own government or be part of Jordan, IF it can be done without putting Israel in mortal danger. > I agree that the Israeli society has more freedom than other middle-eastern > countries. But it's the same freedom that white people in South africa > enjoy. Arabs are not even considered citizens No, Arabs who live in Israel proper ARE INDEED CITIZENS, with civil rights, the right to vote, etc. The Knesset (Israeli parliament) has a number of Arab members. Arab citizens of Israel have more freedom than WHITE South Africans (e.g. of speech and of the press). **** side note for those who care about fighting apartheid: notice the danger TO THE ANTI-APARTHEID FIGHT of the Zionism-is-racism lie. To link Israel and South Africa is to radically minimize the oppression and suffering of the Blacks, and waters down the term "apartheid" from a specific and real evil into meaning, essentially, "something I don't like". Lou Steinberg
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (11/11/85)
This message is empty.
amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) (11/11/85)
In article <558@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > >in the west bank and Gaza. Until a general settlement can be worked out, >most Israelis would like to give them as much self-government as security >requirements permit, but everytime a Palestinian leader decides to negotiate, >PLO gorillas (mispelling intentional) assassinate him. The Israelis will not >negotiate with the PLO, until the PLO stops teaching its soldiers terrorist >tactics. At least the Syrians and Jordanians fight fair. > It might be more useful to be specific when you make such accusations. Please give us some examples of those representatives that were assassinated by the PLO. I hope you are not getting confused with the attempts on the lives of some of the elected Arab mayors in the West Bank by "Israeli gorillas" (sic). Just as an example, Mayor Bassam Shak'a had both his legs blown off, and the mayor of Ramallah Karim Khalef was seriously injured by bombs. After these attacks on their lives, the Israeli government actually dismissed and deported them from the West Bank. It seems that it is the Israeli Government that is dismissing anybody that is popular in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Amr El Abbadi
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (11/13/85)
In article <613@cornell.UUCP> amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) writes: >It might be more useful to be specific when you make such accusations. >Please give us some examples of those representatives that were >assassinated by the PLO. I hope you are not getting confused with the >attempts on the lives of some of the elected Arab mayors in the West >Bank by "Israeli gorillas" (sic). > Issam Sartawi. I will let other people argue over whether Mr. Sartawi, a PLO moderate, was assassinated by a pro-Syrian faction, pro-Libyan, etc. etc. I suppose someone will suggest it was all orchestrated by the Mossad.
meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (11/13/85)
Hisham Sweillam writes : >The fact is Arabs in the west bank and elsewhere are being evacuated >from their homes to make room for new settlements. I've heard this claim used many a time. In some cases it may be true (I can't prove it to be totally false). However, I can name a number of settlements for which this statament is totally false. Many settlements are built (as I wrote in a previous posting) on empty, barren, rocky hills, that have not been inhabited for years and years (I am tempted to write centuries). No one has been living on these hills; no one was displaced from these hills when the new settlement was built. In fact, AFTER some of these settlements were built, some Arabs came along and built houses (actually, they are mansions) across the road to try to contain the growth of the settlement. And do all of you know where these Arabs get the money to build these fancy multi-level homes ? From the oil-revenues of the rich Arab kingdoms and their sheiks - including Saudi Arabia. A typical example of this "house across the road from the settlement" is the house across the road from the entrance to Beit-El, which is about 20 (I'm not sure of the exact figure) kilometers north of Jerusalem. Just to name a few settlements built on empty, unpopulated hills : Beit-El, Shiloh, Ma'ale Levonah, Giv'at Levonah (now called 'Eilee), Mattityahu. ----------------------------------- I recently heard a statement attributed to Ariel Sharon about "how to solve the problem of rock-throwing from the 'refugee camps' at moving vehicles." The statement was made after numerous attacks (rocks, and bullets, too) on the busses travelling the Jerusalem-Hebron road on their way to Gush Etzion and Kiryat 'Arbah. The name of the camp is Daheishah (sp ?). He is reported to have said - after any such incident, raze the first row of houses closest to the road. If the attacks persist, raze the next row. Society has a way (or at least used to have a way) of convincing its fellow man who is not following the rules to conform. The neighbors would quite understandably be very unhappy at the prospect of having their houses razed, and would not allow the stone-throwers, etc. to use their homes as havens or as bunkers from which to attack, or to retreat to at will. Thus, those elements would be banished from the community, not allowing them the opportunity to have the neighborhood destroyed due to their non-societal and anti-societal actions. ------------------------------------------ Any comments ? or opposing points of view ? (as they say on the radio after an editorial; I expect that there will be.) ------------------------------------------ Asher Meth ....... meth@nyu-csd2.arpa ....... allegra!cmcl2!csd2!meth
sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) (11/13/85)
>From brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) > >The fact that you ignore is that the Arabs were not kicked out of their homes. >Middle and upper class left because they could afford to. Why would anyone leave his HOME, just because he can afford it? >...But tell >me, what have their Arab brothers done for them. (Except keep promising >to drive Jews into the sea). If the refugee camps were in Israel, I suppose >you could blame Israel for the living conditions. But they're in Arab countries Half of the population in kuwait are palestinians, enjoying a high standard of living. In Egypt, the palestinians immigrants have special treatment in immigration status, in admission to schools. To mention a few exaples. I believe the original question (problem/crime) is these people being displaced in the first place. One should find out why, how,etc..Not, divert the question into other issues and questions. If the case of the palestininas displaced in 48 is too old for people to check the reason. I believe the west bank arabs case is a recent one. The US has been objecting the Israeli expansion of settlements there (by the way this is in violation of the Camp David accord). >I sincerely hope that someday, Arabs and Jews can live side by side in >Israel. Unfortunately, Arabs have to learn to live with Arabs first. Like you, I also hope that Arabs and Jews could coexist peacfully in Israel. Unfortunately, the Israelis have to learn to recognize the rights of the palestinians as people that lived in this land for centuries.
sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) (11/13/85)
>From steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) > >**** side note for those who care about fighting apartheid: notice the >danger TO THE ANTI-APARTHEID FIGHT of the Zionism-is-racism lie. To >link Israel and South Africa is to radically minimize the oppression and >suffering of the Blacks, and waters down the term "apartheid" from a specific >and real evil into meaning, essentially, "something I don't like". > > Lou Steinberg Just for the record: 1. There has been a U.N. resolution in 1975 condemning Zionism as a racist movement. 2. See: "Israel's Global Role Weapons for Repression" by Israel Shahak. PUblished by AAUG press. This book written by Prof. Shahak drwas primarily from the Hebrew press. It documents Israeli support for el Salvador's Junta, Somoza in Nicaragua the Shah in Iran and South africa. * This book is censored in Israel* 3. Another useful reference in this context is: "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" by Livia Rokach. Published by AAUG Press. The book is based on Moshe Sharett, Israel's first foreign minister and prime minister from 1953-55, personal diary which reveals how men like Ben Gurion, Ariel Sharon, and Moshe Dayan sought to destabilize Arab neighbors through covert military operations and terrorist activity. hisham...
brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) (11/14/85)
> > Just for the record: > 1. There has been a U.N. resolution in 1975 condemning Zionism as a racist > movement. I bet we're supposed to say "If the U.N. says it, it must be true." One of the most despicable things the U.N. has ever done. Where's your evidence. Israel wouldn't stoop to the level of "Islam is racism" (there's certanly plenty of evidence to support this - Iran and Saudi Arabia). A tactic often used throughout (at least) the Arab-Israeli conflict has been (for lack of a better word) slogan-izing. I guess when you have nothing else to fall back on, a slogan or some false propoganda (there's been plenty of this from the Arab side) has to do. It draws people away from the real issue, that is, Israel's right to exist. When is the Arab world gonna acknowledge reality?
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (11/14/85)
> > been or are under Islamic subjugation, might have some legitimate grievances > against the Islamic world and that they might have some legitimate claims > for compenstation for Islamic mistreatment. > The following identity is FALSE : Muslim = Arab = Anti-semitic = Anti-israel However, it is conveniently used by political demagogues to further their own agenda.
dave@andromeda.UUCP (Dave Bloom) (11/15/85)
In article <76@uw-june>, sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) writes: > Just for the record: > 1. There has been a U.N. resolution in 1975 condemning Zionism as a racist > movement. > 2. See: "Israel's Global Role Weapons for Repression" by Israel Shahak. > PUblished by AAUG press. > This book written by Prof. Shahak drwas primarily from the Hebrew press. > It documents Israeli support for el Salvador's Junta, Somoza in Nicaragua > the Shah in Iran and South africa. > * This book is censored in Israel* > 3. Another useful reference in this context is: > "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" by Livia Rokach. Published by AAUG Press. > The book is based on Moshe Sharett, Israel's first foreign minister and > prime minister from 1953-55, personal diary which reveals how men like > Ben Gurion, Ariel Sharon, and Moshe Dayan sought to destabilize Arab > neighbors through covert military operations and terrorist activity. > hisham... Let's face it: The UN is probably one of the most anti jewish organizations in the world, not because of jewish ideals, but because the arab countries wield their oil influence like a machete. I'm curious... your sources seem to be books by the AAUG press. Could it be that that AAUG is Arab run??? If so, don't you think their publications would be SLIGHTLY biased??? Here's a good source of information: read "The Haj" by Leon Uris, an excellent novel based on historical fact, which deals with the establishment of Israel as an independant state (and des- cribes the motivation behind zionism). Enjoy. Dave Bloom PS: Regardless of whether or not Jewish individuals have employed ter- rorist methods, never has a Jewish organization openly embraced ter- rorism as an acceptable alternative. Funny, that Arafat has apologized to the rest of the world for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro (sp?), but insists that he will continue his 'armed struggle' against the Jews.
rajeev@sfmag.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (11/16/85)
Yakim Martillo writes: > > Muslims over the past millenium have subjected non-Muslims under their > rule to systematic humiliation and degradation which are mandated by > all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Further the contempt which Islam > encourages Muslims to feel toward non-Muslims has caused periodic persecution > and pogroms directed at non-Muslims in all corners of the Islamic world. ... and more somewhat extreme anti-Muslim views. I would like to request that such displays of intolerance be kept off net.lang.india: we have plenty of our own home-grown prejudices, and have no need to embroil ourselves in the politics of West Asia. Bigotry is ugly whether it is anti-Jew or anti-Muslim. Incidentally, I think Indians can afford to be sanctimonious about their tolerance to Judaism: India is probably the only country where Jews were always allowed to live in peace. Witness the 500-year-old synagogue in Cochin, or the (now much reduced) Jewish community in that area that has existed, I believe, since the time of the destruction of the Second Temple(?).
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (11/17/85)
>>The fact that you ignore is that the Arabs were not kicked out of their homes. >>Middle and upper class left because they could afford to. > > Why would anyone leave his HOME, just because he can afford it? That is an EXCELLENT question for PSYCHIATRISTS who are trying to understand the fiercely proud behaviour associated with the ARAB MIND. It is well-documented that Jews tried very hard to get the Arabs to accept the Partition and to stay in Palestine. The Partition would never have even come about had the Arabs not behaved in such a hostile way as to require a separation of Palestinian Jews from Palestinian Arabs. I would suggest that you read The Haj, a recently best-selling novel which very well dramatizes this issue. > ... The US has been objecting the Israeli expansion of settlements > there [West Bank] (by the way this is in violation of the Camp David accord). SAYS WHO? This is a very prejudiced interpretation of the Camp David Accords. And while we're on the subject, did any of the pro-Arab readers out there ever stop to realize that Israel gave Egypt back the ENTIRE SINAI PENINSULA just to have an EGYPTIAN AMBASSADOR park his behind in Israel? BIG DEAL!
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (11/17/85)
In article <76@uw-june>, sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) writes: > Just for the record: > 1. There has been a U.N. resolution in 1975 condemning Zionism as a racist > movement. This, I belive, was the same U.N. that voted in 1947 to create Israel. I guess the U.N. is racist. :-)
martillo@mit-hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/17/85)
>> >> been or are under Islamic subjugation, might have some legitimate grievances >> against the Islamic world and that they might have some legitimate claims >> for compenstation for Islamic mistreatment. >> > >The following identity is FALSE : > >Muslim = Arab = Anti-semitic = Anti-israel > >However, it is conveniently used by political demagogues to >further their own agenda. Since I never made the equation, this particular reply is a particularly slimy attempt to avoid a legitimate issue. A system like Islam may have bad aspects. In India for example caste and the suttee have been in the past part of the system of Hinduism. Criticism of such practices is legitimate. Calling criticism of such practices bigotry or illegtimate is pure intellectual cowardice or dishonesty. Since most Muslims and Jews who debate middle eastern issues constantly engage in intellectual dishonesty, I am unsurprised that such intellectual dishonesty has resurfaced. I personally have no interest in European Jewish Zionism and consider it basically a wrong-headed and disgusting movement (although not nearly as wrong-headed and disgusting as Arab Nationalism or Islamic Fundamentalism). Once European Intellectuals had the courage to attack shibboleths and oppose the crudities of, say, pre-Enlightenment Christianity. People like Hobbes, Lockes, Montesquiue, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montaigne etc. demanded change. I consider myself in this tradition. There will be no peace in the Middle East until there are some fundamental changes in Islamic attitudes, nor do Muslims have any right to claim rights such as national self-determination until they show some ability to live on terms of mutual respect and equality with the non-Muslim minorities who live among them.
amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) (11/17/85)
In article <410@ihlpl.UUCP> brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) writes: >A tactic often used throughout (at least) the Arab-Israeli conflict >has been (for lack of a better word) slogan-izing. I guess when you >have nothing else to fall back on, a slogan or some false propoganda >(there's been plenty of this from the Arab side) has to do. It draws >people away from the real issue, that is, Israel's right to exist. >When is the Arab world gonna acknowledge reality? You are right, there has been much "slogan-izing", but from both sides of the conflict, i.e., that includes the Israeli side. This draws people away from the real issues, that is the Palestinians' right to exist, right for self-determination, right to choose their own representatives, etc. When is Israel gonna acknowledge these rights? Amr El Abbadi
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (11/18/85)
>>**** side note for those who care about fighting apartheid: notice the >>danger TO THE ANTI-APARTHEID FIGHT of the Zionism-is-racism lie. To >>link Israel and South Africa is to radically minimize the oppression and >>suffering of the Blacks, and waters down the term "apartheid" from a specific >>and real evil into meaning, essentially, "something I don't like". >> Lou Steinberg In article <76@uw-june> sweillam@uw-june (Hisham Sweillam) writes: >Just for the record: >1. There has been a U.N. resolution in 1975 condemning Zionism > as a racist movement. In truth, this resolution is really a condemnation of the UN, not Israel. >2. See: "Israel's Global Role Weapons for Repression" by Israel Shahak. > PUblished by AAUG press. > This book written by Prof. Shahak drwas primarily from the Hebrew press. > It documents Israeli support for el Salvador's Junta, Somoza in Nicaragua > the Shah in Iran and South Africa. > * This book is censored in Israel* First of all, Israel trades less with South Africa than the neighboring black African states. To single out Israel for trading with them is unfair. With respect to the other regimes you mentioned (Somoza, Shah of Iran, El Salvador's Junta), what does this have to do with _RACISM_? I've heard many criticisms of these governments, but I've never heard that they were racist. >3. Another useful reference in this context is: > "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" by Livia Rokach. Published by AAUG Press. > The book is based on Moshe Sharett, Israel's first foreign minister and > prime minister from 1953-55, personal diary which reveals how men like > Ben Gurion, Ariel Sharon, and Moshe Dayan sought to destabilize Arab > neighbors through covert military operations and terrorist activity. I think you are confusing "guerilla" activities with "terrorism". But, even if what you say is true, what does it have to do with _RACISM_? Frank Silbermann
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (11/19/85)
> > me: > > notice the > >danger TO THE ANTI-APARTHEID FIGHT of the Zionism-is-racism lie. To > >link Israel and South Africa is to radically minimize the oppression and >>suffering of the Blacks, and waters down the term "apartheid" from a specific > >and real evil into meaning, essentially, "something I don't like". > > Hisham: > Just for the record: > 1. There has been a U.N. resolution in 1975 condemning Zionism as a racist > movement. Indeed. It was specifically this action of the UN, and similar actions by the UN and other groups, that I claim damage the anti-apartheid fight. > 2. [and] 3. [two books published by AAUG press, charging] > Israeli support for el Salvador's Junta, Somoza in Nicaragua > the Shah in Iran and South africa. [and that] men like > Ben Gurion, Ariel Sharon, and Moshe Dayan sought to destabilize Arab > neighbors through covert military operations and terrorist activity. Even if all these claims were true, the only one bearing on apartheid or racism is the charge that Israel supports South Africa. This simply substantiates my claim that by making "racism" a stick to beat Israel with, anti-Israelis are watering down the specific force of the term, making it a synonym for "things I don't like", and thereby damaging the fight against a very real and specific evil.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/19/85)
> Like you, I also hope that Arabs and Jews could coexist peacfully > in Israel. Unfortunately, the Israelis have to learn to recognize > the rights of the palestinians as people that lived in this land for > centuries. I, too, sincerely hope the two groups can peacefully coexist. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have to learn to recognize the rights of Jews a people who lived in this land for more centuries. Eliyahu Teitz.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (11/19/85)
> [Chedley Aouriri] > The following identity is FALSE : > > Muslim = Arab = Anti-semitic = Anti-israel > > However, it is conveniently used by political demagogues to > further their own agenda. ------- Chedley Aouriri is clearly correct that the above identity is false. However, outside of Rabbi Kahane and his supporters, I don't know any well-known individuals using such demagoguery. However, the following identity is equally FALSE: Zionist = Racist = Anti-Arab Not only the P.L.O., but every Arab country and more than half the members of the U. N. engaged in such vile demagoguery by approving a resolution to that effect. How come it is racist only for Jews to want their own country? True, most of the Arab minority would rather not live in a Jewish dominated state. But the Kurds would rather not live in an Arab dominated state (Iraq), a Turkish dominated state, or an Iranian dominated state. The Tamils would rather not live in a Sinhalese dominated state (Sri Lanka). Dozens of other examples quickly come to mind. Where are all the U. N. resolutions denouncing Turkish nationalism, Arab nationalism, Iranian nationalism, etc. as racist? Of course, they are not racist, but, then again, neither is Jewish nationalism (Zionism). -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (11/19/85)
> >(H. D. Weisberg) > >I sincerely hope that someday, Arabs and Jews can live side by side in > >Israel. Unfortunately, Arabs have to learn to live with Arabs first. --------- > [Hisham Sweillam] > Like you, I also hope that Arabs and Jews could coexist peacfully > in Israel. Unfortunately, the Israelis have to learn to recognize > the rights of the palestinians as people that lived in this land for > centuries. --------- Both of you should be aware that Arabs and Jews HAVE been coexisting peacefully in Israel. In Israel proper, as opposed to the West Bank and Gaza, which are under military occupation, Arabs have full legal rights, including full citizenship and voting rights. Violence between ISRAELI Arabs and Jews has not been common. Of course, the extension of full rights under Israeli law to the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza would mean Israeli legal annexation of those areas. I doubt that Mr. Sweillam would want that. One can hardly expect that Israel would acquiesce to turning the land over to the P.L.O. The best one can hope for in the forseeable future is some sort of arrangement with Jordan which would end the military occupation. I'm not that optimistic, but one can always hope. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) (11/20/85)
In article <2062@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > I, too, sincerely hope the two groups can peacefully coexist. > Unfortunately, the Palestinians have to learn to recognize > the rights of Jews a people who lived in this land for more centuries. > > > Eliyahu Teitz. Unfortunately, the Israelis (a majority of whom can to Palestine during the 20th century) have to learn to recoginize the rights of Palestinians, a people who have been living in this land for many centuries (actually millenniums). Amr El Abbadi
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (11/20/85)
> You are right, there has been much "slogan-izing", but from both sides > of the conflict, i.e., that includes the Israeli side. This draws > people away from the real issues, that is the Palestinians' right > to exist, right for self-determination, right to choose their own > representatives, etc. > When is Israel gonna acknowledge these rights? > Amr El Abbadi I honestly don't think that it is the right question. Israel and Jews all over the world acknowledge the human rights (in President Carter's sense) of Palestinian Arabs. The real questions are "How can Israel permit Palestinian Arabs to continue to abrogate the human rights of Israelis (by attacking Israel with terrorism)?" and "How can Israel give Palestinian Arabs normal treatment until the Palestinian Arabs show that they are responsible citizens of Middle Eastern nations?"
vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (11/21/85)
>>> The fact that you ignore is that the Arabs were not kicked out of their >>> homes. Middle and upper class left because they could afford to. >> >> Why would anyone leave his HOME, just because he can afford it? > > That is an EXCELLENT question for PSYCHIATRISTS who are trying to > understand the fiercely proud behaviour associated with the ARAB MIND. This is a textbook case of anti-Arab bigotry. The fact is that Palestinians are resisting today exactly what Jewish people have more than once resisted in their history: being uprooted from their land. How can a person at once celebrate the resistance demonstrated by the Jews and denounce (indeed hate) the Palestinians for doing the same? Simple: abandon reason and resort to racism. Well, such a person says, if Palestinians do so, it's because there is something so peculiar and devious about the "Arab mind" that it requires a psychiatrist's attention. Such brazen racism deserves the contempt and condemnation of all decent people. --Vassos Hadzilacos.
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (11/21/85)
> In article <2062@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > > I, too, sincerely hope the two groups can peacefully coexist. > > Unfortunately, the Palestinians have to learn to recognize > > the rights of Jews a people who lived in this land for more centuries. > > Eliyahu Teitz. > Unfortunately, the Israelis (a majority of whom can to Palestine during > the 20th century) have to learn to recoginize the rights of Palestinians, > a people who have been living in this land for many centuries (actually > millenniums). > Amr El Abbadi Actually living might not be the exact word. The muslims (notice - NOT palestinians) were moving about quite a bit, more often than not, out of the proper borders [of what we defined palestine as 40 years ago]. And millenniums is not correct. About 2000 years ago the whole area was Jewish. Mark Rindsberg
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (11/21/85)
> Amr El Abbadi: > [Sloganizing] draws > people away from the real issues, that is the Palestinians' right > to exist, right for self-determination, right to choose their own > representatives, etc. > When is Israel gonna acknowledge these rights? 1) Actually, Israel DID acknowledge these rights by accepting the UN partition resolution which created, on paper, both Israel and an Arab Palestinian state, both on the west side of the Jordan. It was the Arab side which did not acknowledge these rights, especially Jordan which invaded and took over the Arab areas (not that any West Bank Arabs actually seemed interested in establishing their own state at that point). 2) Israel will probably again acknowledge the Palestinians' rights once the Arabs stop claiming that one of these rights, indeed the one they must exercise before they can truly have the others, is the right to destroy Israel. (See the excerpts from the Palestine National Covenant, essentially the PLO constitution, which were recently posted.)
friedman@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU ( -Gadi ) (11/22/85)
>Unfortunately, the Israelis (a majority of whom can to Palestine during >the 20th century) have to learn to recoginize the rights of Palestinians, >a people who have been living in this land for many centuries (actually >millenniums). ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Amr El Abbadi Actually, since the 7th century, when the Arabs invaded from the arabian peninsula. -Gadi topaz!friedman
amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) (11/24/85)
In article <4232@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> friedman@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU ( -Gadi ) writes: >>Unfortunately, the Israelis (a majority of whom can to Palestine during >>the 20th century) have to learn to recoginize the rights of Palestinians, >>a people who have been living in this land for many centuries (actually >>millenniums). > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Amr El Abbadi > >Actually, since the 7th century, when the Arabs invaded from the arabian >peninsula. > -Gadi > topaz!friedman No, Palestinians lived there long before the Arab conquest. Your argument would be similar to saying that Egyptians or Syrians have been living in their respective countries only since the 7th century, since that is when the Arabs came! Amr El Abbadi
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (11/25/85)
> In article <4232@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> friedman@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU ( -Gadi ) writes: > >>Unfortunately, the Israelis (a majority of whom can to Palestine during > >>the 20th century) have to learn to recoginize the rights of Palestinians, > >>a people who have been living in this land for many centuries (actually > >>millenniums). > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> Amr El Abbadi > > > >Actually, since the 7th century, when the Arabs invaded from the arabian > >peninsula. > > -Gadi > > topaz!friedman > > No, Palestinians lived there long before the Arab conquest. Your argument > would be similar to saying that Egyptians or Syrians have been living in > their respective countries only since the 7th century, since that is when > the Arabs came! > Amr El Abbadi > Actually, what difference does it make what year the arabs invaded and took over the country. The Jews were there before and for a longer time than the arabs. And Moreover if you want to use the argument that since the arabs captured the country in the 7th century and killed or threw out as many Jews as there were THEN we now can use the same argument about the current status of Israel that we invaded and captured and should now throw the arabs out. mark
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (11/26/85)
> >>> The fact that you ignore is that the Arabs were not kicked out of their > >>> homes. Middle and upper class left because they could afford to. > >> Why would anyone leave his HOME, just because he can afford it? To find a nicer and more comfortable home. > > That is an EXCELLENT question for PSYCHIATRISTS who are trying to > > understand the fiercely proud behaviour associated with the ARAB MIND. > This is a textbook case of anti-Arab bigotry. Why do you say that saying that arabs are proud is bigotry ? > The fact is that Palestinians are resisting today exactly what Jewish You call killing innocent people, resisting !!!!!!!!!!!! HA. > people have more than once resisted in their history: being uprooted > from their land. Successful Jewish resistance has never used terrorism as a method. > How can a person at once celebrate the resistance demonstrated by the > Jews and denounce (indeed hate) the Palestinians for doing the same? > Simple: abandon reason and resort to racism. Well, such a person says, > if Palestinians do so, it's because there is something so peculiar and > devious about the "Arab mind" that it requires a psychiatrist's attention. Being proud is devious ??? why ??? > Such brazen racism deserves the contempt and condemnation of all > decent people. > --Vassos Hadzilacos. > mark
brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) (11/26/85)
> >>> The fact that you ignore is that the Arabs were not kicked out of their > >>> homes. Middle and upper class left because they could afford to. > >> > >> Why would anyone leave his HOME, just because he can afford it? > > > > That is an EXCELLENT question for PSYCHIATRISTS who are trying to > > understand the fiercely proud behaviour associated with the ARAB MIND. > > This is a textbook case of anti-Arab bigotry. > > The fact is that Palestinians are resisting today exactly what Jewish > people have more than once resisted in their history: being uprooted > from their land. The Palestinians weren't uprooted - they left of their own free will. > > How can a person at once celebrate the resistance demonstrated by the > Jews and denounce (indeed hate) the Palestinians for doing the same? "Hate" is your word. And again we're dealing with apples and oranges. > Simple: abandon reason and resort to racism. Well, such a person says, > if Palestinians do so, it's because there is something so peculiar and > devious about the "Arab mind" that it requires a psychiatrist's attention. > Let's not jump to conclusions. The Palestinians were victims of their Arab brothers (i.e. Jordan - what happened to Palestine after '48? the Israelis certainly didn't give it to Jordan? why didn't the Palestinians rebel against Jordan? I'll tell you why - it's not just that someone controlled the once Palestinian land - it's that they were Jews - it's called Anti-Semitism - and that certainly IS the racism you're talking about) > Such brazen racism deserves the contempt and condemnation of all > decent people. > I agree - that's why I support Israel and oppose Anti-Semitism. > --Vassos Hadzilacos. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) (11/26/85)
In article <941@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) writes: >> >> No, Palestinians lived there long before the Arab conquest. Your argument >> would be similar to saying that Egyptians or Syrians have been living in >> their respective countries only since the 7th century, since that is when >> the Arabs came! >> Amr El Abbadi >> >Actually, what difference does it make what year the arabs invaded and >took over the country. The Jews were there before and for a longer >time than the arabs. And Moreover if you want to use the argument >that since the arabs captured the country in the 7th century and >killed or threw out as many Jews as there were THEN we now can >use the same argument about the current status of Israel that we >invaded and captured and should now throw the arabs out. > >mark That was not at all what I was saying. My argument is that the Palestinians as a people had been living in the land of Palestine long before the Arab conquest. By Palestinians, I am also including Jewish and Christian people who have been living there. The Arabs did not throw the Jews out nor did they throw any other inhabitants of the land. Amr El Abbadi
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (11/27/85)
> In article <941@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) writes: > >> > >> No, Palestinians lived there long before the Arab conquest. Your argument > >> would be similar to saying that Egyptians or Syrians have been living in > >> their respective countries only since the 7th century, since that is when > >> the Arabs came! > >> Amr El Abbadi > >> > >Actually, what difference does it make what year the arabs invaded and > >took over the country. The Jews were there before and for a longer > >time than the arabs. And Moreover if you want to use the argument > >that since the arabs captured the country in the 7th century and > >killed or threw out as many Jews as there were THEN we now can > >use the same argument about the current status of Israel that we > >invaded and captured and should now throw the arabs out. > > > >mark > > That was not at all what I was saying. My argument is that the Palestinians > as a people had been living in the land of Palestine long before > the Arab conquest. By Palestinians, I am also including Jewish and > Christian people who have been living there. The Arabs did not throw > the Jews out nor did they throw any other inhabitants of the land. > Amr El Abbadi The Jews who were living there did NOT try to disrupt the country at every opportunity they had, nor did the Christians. Now the arabs are disrupting the order imposed by government (i.e. terrorism). And as a result there exists a moderately powerful party which advocates the transfer of Israeli arabs out of the country. mark
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (11/28/85)
> [Vassos Hadzilacos] > The fact is that Palestinians are resisting today exactly what Jewish > people have more than once resisted in their history: being uprooted > from their land. > > How can a person at once celebrate the resistance demonstrated by the > Jews and denounce (indeed hate) the Palestinians for doing the same? > Simple: abandon reason and resort to racism. Well, such a person says, > if Palestinians do so, it's because there is something so peculiar and > devious about the "Arab mind" that it requires a psychiatrist's attention. > > Such brazen racism deserves the contempt and condemnation of all > decent people. ------- Vassos Hadzilacos is correct that the remarks about the "Arab mind" made by the previous poster have racist overtones, and are not to be condoned. However, his view of the events behind the plight of the Palestinians is blatantly one-sided. Trouble between Jews and Arabs in Palestine predates 1948 by a wide margin, and thus cannot totally be blamed on the existance of Israel or Israeli policies. As early as the 1920s, there were violent clashes. The U. N. partition plan of 1947 divided Palestine roughly in half, with a Jewish majority state, and an Arab majority state. The Arab states rejected the agreement and invaded en masse. The new state of Israel accepted the agreement. As a result of this invasion, Israel fought back and managed by the time of the Armistice to have occupied sizeable chunks of the Arab palestinian state, notably in Galilee and the Negev. The portions of Palestine still in Arab hands were annexed by Jordan (West Bank & East Jerusalem) and Egypt (Gaza). For 19 years (1948 - 1967), nothing was heard from any Arab Leader about a Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza. All Arab leaders would accept nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the setup of a "Secular Democratic State" in all of Palestine, as if such an animal existed anywhere in the Middle East. (Note: Two exceptions: King Abdullah of Jordan (Hussein's Grandfather), who was assassinated for talking peace, and Bourguiba (sp.) of Tunisia, who once commented that Israel's existence should be accepted.) More important, the various Palestinian groups (predecessors of the PLO) all spoke of the destruction of Israel, not of the establishment of an Arab State in a portion of Palestine. After the 1967 war, what a difference! All of a sudden, with Israel occupying the West Bank and Gaza, the tune changed. Except for Qaddafi and some of the more extreme splinter groups, an Arab Palestinian State became the rallying cry of the Arab States, although the PLO never revoked its covenant calling for Israel's destruction. Where were all the cries for such a state in 1948 or 1950, when it was the ARAB states which opposed a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Jordan. Two questions for Mr. Hadzilakos: 1) Who started the 1948 war, leaving Israel in posession of more of Palestine? 2) Who provoked the 1967 war, leaving Israel in posession of all the rest of Palestine? The Palestinians are certainly victims. One cannot hate them for this, nor can one fault them for resenting and opposing the current Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. However some things should be kept in mind: 1) Hostile actiona against Israel by it's neighbors are responsible for the occupation. 2) While there is some merit in the Palestinian case, their only vocal leadership (PLO) conducts terrorist operations primarily against unarmed civilians, often children, and only rarely against Israeli soldiers and other military targets. To attack Israeli soldiers in Lebanon or armed vigilantes on the West Bank could be considered military resistence, but that is not the PLO's usual style. PLO acts of terrorism are not occasional aberrations, but policy, and rearely are condemned by most Arab Leaders. 3) Israel can hardly be faulted for not wanting to turn the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians as long as their "sole legitimate representative" is the PLO, who would certainly be running the new state. 5) Israel could try to turn much of the West Bank or Gaza to Jordan. This was a real possibility a few years after the 1967 war, but the Arab League, in its "wisdom", passed a resolution saying only the PLO could speak for the Palestinians, thereby pulling the rug out from under Hussein. 6) When the PLO talks about "occupied Arab land", they mean not the West Bank and Gaza, but all of Palestine. Read their covenant. It contains no recognition of the 1967 borders or even the original 1948 borders. 7) We hear much talk about the "rights of the Palestinians." The rights of the Palestinians certainly must include the vote in truly democratic elections. Guess what the name of the only country in the Middle East to give its Arab citizens the vote. 8) The Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza do not have full rights, not being Israeli citizens. This is not good. But lets face it, the Arab states lost the 1967 war. The people of occupied Germany and Japan after WWII did not have full rights either. The difference is that Germany and Japan were no longer at war with the allies, and self-rule could be restored. On the contrary, the Arab states (except Egypt) are still at war with Israel. Look at a map. Israel cannot give up the land without a secure peace. Unfortunately, attitudes within Israel have hardened, primarily due to PLO terrorism, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and the Lebanese internal strife. Even so, the Labor party is still on record as willing to give up land for peace. A bonafide move by the Arab States might allow this to happen. Jordan will not go it alone. Let's wish for the best. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/28/85)
In article <1653@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: >>>> The fact that you ignore is that the Arabs were not kicked out of their >>>> homes. Middle and upper class left because they could afford to. >>> >>> Why would anyone leave his HOME, just because he can afford it? >> >> That is an EXCELLENT question for PSYCHIATRISTS who are trying to >> understand the fiercely proud behaviour associated with the ARAB MIND. > >This is a textbook case of anti-Arab bigotry. > >The fact is that Palestinians are resisting today exactly what Jewish >people have more than once resisted in their history: being uprooted >from their land. > >How can a person at once celebrate the resistance demonstrated by the >Jews and denounce (indeed hate) the Palestinians for doing the same? >Simple: abandon reason and resort to racism. Well, such a person says, >if Palestinians do so, it's because there is something so peculiar and >devious about the "Arab mind" that it requires a psychiatrist's attention. > >Such brazen racism deserves the contempt and condemnation of all >decent people. > >--Vassos Hadzilacos. No, Muslims forfeited all right to this territory because of mistreatment of non-Muslims over the past millenium. When Muslims show even the slightest ability to treat non-Muslims who live among them on terms of mutual equality and respect then there might be some grounds to talk about rights to territory. As it is now, there is no reason to distinguish between the Palestinian terrorists who now randomly kill non-Muslims and the Muslim fanatics who rampaged through the Jewish ghettos for example in Libya in the 1790's 1830's, 1860's, 1880's, 1910's, 1940's, 1950's and 1960's at which point the Jewish community of Libya was wiped out. There were many places in the Muslim world which made Libya look good by comparison. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/29/85)
In article <1154@cornell.UUCP> amr@cornell.UUCP (Amr El Abbadi ) writes: >In article <941@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) writes: >>> >>> No, Palestinians lived there long before the Arab conquest. Your argument >>> would be similar to saying that Egyptians or Syrians have been living in >>> their respective countries only since the 7th century, since that is when >>> the Arabs came! >>> Amr El Abbadi >>> >>Actually, what difference does it make what year the arabs invaded and >>took over the country. The Jews were there before and for a longer >>time than the arabs. And Moreover if you want to use the argument >>that since the arabs captured the country in the 7th century and >>killed or threw out as many Jews as there were THEN we now can >>use the same argument about the current status of Israel that we >>invaded and captured and should now throw the arabs out. >> >>mark > >That was not at all what I was saying. My argument is that the Palestinians >as a people had been living in the land of Palestine long before >the Arab conquest. By Palestinians, I am also including Jewish and >Christian people who have been living there. The Arabs did not throw >the Jews out nor did they throw any other inhabitants of the land. > Amr El Abbadi What is this nonsense about a Palestinian identity in previous centuries? In Roman times, basically Greeks, Nabateans, Jews, Samaritans and a very tiny number of Saracens lived in the Land of Israel. These people had no common identity and very cordially hated each other. Islam began with the expulsion or murder of Jews in Hejaz. While such treatment has not been official Islamic policy over the millenium, such treatment has been common enough that the local Jewish community in Palestine was hardly unhappy when European, Morrocan, Libyan, Persian and Yemenite Jews began showing up in the 1860's and later.