Auschwitz and the Palestinians
Oded Avissar
> Hi,
>
> I just saw the enclosed post.. I though it might start a good
> discussion (no flames please)..
Stupid, stupid, stupid post....end of discussion :-/
- Oded -
>
> Enjoy
>
>
> Marwan
--
Oded Avissar * * * *
* * * *
oavi...@uriacc.uri.edu or
me59...@brownvm.brown.edu * * * *
* * * *
givelbrg
>Hi,
>I just saw the enclosed post.. I though it might start a good
>discussion (no flames please)..
>Enjoy
>Marwan
>-------------------------------------
>From: hoffm...@delphi.com
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Subject: Auschwitz and the Palestinians
>Date: Sun, 29 Jan 95 14:36:40 -0500
>Organization: Delphi (in...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
>Lines: 128
>Message-ID: <xqzZ6-Y.h...@delphi.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1c.delphi.com
>
The nazi garbage deleted.
Marwan,
Thanks a lot. Very enjoyable article. You know, the jews enjoy reading
revisionist and neo nazi articles very much. And your posting this here
contributes so much to promoting good relations between jews and arabs.
What would we do without you?
Well, without you we would be better off.
We could talk to people who are interested in peace and not in promoting
hatred.
Ed
--
Ed Givelberg
Department of Mathematics
Courant Institute, NYU
give...@acf4.nyu.edu
Marwan Zakaria
> In article <3heagd$5...@cliff.inforamp.net>, mzak...@spar.ca wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just saw the enclosed post.. I though it might start a good
> > discussion (no flames please)..
> Stupid, stupid, stupid post....end of discussion :-/
> - Oded -
> >
> > Enjoy
> >
> >
> > Marwan
I really wonder which post is *stupid* !!!
Marwan
P.S. It looks like you are already ashamed ;-)
> --
> Oded Avissar * * * *
> * * * *
> oavi...@uriacc.uri.edu or
> me59...@brownvm.brown.edu * * * *
> * * * *
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Marwan F. Zakaria, Spar Aerospace Limited - Space Systems
Brampton Ontario, Canada mzak...@spar.ca, mar...@inforamp.net
ALL OPINIONS EXPRESSED WITHIN ARE MINE
yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu
>
>
>
>Wow!
It seems that someone stirred up the beehive.
After reading the article that initiated this controversy and reading
responses to it, I would have to say that Hoffamn has a point.
The negative response he has gotten seem to be knee jerk reactions to the
Holocaust, by most whom I would assume are of Jewish heritage, without
realizing what Hoffman is trying to say.
Let me take a crack at it. Is he trying to say that there is dark irony
that a race whose existence nearly came to an end due to psychotic
government policy and racism, are generations later practicing similar
tactics on another race "thinking" it will preserve their own.
From what I have seen and read about the events in that region, it would
seem reminiscent of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, etc. in the
late 50's - early 60's. "MY" point being that a race of people were
disenfranchised by the ruling government in their own homeland. Judged as
evil because of their race, religion or the actions of others. Why do
people think it so strange that individuals would react violently to
having there land and basic human rights taken away? I am by no means
saying that acts of terrorism are justified, but it should be expected
when oppression is policy. I would expect Americans to act the same way,
in fact we have, as oppressed and oppressors.
We all defend our own, most times. However we all must realize that no
government, race, culture is immune to the concept of "preservation by
racism" until we learn to embrace and not fear the differences of the
creatures that inhabit this tiny blue planet.
Love ya,
Seb
Roger Froikin
yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu writes:
>We all defend our own, most times. However we all must realize that no
>government, race, culture is immune to the concept of "preservation by
>racism" until we learn to embrace and not fear the differences of the
>creatures that inhabit this tiny blue planet.
>
Very true.
The problem today is that too many people are comparing things that
cannot be, and should not be compared.
What happened in WWII is just not comparable with the Middle East
situation, and to compare them distorts them both.
The German Government (and other European Governments and their
Churches) targetted Jews -- because they were Jews. The Jews were not
threatening anyone. The Jews were not planning to threaten anyone. In
fact, in most cases, the Jews went overboard to prove their loyalty to
their countries of residence.
In the case of Israel and the Arabs, Israeli attitudes toward the Arabs
has been the direct result of Arab hostility, Arab attempts to destroy
Israel and to remove any Jewish presence or claim. In every possible
way, the Arabs have been a threat to Israel, and Israel has responded to
that threat - not always in the best most creative manner, but it has
been a response to threat.
Omar M. Ramahi
Omar M. Ramahi
Sumy
ARE NOT TREATED BADLY BY THE ISRAELISBECAUSE THEY ARE HOSTILE TO
THEM BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE ARABS. ARABS ARE LIKE EVERYBODY
ELSE. WE ARE ALL PART OF THE HUMAN RACE BUT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
HAS APPLIED THE TREATMENT THEY GOT FROM THE NAZIS TO THE
PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. WHAT DO YOU THEIR ATTITUDE??? I WONDER WHAT
CAN THEIR BEHAVIOUR BE TITLED LATER IN THE HISTORY BOOKS. MOST>
PROBABLY IT WILL BE THAT THE ISRAELIS USED THE NAZI METHODS TO
QUELL THE ARABS. NOT VERY NICE IS IT.
>
>
>
>
Roger Froikin
>WHAT IS HAPPENING IN HEBRON TODAY IS SIMILAR TO AN AUCHWITZ. ARABS
>ARE NOT TREATED BADLY BY THE ISRAELISBECAUSE THEY ARE HOSTILE TO
>THEM BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE ARABS. ARABS ARE LIKE EVERYBODY
>ELSE. WE ARE ALL PART OF THE HUMAN RACE BUT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
>HAS APPLIED THE TREATMENT THEY GOT FROM THE NAZIS TO THE
>PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. WHAT DO YOU THEIR ATTITUDE??? I WONDER WHAT
>CAN THEIR BEHAVIOUR BE TITLED LATER IN THE HISTORY BOOKS. MOST>
>PROBABLY IT WILL BE THAT THE ISRAELIS USED THE NAZI METHODS TO
>QUELL THE ARABS. NOT VERY NICE IS IT.
>>
You've touched on a sore issue with me, given the fact that I had family
in Hebron in 1929 when Arabs rioted and tried to murder all the Jews
there, driving out the Jewish communbity -- long before there was an
Israel.
Your comments are absurd.
All the Arabs have to do to get better treatment and peace, is to stop
attacking Jews and to stop supporting those who do attack Jews.
It's all really simple.
Sorry, but I have little sympathy for the whining of a mugger that is
thwarted in his attempt to mug.
Had the Jews lost in 1867, there would be no Jews left alive in
Palestine to whine.
Jonathan David Byrd
>In <yazdan-1402...@smf-e2.facsmf.utexas.edu>
>yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu writes:
>Very true.
Mr. Froikin,
I think that you have completely misrepresented history. Where do
you think that Arab hostility to the Jews arose from. The Arabs did not
wake up one morning and decide that the Jews were bad and should be removed
from the Middle East. Do you not think that forming a nation(Israel),
dividing settlements, cities, families, and tribes would not piss a few
people off. The source of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis has
nothing to do in the slightest with religion. To be rather frank, it has
alot to do with a rightly perceived threat and now reality of colonialism.
The birth and growth of Israel as a nation is colonialist. It does not
matter that 2500 years ago Jews ruled the land until ousted by the
Byzantines. Israel was not formed peacefully, and I doubt that it will
remain a nation peacefully. Israel has responded to threats, however it was
a threat in and of itself first.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Byrd
Ron Blum
>The birth and growth of Israel as a nation is colonialist. It does not
>matter that 2500 years ago Jews ruled the land until ousted by the
>Byzantines.
The Byzantines did not oust the Jews from Israel, mostly because
there were no such people as the Byzantines.
Ron
Heather Gottlieb
> In <3hsn5n$i...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> Efr...@ix.netcom.com (Roger Froikin) writes:
>
> >In <yazdan-1402...@smf-e2.facsmf.utexas.edu>
> >yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu writes:
>
>
> >The problem today is that too many people are comparing things that
> >cannot be, and should not be compared.
>
> >What happened in WWII is just not comparable with the Middle East
> >situation, and to compare them distorts them both.
>
>
> >The German Government (and other European Governments and their
> >Churches) targetted Jews -- because they were Jews. The Jews were not
> >threatening anyone. The Jews were not planning to threaten anyone. In
> >fact, in most cases, the Jews went overboard to prove their loyalty to
> >their countries of residence.
I would like to add that the simple fact of the matter is that
Jews have been targeted simply because we are Jews for
thousands of years. This is not to whine and complain, this is
to explain that persecution, bigotry and a general poor
attitude towards Jews is absolutely nothing new. And the
Jewish people's response to this attitude must be understood.
The SYSTEMATIC genocide of millions of innocent men, women and
children, solely because their "race" was considered inferior
can NOT be compared to a reaction against terrorism and other
attacks. There is just absolutely no comparison, PERIOD, in my
opinion. Attack me if you will, but I will never agree that the
defense of a people of their homeland does not quite measure up
to the system which stole innocent, ignorant poor peasants from
their villages and brought them by CATTLE CAR to killing
factories where they were brutally murdered in OVENS. Yes, I
am itentionally highlighting certain words to emphasize the
difference in the situations. My next point is further down |
[response deleted]
> Mr. Froikin,
>
> I think that you have completely misrepresented history. Where do
> you think that Arab hostility to the Jews arose from. The Arabs did not
> wake up one morning and decide that the Jews were bad and should be removed
> from the Middle East.
No, sir, they didn't. They have thought this for hundreds of
years. I would like to seriously find out the Arab perspective
on this situation: What threat does a tiny nation like Israel
pose to the rest of the Arab Middle East. The land is so
small, compared to say, Iraq, why can't another nation take the
Palestinians in, and leave the Jewish homeland alone? This
sounds selfish, yes, but in terms of amount of land (acreage)
the Arabs win. In terms of ending strife and conflict,
everyone wins. Why should Israel give up the land when we have
no other homeland?
>Do you not think that forming a nation(Israel),
> dividing settlements, cities, families, and tribes would not piss a few
> people off. The source of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis has
> nothing to do in the slightest with religion. To be rather frank, it has
> alot to do with a rightly perceived threat and now reality of colonialism.
> The birth and growth of Israel as a nation is colonialist. It does not
> matter that 2500 years ago Jews ruled the land until ousted by the
> Byzantines. Israel was not formed peacefully, and I doubt that it will
> remain a nation peacefully. Israel has responded to threats, however it was
> a threat in and of itself first.
>
> Respectfully,
> Jonathan Byrd
Thank you for complimenting my homeland. It is indeed a
compliment for a nation which takes just a few hours to
traverse, and has a smaller population than New York City, to
be called a threat to the entire Arab world, millions of miles
and people strong. Thank you.
Proudly,
Heather Gottlieb
--
Ron Blum
> Then talk to my Old Testament Professor. You are a dumbass.
A very eloquent response. I prefer not to talk to your Old
Testament professor, if this is what his students turn out like.
Who is he, by the way?
Although I may be a dumbass, I do know that there were no such people
as "the Byzantines"--unless, of course, you mean the inhabitants
of the ancient city of Byzantium. Maybe you're referring to the
Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Empire? They were never "Byzantines:
they were called Romans or Greeks, but never Byzantines.
Also, I believe most of the Jews were expelled from Israel by Titus,
and followed by Domitian; but I might be wrong. The final destruiction
of Israel came in the second century AD under Trajan and Hadrian; many
Jewish men were killed (over 1/2 million; I don't know
about women and children), and under the latter's reign, Judea
was renamed Syria Palestina.,
We can't even begin to talk about the Byzantine Empire for another 400
years or so; at this point, this was the Roman Empire. Constantine
had yet to be born and move the capital from Rome to Byzantium
(rebuilt and renamed Constantinole), and 5 more centuries would pass
before Heraclius would take the throne and revive the Eastern Roman
Empire.
So, before you call anyone a dumbass, please take a good look in the mirror.
Ron
Nael Abu-Ghazaleh
Heather Gottlieb <hj...@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu writes:
>>
>>
>> I think that you have completely misrepresented history. Where do
>> you think that Arab hostility to the Jews arose from. The Arabs did not
>> wake up one morning and decide that the Jews were bad and should be removed
>> from the Middle East.
>
>No, sir, they didn't. They have thought this for hundreds of
>years. I would like to seriously find out the Arab perspective
>on this situation: What threat does a tiny nation like Israel
>pose to the rest of the Arab Middle East.
Not to presume to answer for Jonathan, but you miss his point
completely. I think Jonathan hit the nail on the head. Israel was
formed by force on arab land (for at least the past 1500 years, not to
go into the who lived there first argument). You really dont have to
look further than that, if you want to understand the arab perspective.
IF the jews had not immigrated to palestine, or had integrated into
the palestinian society peacefully rather than deciding to
colonize/displace it, palestine would have had her independance from
the british like all her arab neighbors.
Instead, the palestinian identity is threatened, both by the state of
affairs and an aggressive public relations campaign that continously
tries to deny their very existance or cast them as rabid sub-human
killers (check any of Mr. Elrich's posts for a handy example).
>The land is so
>small, compared to say, Iraq, why can't another nation take the
>Palestinians in, and leave the Jewish homeland alone? This
>sounds selfish, yes, but in terms of amount of land (acreage)
>the Arabs win.
This is naive. From the other side, the issue is that the
palestinians have been stripped of their land, rights and
identity...and you're suggesting that they should just disappear to
appease Israel and solve that unpleasant situation.
>In terms of ending strife and conflict,
>everyone wins. Why should Israel give up the land when we have
>no other homeland?
Because Israel took the palestinians homeland in the first place to
make their own? You cant have your cake and eat it...
>>Do you not think that forming a nation(Israel),
>> dividing settlements, cities, families, and tribes would not piss a few
>> people off. The source of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis has
>> nothing to do in the slightest with religion. To be rather frank, it has
>> alot to do with a rightly perceived threat and now reality of colonialism.
>> The birth and growth of Israel as a nation is colonialist. It does not
>> matter that 2500 years ago Jews ruled the land until ousted by the
>> Byzantines. Israel was not formed peacefully, and I doubt that it will
>> remain a nation peacefully. Israel has responded to threats, however it was
>> a threat in and of itself first.
>>
>Thank you for complimenting my homeland. It is indeed a
>compliment for a nation which takes just a few hours to
>traverse, and has a smaller population than New York City, to
>be called a threat to the entire Arab world, millions of miles
>and people strong. Thank you.
whatever. Why is it so hard for you to accept the argument Jonathan
presents above? Other than nitpicking, i havent seen any legitimate
response to it in all this thread. BOTH sides have to compromise for
peace to work. The palestinians have to accept the reality of Israel;
however, Israelis also have to get out of denial about the existance
of the palestinians and recognize the abuse the palestinian nation has
had to live through because of Israel's formation.
Without both these things happening any attempt at peace is a joke.
If both sides are not happy with the peace and do not get treated
fairly by the other side, it just wont last. Forcing a solution on
Palestinians, or anyone for that matter, wont work. Yes, the balance
of power is firmly on Israels side at the moment, but history has a
funny way of evolving. The logistics of the situation are liable to
catch up with israel sooner or later.
nael
Brendan D McKay
>In <3i328m$l...@babbage.ece.uc.edu> nabu...@lucky-eddie.ece.uc.edu (Nael
>
>>IF the jews had not immigrated to palestine, or had integrated into
>>the palestinian society peacefully rather than deciding to
>>colonize/displace it, palestine would have had her independance from
>>the british like all her arab neighbors.
>
>
>A. The Jewish People returned at the first possible chance they had to
>their homeland from which they were barred, for the most part, for a
>long time.
Bullshit. There have been only a few short periods during the past
1800 years when Jews were barred from Palestine. Few Jews went
there because few wanted to.
Brendan.
Nael Abu-Ghazaleh
Roger Froikin <Efr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3i328m$l...@babbage.ece.uc.edu> nabu...@lucky-eddie.ece.uc.edu (Nael
>Abu-Ghazaleh) writes:
>
>>
>>the palestinian society peacefully rather than deciding to
>>colonize/displace it, palestine would have had her independance from
>>the british like all her arab neighbors.
>
>
How is this a joke? It was a simple statement that you're perhaps
reading more into than there is. Had the jews not immigrated,
palestine would have been independent with no questions asked about
the legitimacy of the palestinian identity; just like all the other
arab countries had. That was the only point i was trying to make.
>A. The Jewish People returned at the first possible chance they had to
>their homeland from which they were barred, for the most part, for a
>long time. They were reclaiming land stolen from them.
>
>The Palestinian Arabs are guilty of accepting stolen merchandise.
>Settling on land stolen from Jews does not make it "Arab Land"
>
Again. You argue that you have a valid claim on Palestine, I argue
that you dont. That statement is your opinion, not shared by me.
>B. "Peacefully integrate". What a joke. The Arabs never let the Jews
>settle peacefully. My family was one of the few allowed to settle in
>Palestine after the Spansih Inquisition, and from then on, every
>generation lived persecuted, subject to Arab riots, the victims of Arab
>murderers, until finally expelled in 1929 from Hebron -- long before
>there was an Israel.
>
As much as it saddens me to hear these accounts, racism existed and
still exists everywhere. But this in no way justifies colonizing
palestine.
> I guess that's how you want your Jews --- a persecuted minority with
>no rights, the "dhimmi" dubject to persecution at the whim of a Muslim
>cleric.
>
Please dont put words in my mouth.
>C. Your Palestine national Covenant states that the Palestinian Arab
>people are not a separate people with a separate identity, but an
>"integral part of the Arab Nation". Before 1948, there was no
>identifiable Palestinian Arabs. The term "Palestinian was used to
>identify Jews.
>
Nor was there a term to describe the inhabitants of any of the other 23
arab countries. If you knew anything about Arab culture though, you
would know how tribal/family oriented people are. Everyone is
attatched very strongly to their region. A family name directly gives
away the city from which a person comes from. There was no need for
a tag to describe the identity, because it was never threatened or
denied not because it didnt exist. In short, yes; palestinians are an
integral part of the Arab nation who have lived in palestine
for ages (The family tree in my family's Diwan traces back more than
1300 years).
>There was no Palestinian Arab attempt to gain independence -- no
>Palestinian Arab political parties, no Palestinian Arab delegations
>trying to negotiate independence.
>
There was a continuous stream of attempts to gain independence,
beginning by the "Great Arab Revolution" in 1916 going through the two
Palestinian revolutions (not sure on dates), with continuous smaller
scale resistance in between. The theory about the spontaneous
palestinian existance is really funny when you think about it.
>Instead there were Palestinian Arabs pledging to the Nazis to help
>exterminate the Jews.
>
>You know, this conference has two possible directions it can go. It can
>be a place to discuss facts and solutions for the future -- that what
>I've tried to encourage to no avail. Or it can be a place for Arabs to
>lie to each other and whine about the Jews -- which is what you've
>tended to do. Your choice.
Hmm. This is an idiotic and racist statement you make above. I am
only voicing my opinion, which happens to be different than yours. Im
neither consciously lieing nor whining, and having lived a large part
of the problem I think have some valid opinions to share.
A basic requirement of an argument are two different opinions, not
shouting your own and throwing a tantrum when someone disagrees.
Another basic requirement is not to get personal and call the other
side names. Criticize the words and not the writer. Look there if
you're concerned about the direction this forum is taking.
As for discussing future solutions, more power to you. However, if
you refuse to understand the mindset of either party in the conflict,
how do you hope to reach a solution thats acceptable to them?
regards,
nael
yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu
>
>
> The SYSTEMATIC genocide of millions of innocent men, women and
> children, solely because their "race" was considered inferior
> can NOT be compared to a reaction against terrorism and other
> attacks. There is just absolutely no comparison, PERIOD, in my
> opinion. Attack me if you will, but I will never agree that the
> defense of a people of their homeland does not quite measure up
> to the system which stole innocent, ignorant poor peasants from
> their villages and brought them by CATTLE CAR to killing
> factories where they were brutally murdered in OVENS. Yes, I
> am itentionally highlighting certain words to emphasize the
> difference in the situations. My next point is further down |
>
Well Heather,
Since we are comparing Human atrocities. How about being brought over an
ocean for 3 months as CATTLE.
Tied down, laying in yours and 300 other peoples waste. Perhaps tied down
to a decomposing body that was not removed until the trip was over. MAYBE
(if your were lucky ) eating food that was not fit for worms. Is dieng in
an OVEN worse than being murdered while tied to tree in front of hundreds
of people (just for looking at a white girl).
Is dieng worse than generations of abuse, degredation, racism? Seeing
your children owned, sold, and used for what ever purpose. Not even being
recognized as humans, but rather as disposable labor.
Sure, the Jews in Europe went through something similar, but not for over
2 hundred years and they had the assistance of the Allied forces to free
them. Ironically the black soldiers who fought for your freedom were
still denied their own. Hell it took an act of Congress just to
ackowledge the fact that blacks fought in WWII and was key to defeating
the powerful tank division on the planet.
As for SYSTEMATIC, the machine here (USA), is alive and well and growing
larger.
So, has the U.S. or other European countries given African Americans their
strip of land? Given blacks nuclear weapons to protect them from attack.
Instead Black Americans stayed and fought for their freedom here and
abroad and for others. Blacks were not GIVEN anything. And don't give me
any static about afirmative action. That was an attack dog with no teeth
or claws. (A discussion for another time and another posting area.)
Just thought you would like to know that Jews do not corner the market in
victimization, therefore any justification for colonization is mute.
However there is room for cooperation, which for Isreal survival, will
have to be acheived. Yes, you will have to compromise to live together.
Hell no it's not easy or simple, just ask anyone lived during the CIVIL
RIGHTS MOVEMENT here and in SOUTH AFRICA.
Seb
Jonathan David Byrd
>Seb,
> Since you responded to my post, I must rebut your
>statements. First of all, I'd like to remind you that this is
>a discussion about Israel and Palestinians. I have made no
>remarks about African-Americans or slavery at all, and if you
>would like to know my opinion (instead of attacking me for
>something i have not written about), i believe that slavery was
>an atrocious part of American history. It is by far the worst
>part of our country's history. But i wish you had not chose to
>include your statements (valid as they are) to this discussion,
>because although they are true, i don't think they are relevant
>to this discussion. Your statement about black allied soldiers
>liberating the Jews, and then not being acknowledged is true,
>however, America also turned away boatloads of Jewish
>immigrants who wished to escape the Nazis and come to America.
>They were denied visas, and even denied entry when they were in
>American ports. THey were turned away, forced to return to
>face their deaths by the Nazis. So, I have problems with
>America, too. Please don't talk to me about being GIVEN
>things. I can't imagine an american feeling safer if Saddam
>Hussein had access to nuclear weapons. Americans may whine all
>they want about our aid to Israel, but Israel is America's ONLY
>ally in the middle east. The arab nations don't particularly
>like America too much. I'm glad israel is protecting my
>American interests in the MIddle East.
>--Heather
>--
Heather,
Have you not heard of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Bahrain. These
countries are our friends and allies. They also do not sit around and beg
for money with their mouths full-unlike some countries in the Middle East.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Byrd
Heather Gottlieb
>
> First off, Heather I apologize if my posting came off as an attack, but
> you must realize that the facts themselves are harsh.
>
> Secondly your reminder of which dicussion we are in is unecessary. The
> overall theme is oppression by hostile, overwhelming, government forces.
> Slavery, blacks in WWII, and the Civil rights movements were examples of
> universal degredation. These examples should have been lessens for
> humanity that Americans could relate to. Doesn't matter where it happens
> or who is doing it, it's still wrong.
> The United States felt sincerely justified in what they had done to
> Africans and Native Americans. It was for survival. The U.S. needed
> labor. The U.S. needed to rid the West of red savages. We brought Jesus
> to these godless heathens.
> The Native Americans and Africans fought back, just like the
> Palestinians are. But our past showed us that continued fighting and
> oppression only made things worse. The U.S. is still living with those
> scars.
>
> There is enough blame for both Israeli and Palestinian to share.
> Both need to stop thinking of just being Jew and Arab but rather ponder
> on being human. Ackowledging that each coexist on the same soil, create
> laws to PUNISH THOSE WHO COMMITT MURDER and not condemn an entire race,
> and know that seperate is not equal.
Seb,
I agree. First I must apologize. sometimes, my
fingers start typing in a fit of passion. That's wrong.
I strongly believe that fanatics on BOTH sides of the issue
(Israeli, Arab, Palestinian, Jew, American, WHOEVER), merely
worsen the situation. I think compromise is crucial to
establishing (and maintaining) peace. That is the ideal
situation. As a Jew, however, it is difficult for me to
believe that a compromise, with both sides maintaining their
side of the bargain, is possible. I cannot speak for all Jews
or Israelis, but as for MYSELF, based on my own experiences,
and what I have heard, I do not trust that a compromise will be
enough. There is no way to guarantee a commitment (on either
side, I admit) to a compromise. How do we solve that problem,
or allay the fear that if Israel gives up land it WON in wars
it did not initiate, this will give the Arab world an advantage
to attack and possibly take over the rest of the country. This
is my interpretation of MY greatest fear (and what I think is
many Jews' fear.).
>
> It is not easy, it is not going to be easy, but it is essential.
>
> Heather, I was also somewhat sadden that you were proud that Israel is a
> threat to millions on Arabs.
> __________________________
> "Thank you for complimenting my homeland. It is indeed a
> compliment for a nation which takes just a few hours to
> traverse, and has a smaller population than New York City, to
> be called a threat to the entire Arab world, millions of miles
> and people strong. Thank you."
>
> Proudly,
> Heather Gottlieb
> _____________________________
> This is not something to be proud of. It should be pitied. One does not
> gain respect by being feared, instead that fear turns to vengful hate.
>
> Heather, being a threat to what you think are primarly terrorist is
> incorrect. Israel will be a threat to millions of children who merely
> want to play in the sun. It will also be a threat to millons of parents
> that just want to see their children and their grandchildren play in the
> sun.
> But it may be of more interest to you to realize that Israel is not
> an Ally for U.S. interest in the Middle East, but rather a pawn to serve
> whatever purpose it deems necessary. All that Israel is and will be is
> owed primarily to the U.S. The U.S. will use Israel till it is no longer
> significant for U.S. INTEREST IN THE MIDDLE EAST. When that time comes,
> Israel will be naked and vulnarable to the hatred that was perpetuated.
>
> Israel will have to find the greater peace if it is to survive. Yes, it
> will include uneasy compromise, but a compromise that will mean the
> survival of Jewish and Palestianian children who merely want to play in
> the sun.
>
> Love,
>
> Seb
As for the threat statement, I was merely stating that I am
proud of the fact that Israel has been able to withstand and
defeat its attackers over that last 50 years. It reminds me of
the David and Goliath story. We have become strong because we
have to be strong to survive. This is the Jewish mindset (I
think).
I am not Palestinian, so, granted my viewpoint is somewhat
biased, and I don't know the entire other side of the story.
So, enlighten me. I wish to understand. I wish there was
peace. But, I wish there will always be a Jewish homeland for
me...the one place in the world where i know I belong to.
Where I can walk down the street and feel like I am part of the
group, and feel like shouting my heritage, instead of hiding
it. I wish for understanding and compassion between all
cultures.
--Heather
--
Roger Froikin
Abu-Ghazaleh) writes:
>>
>>>IF the jews had not immigrated to palestine, or had integrated into
>>>the palestinian society peacefully rather than deciding to
>>>colonize/displace it, palestine would have had her independance from
>>>the british like all her arab neighbors.
>>
>>Is this some kind of sick joke ?
>>
>
>How is this a joke? It was a simple statement that you're perhaps
>reading more into than there is. Had the jews not immigrated,
>palestine would have been independent with no questions asked about
>the legitimacy of the palestinian identity; just like all the other
>arab countries had. That was the only point i was trying to make.
I could make the same kind of statement, Nael. Had the Arab population
not been augumented in Palestine by a flow of Arab immigrants settling
on Jewish land, there would not have been any problem.
The fact is, that Arabs did come and settle, and Jews did come and
settle, and from there we have to look for reasonable solutions.
>A. The Jewish People returned at the first possible chance they had to
>>their homeland from which they were barred, for the most part, for a
>>long time. They were reclaiming land stolen from them.
>>
>>The Palestinian Arabs are guilty of accepting stolen merchandise.
>>Settling on land stolen from Jews does not make it "Arab Land"
>>
>
>Again. You argue that you have a valid claim on Palestine, I argue
>that you dont. That statement is your opinion, not shared by me.
That's life, Nael. My position is backed by history, by the
international association throughout history of the Jewish People with
that land, and that connection is even confirmed by Islamic literature.
>>B. "Peacefully integrate". What a joke. The Arabs never let the
Jews
>>settle peacefully. My family was one of the few allowed to settle in
>>Palestine after the Spansih Inquisition, and from then on, every
>>generation lived persecuted, subject to Arab riots, the victims of
Arab
>>murderers, until finally expelled in 1929 from Hebron -- long before
>>there was an Israel.
>>
>
>As much as it saddens me to hear these accounts, racism existed and
>still exists everywhere. But this in no way justifies colonizing
>palestine.
I agree. Arabs should have kept out and not colonized it and not tried
to exclude the rightful owners.
>> I guess that's how you want your Jews --- a persecuted minority
with
>>no rights, the "dhimmi" dubject to persecution at the whim of a Muslim
>>cleric.
>>
>
>Please dont put words in my mouth.
I make assumptions based on your statements, Nael.
>>C. Your Palestine national Covenant states that the Palestinian Arab
>>people are not a separate people with a separate identity, but an
>>"integral part of the Arab Nation". Before 1948, there was no
>>identifiable Palestinian Arabs. The term "Palestinian was used to
>>identify Jews.
>>
>
>Nor was there a term to describe the inhabitants of any of the other 23
>arab countries. If you knew anything about Arab culture though, you
>would know how tribal/family oriented people are. Everyone is
>attatched very strongly to their region. A family name directly gives
>away the city from which a person comes from.
I agree. Note the family names of most Palestinian Arabs and anyone
knowing Arab traditions and history will tell you where those names came
from -- Egypt, Iraq, the Arabian Penninsula, North Africa.
There was no need for
>a tag to describe the identity, because it was never threatened or
>denied not because it didnt exist. In short, yes; palestinians are an
>integral part of the Arab nation who have lived in palestine
>for ages (The family tree in my family's Diwan traces back more than
>1300 years).
At the same time Palestinians had no reason for a national identity as
you claim, Syrians did, Lebanese did, Iraqis did, Jordan did, Egypt did.
The Palestinian Arabs did not simply (as Dr. Emil Ghory stated) because
they viewed themselves not as a separate people but as part of the rest
of the Arab nation first given that their family origens were elsewhere
for most.
If your family was there for more than 300 years, your family is an
interesting exception. I, by the way, know some people in Israel with
your family name. Are you relatives of theirs ?
>As for discussing future solutions, more power to you. However, if
>you refuse to understand the mindset of either party in the conflict,
>how do you hope to reach a solution thats acceptable to them?
>
Nael, I came onto this conference hoping for constructive dialogue --
about where to go from now, not to rehash hyperbole about the past. We
can all chose to do the latter and keep up the hatred and maybe make it
worse until just one people is left in Palestine (that seems to be the
goal of several groups), or we can stop huring each other and draining
our resources, and look at things creatively, and try to understand that
maybe our differences are strengths for a new future.
Roger Froikin
writes:
Brendan, you're wrong. Jews faced being barred, being massacred, or
being (during the few times they were tolerated there) being taxed at
several times the rates applied to gentiles (during most of the 1800's
the tax often exceeded income, making the Jewish communities dependant
on fund raising in Europe for their existance.
kenley
"Few Jews went there because few wanted to." Brenda (now you really deserve
it because you can't hide your true beliefs) you have gone too far.
Outright liar that you are, calling others to recant "blood libels" while you
freely throw out yours.
Let's start with the year 70 and we'll go as far as Ican get today. During
this time of the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple,
Tacitus states that 600,000 Jews fell (probably much exaggerated).
Many fell in
the battles fought and the massacres perpetrated by the inhabitants of the
Greek cities against the local Jews, such as in Caseares, Beth-Shean, Acre,
and Ashkelon. Many were taken captive before the siege of Jerusalem, tens
of thousands were sold into slavery, sent to toil in ships and mines, or
presented to the non-Jewish cities adjacent to Erez Israel to fight against
wild animals in the theaters. Cities and villages were burnt and destroyed
either in the course of war or as an act of revenge and initimidation. Jews
were deprived of their communal and religious rights by imperial edict and
were the arbitrary victims both in theory and in practice or unrestrained
acts of lawlessness.
The renewal in post-destruction Erez Israel of Jewish communal life - which
also reconstituted Judaism in the Diaspora - without the framework of a
state and without a Temple which was the foundation of Jewish religious and
spiritual existence is credited to Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai and his
activities in the semi-Greek city of Jabneh. Under Rabban Gamliel (Hanasi),
the center in Jabneh assumed most of the functions fulfilled by the
Sanhedrin in Second Temple times. Even during these difficult times in Erez
Israel, the emmissaries of the nasi decisively influenced the appointmentof
leaders in the cities and villages of Erez Israel and the communities of the
Diaspora, and even had the power to depose them if their leadership was
found to be defective. Despite the considerable suffering endured as a
consequence of the war Jewish Erez Israel made a rapid recovery. Many
captives, freed with the help of the local Jewish population or by other
means, returned to their homes. Large tracts of land were redeemed from the
non-Jews, plantations were restored, and new ones planted. In 115-117 the
Jews in the Diaspora rose in a widespread revolt, which, embracing Libya,
Cyrenaica, Egypt, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia, was marked by both battles
between the Jews and the Greeks and uprisings against Roman rule in the
east. There were uprisings on a considerable scale in Erez Israel too.
Moorish commander Lusius Quietus, ruthlessly suppressed the revolt of the
Jews in Mesopotamia, and went to stamp out the revolt in Judea. Grave
Hellenistic edicts were enforced against the Jews, including the prohibition
of circumcision (enforced against Jews and others who practiced this rite).
The well known revolt of Simeon Bar Kochba occurred, and while succesful for
a time, ended with the captur of Betar in the summer of 135.
Hadrian now resolved to launch a war of annihilation against the Torah and
to expunge the name of Israel from the land. In addition to the destruction
of populated areas and the large-scale massacre, there were great numbers of
Jewish captives who filled slave markets in Erez Israel and in distant
lands. Especially notorious was the market under the terebinth near Hebron
wher a Jewish slave was sold for the price of a horse's feed. Many
settlements, especially in Judea, were not rebuilt. The central Judean
Mountains were largely depopulated of their Jewish inhabitants. Decrees
were issued against the observance of the commandments, communal prayer, and
Jewish courts. Jews were forbidden to stay in Jerusalem, and only once a
year - Tisha B'Av - allowed in to weep over the remains of their city and
their holy places. Hadrian changed the name of Judea to Syria Palaestina,
by which it henceforth came to be known in non-Jewish literature (even a
"people" has sprouted up in the last 100 years in Palaestina, fancy that).
The authorities confiscated land on an extensive scale on the strength of
martial law or of offences against these new decrees, such as circumcision.
Large tracts of land lay waste, their owners having been taken captive or
compelled to flee. The Jews in the country underwent a harsh period of
persecution.
The first signs of recovery of communal life appeared in the Galilee.
A period of political and economic growth came to the Jews of Erez Israel
under the Severan emperors (193-235). Emigration from Erez Israel was now
replaced by immigration from the Diaspora, among the immigrants being
people with expert knowledge, initiative, and money, who developed new
branches of the economy, such as flax-growing and of agricultural industry,
such as the manufacture of clothes and dyeing. Then a period of anarchy
swept the Roman Empire (235-289) and Jewish Erez Israel suffered in
particular. There was no religious persecution at the time, however the
rural population suffered greatly from economic hardship, from taxation, and
from oppression at the hands of soldiers, and since the economy of Jewish
Erez Israel was largely agricultural, the Jews were affected more than the
non-Jewish population. During this period, too, the country suffered from
privation and an extremely severe famine. Emigration naturally increased, and
although there was also a considerable immigration to Erez Israel, it was
not large enough to balance the number of thos leaving the country.
Stability returned to the imperial regime, but along with it emerged a new
force in the world: Christianity, commencing with Constantine's recognition
of the Christian religion (313). Hitherto the Jews had struggled culturally
against a pagan world, which by its very nature acknowledged the existence
of national religions. Christianity, which within a short period becme the
imperial religion (explaining its size today), did not recognize or tolerate
other religions (as other monothiestic religions do), and in this displayed
a greater bigotry and inflexibility than Judaism. The hostile attitude to
Judaism was expressed in the emperors' anti-Jewish legislation with is
insulting language , and in the attacks of fanatics on Jews and their
institutions. After Julian the Apostate's death in 363, the Christians
began to attack Jewish settlements in the south, and Christian sources
report the destruction "in the south of 21 cities of pagans, Jews and
Samaritans, who had had a share in Julian the Apostate's sin". Under
Theodosius I until the abolition of the office of the nasi, (379 to 428)
there was intensified anti-Jewish legislation which assigned and inferior
status to Judaism and the Jews. From 419 to 422, a monk Bar Sauma of
Nisibis, along with his band of Jewish hating followers, passed through Erez
Israel destroying synagogues, murdering and plundering. Henceforward it was
not the Jews alone who sought to have possession of Erez Israel, but
Christians too, who established many congregations in the country. In
short, it was not safe to be Jewish in Erez Israel at the time, and those
brave enough to remain there suffered greatly.
This is a brief history until the mid-fifth century. To be continued ...
Brenda ("few Jews went there because few wanted too"), you little shit,
truth means nothing to you, but this is to educate the readers - you are
a lost cause.
K. Sperry
Wan Mohd Faizal
I am studying a little Judaism rite now,
can someone enligten me on this issue? Do jewish people believe in
resurrection and the next life? And if they do, how do they perceive the
next life? What I mean is how much and what kind of effort is put into
that direction.
Thanks in advance.
Morry Sztainbok
Jonathan David Byrd <jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
> I live in the US, and I feel much remorse for what my country did to
>Native Americans, and enslaved Africans. However, Israel is a result of
>
>Jonathan Byrd
Then should you not be devoting your energies to returning New York to
the native Americans and compensating AfroAmericans for the pain and
humiliation you subjected (and continue to subject) them to, instead of
this totally hypocritical harangue of people trying to survive. Get your
own backyard in order and that may buy you the right to criticize; or is
it a case of do as I say, not as I do.
Morry
Morry Sztainbok
<yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <D4B83...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>hj...@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU (Heather Gottlieb) wrote:
>
>> yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu writes:
>
>> Seb,
>> Have you not heard of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Bahrain. These
>> countries are our friends and allies. They also do not sit around and beg
>> for money with their mouths full-unlike some countries in the Middle East.
Hey you want to rely on them, be my guest. Because most nations go with
self-interest, the wise choice of ally is the one who share's the most
out of your pool of interests and values. I think your rejection of a
democratic Israel whose Basic Law mirrors your own constitution, for
autocratic theocracies and tyrannies, says everything about your
prejudices.....I don't think there can be much valued or constructive
discussion with a person like yourself.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Jonathan Byrd
>
>
>Thank you Jonathan. One less point I have to bring Heathers attention.
>While I'm here I will respond to her other statements.
> The Native Americans and Africans fought back, just like the
>Palestinians are. But our past showed us that continued fighting and
>oppression only made things worse. The U.S. is still living with those
>scars.
>
> There is enough blame for both Israeli and Palestinian to share.
>Both need to stop thinking of just being Jew and Arab but rather ponder
>on being human. Ackowledging that each coexist on the same soil, create
>laws to PUNISH THOSE WHO COMMITT MURDER and not condemn an entire race,
>and know that seperate is not equal.
Palestinian and Jew live peacefully in mutual respect as equal Israeli
citizens under the law. That's my proof of Jewish goodwill...care to
compare that to Jews under Arab rule (does the word "dhimmi" ring a bell).
Had Baruch Goldstein survived he would have faced an extremely long
prison sentence; care to compare that to the lauding and freedom of
killers of Jews, some of whom are in the Palestinian police, for mercy's
sake. As to "separate", it is time for you to recognize that Jews have
the same rights to self-determination as everybody else in the world.
Once you have done this, then you can peacefully get on with your
self-determination, and we can peacefully get on with ours. And THAT is
the solution.
>
>It is not easy, it is not going to be easy, but it is essential.
>
I should have said the EASY solution.
What is clear at the moment is that the Arab world(and its supporters)
cannot begrudge the Jews a slice of land the size of a large Texan or
Australian farm. Even land purchased by Jews is disputed, despite clear
title.
>Israel will have to find the greater peace if it is to survive. Yes, it
Israel will survive whether the Arabs take the path to peace or not. It
is the path Israel chose from before its coception, whether you believe
that or not. Israel has demonstrated that it has no hatred for Arabs
through the million plus Arab citizens who enjoy parliamentary
representation, cultural recognition through their own schools and
television programs, and religious freedom through Mosques, with no head
tax and deprivation of rights that Islam as a religion imposes on Jews
(and Christians) whenever Moslems are in power.
Meet Jews on the road to peace and self-determination and we all prosper,
choose war, and we all suffer.....your choice.
>Seb
Morry
Saleem Nicola
>
> In <3i328m$l...@babbage.ece.uc.edu> nabu...@lucky-eddie.ece.uc.edu (Nael
> Abu-Ghazaleh) writes:
>
> >
> >the palestinian society peacefully rather than deciding to
> >colonize/displace it, palestine would have had her independance from
> >the british like all her arab neighbors.
>
> You know, this conference has two possible directions it can go. It can
> be a place to discuss facts and solutions for the future -- that what
> I've tried to encourage to no avail. Or it can be a place for Arabs to
> lie to each other and whine about the Jews -- which is what you've
> tended to do. Your choice.
You know, Roger, I like the way you've managed to pick ONE point out
of many that Nael made in the post you answered above. You take that
one point and answer it, and then use it as evidence that this
conference is used as "a place for Arabs to lie to each other and
whine about the Jews." You claim to encourage discussion of solutions
for the future, and then you ignore Nael's statements concerning
what needs to happen in order for there to be a peaceful future. I
guess you yourself find it easier just to whine?
Below is an excerpt from Nael's post in which it is impossible to
find the slightest evidence of lying or whining about Jews, and in
which he tells us what he thinks is required for "solutions of
the future."
Saleem Nicola
: >>Do you not think that forming a nation(Israel),
Gregory Rudolph
This is a reply to Seb and Heather's conversation:
Israel is not a superpower, far from it. And Israel is not the only country in
the Middle East to receive U.S. aid. Seb used Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as
examples of strong Arab countries. Didn't the U.S. recently go to war to
protect the sanctity of those countries? Doesn't the U.S. provide serious
armament support to Saudi Arabia? Yes and Yes.
On the slavery vs. Auschwitz issue: Comparing suffering is pointless and
divisive. The more time Jews and blacks spend arguing about who had it worse
is more time for the power structure that perpetrated such evils to solidify
its power. However, I still feel the Holocaust is an unprecendented event, and
should be regarded as such. The suffering blacks have endured in this country
is also unique. That's not the point. The point is that Israel is stuck in a
horrendous situation. Israel is held to a higher standard than any other
Middle Eastern nation in terms of human rights. How does Jordan treat its
massive "Palestinian" population? Black September massacres, anyone? How does
Syria treat its dissidents? How about Egypt. How does the Egyptian government
deal with Muslim fundamentalists? Egypt kills them. Often. And who gets
censured in the UN? Israel. Israel is forced to deal with a group of
radicals who are willing to commit murder to see the State of Israel
abolished. How is a government supposed to deal with that?
Seb mentioned that Palestinians have been in the area for thousands of years.
So have Jews. And many of the so-called "Palestinians" migrated to the area in
the 20th century. Both folks have an historical claim to the area. If Seb is
so supportive of the UN, maybe he should check out the 1948 partition plan.
You know which country now covers 78% of land the Palestinians were given?
Jordan.
Everybody (almost) wants peace in the region. I can't think of any parent,
Israeli or Palestinian, who would like to see their children die in this
stupid conflict. But until Arab countries show a strong commitment to human
rights, democracy, and a peaceful coexistence with Israel, Israel must and
should keep suppressing the Muslim radicals.
On a different topic:
I would like to hear some comments on Ron Arad. How can Israel continue with
peace negotiations when the Arab world will not admit what has happened to Ron
Arad? Is he alive? Is he dead? Where is he? I believe his family, and the
country, have a right to know. Please respond.
Peace,
Greg.
Saleem Nicola
;
;
; >
; >
; >
; >Wow!
;
; It seems that someone stirred up the beehive.
;
; After reading the article that initiated this controversy and reading
; responses to it, I would have to say that Hoffamn has a point.
;
; The negative response he has gotten seem to be knee jerk reactions to the
; Holocaust, by most whom I would assume are of Jewish heritage, without
; realizing what Hoffman is trying to say.
;
; Let me take a crack at it. Is he trying to say that there is dark irony
; that a race whose existence nearly came to an end due to psychotic
; government policy and racism, are generations later practicing similar
; tactics on another race "thinking" it will preserve their own.
;
; From what I have seen and read about the events in that region, it would
; seem reminiscent of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, etc. in the
; late 50's - early 60's. "MY" point being that a race of people were
; disenfranchised by the ruling government in their own homeland. Judged as
; evil because of their race, religion or the actions of others. Why do
; people think it so strange that individuals would react violently to
; having there land and basic human rights taken away? I am by no means
; saying that acts of terrorism are justified, but it should be expected
; when oppression is policy. I would expect Americans to act the same way,
; in fact we have, as oppressed and oppressors.
Saleem Nicola
; We all defend our own, most times. However we all must realize that no
YitzhakS
carats demarcating
response/previous posting, I will encase my responses between brackets {
}.
Hi,
I just saw the enclosed post.. I though it might start a good
discussion (no flames please)..
Enjoy
Marwan
-------------------------------------
From Michael A. Hoffman II
At first glance there would appear to be a sympathetic relationship
between the
Jews of Auschwitz and the Palestinians in the lands occupied by the
Israeli
military and incarcerated at Ansar III.
{This is a gross distortion of present-day reality and of hsitory.
Auschwitz was a death camp set up by the
Nazis for one purpose only: to murder the Jews of Europe. Estimates
vary, but the most conservative
estimate is one million Jews were put to death in Auschwitz. Ansar III is
a prison camp. Its inmates are
not the innocent, but are terrorists who have committed crimes against
innocent Israeli civilians. To
compare these murderers with the innocent Jewish victims of Nazi genocide
is a perversion.}
Both were victims of religious and racial discrimination and persecution.
Both
were targets of regimes who dehumanized them as part of a *Master
Race*/*Chosen
People* mythos.
{This is false and malicious. The Master Race ethos of the Nazis is a
racially based ideology predicated
upon the notion that Aryans (white, northern Europeans) are genetically
superior to non-Aryans. The
Jewish concept of chosenness is based in ethical monotheism. There is no
supremacist notion in the
concept of chosenness. The theological underpinnings are deep, mystical,
ethical and complex. A serious
discussion of the Chosen People idea is not possible in this overly
politicized context. Nonetheless, the
basic concept is this: God made a covenent with Israel (the people of,
not the modern state -- let's not get
overly confused here). Israel accepted the covenent, namely they would
accept the Torah as the revealed
Word of God, practice its moral teachings in return for "election" to
being "or le'goyim" or a "(moral) light
unto the nations." Indeed, it can accurately be said that Judaism, as the
mother religion to two daughter
faiths -- namely Christianity and Islam -- has historically acted in this
manner, as a catalyst for the
expression and implementation of Judaic values such as the Ten
Commandments, the acceptance by
billions of people of ethical monotheism and belief in One God, etc. It
ought to be noted that the concept
of chosenness was adopted and modified by both Christianity and Islam.
Both faiths believing that
somehow the Jewish people forfieted their birthright which was then passed
onto either Christianity or
Islam. I don't accept this interpretation, as I believe that both
daughter faiths are instruments of God who,
in His own plans which we cannot begin to fathom, revealed different
aspects of Himself to the adherents
of these two faiths. If anyone wants to make a religious crusade out of
what I said, go ahead. To what
good that would be is beyond me, but if people want to create a religious
war in the name of God, it is to
Him you'll have to answer, not I.}
Yet, if we look deeper, we find that the supposed >>lesson of Auschwitz,<<
the
slogan of >>Never Again<< (supposedly meaning Never Again must this ever
happen
to any other people) is an imposture.
If Auschwitz was actually commemorated to extinguish racism, then the
leading
figures of Auschwitz commemoration would be in the forefront of defending
the
Palestinians.
But this is not the case. Auschwitz is in fact used to justify the
slaughter of
the Palestinians because the so-called >>Holocaust<< renders Jews into
mystical
figures of cosmic sainthood and martyrdom on a scale allegedly
unprecedented in
all history. From this legendary status, Israelis are given a moral
license to
destroy the Palestinians.
{The author here creates a non-sequitor between his misinformed assertions
of the Chosen People concept
of Judaism and the policies of the modern State of Israel in his bid to
create a false premise that somehow
the Jews of Israel have in fact become the Nazis of the late twentieth
century. That Jews have transformed
themselves from the victims into the worst kind of victimizers. First, I
invite the reader to look at the trip
Hoffman is peddling, namely "revisionist" propaganda. At the end of his
post he advertises the following:
"Editor:Revisionist Researcher Magazine. Current issue U.S. $6.00. Book,
Tape
and sticker catalog U.S.$3 (Both for U.S.$7.00)" Hoffman, therefor, is a
Holocaust-denier, one of those
sick individuals who have an anal-obsessive need to diminish, deny, reduce
the Holocaust. Just look below
at his verbiage when he talks of "Holocaust mania." This is the language
of the anti-Semite. His purpose
in painting a picture of Jews as the modern reincarnation of the Nazis is
to create a grossly distorted image
of the Jew. In short, to criminalize the modern state of Israel, and, by
way of invoking a central tent of
Judaism (chosenness) Judaism and Jews in general. this is not mere
criticism of Israel but a general form
of anti-Semitism that has been around for centuries, namely to
delegitimize Jews, collectively and
individually, and to remove Jews from the family of nations.}
>>Never Again<< of course is not intended to apply to Palestinians. It is
actually a sentence fragment. The full meaning, though never to my
knowledge
formally articulated, except in practice, would be:
>>Never Again must Jews ever be attacked. Such attack must be combated by
any
means.<<
Again, superficially this may sound reasonable but studying a little
further
makes us ask:
What about when Jews are oppressors?Is it right to resist Jewish
oppressors?
By the >Never Again formula< the answer must be no, it is not. That is why
Auschwitz is a cryptic license for the Jews to holocaust the Palestinians.
{This is the first time I've seen the word "holocaust" used as a verb.
Very creative, Mr. Hoffman.
Anyway, the point is ridiculous. If indeed Israel was a Jewish version of
Nazi Germany, and Ansar III
another Auschwitz, there wouldn't be a Palestinian left alive by now. The
Germans were killing Jews at a
rate of 10,000 - 25,000 per day. At that rate, after 28 years of
occupation, Israel -- if it was a Nazi
Germany redux -- would have finished off the Palestinians decades ago.
But, as Palestinians are fond of
pointing out, their numbers have actually grown exponentially in the last
threee decades. This is the kind
of genocide I wish the Nazis would have practiced on us.}
That is why the entire apparatus of the >>Holocaust<< cult is the worst
hypocrisy. If it were truly the enshrinement of a universally-applied
humanitarian lesson, the lesson would be applied for the benefit and
protection
of the dispossessed Palestinians.
{Hoffman's use of the phrase "Holocaust cult" is revisionist lingo. Its
just anti-Semitism.}
The leaders of the >>Holocaust<< cult are aware of this embarrassing fact
and
with typical cunning have made some protests about the Serbian treatment
of the
Bosnian Muslims as a counter to charges that the >>Holocaust<< cult is
political
propaganda for Israeli hegemony.
However, for >>Holocaust<< cultists to ignore the slaughter of the
Palestinians
when it is perpetrated by Jews, including Jews who were in Hitlers
concentration
camps, while indicting Serbian mistreatment of Muslims, underscores the
political opportunism that is at work.
Moreover, the most genocidal of the Israeli IDF soldiers and settlers in
occupied Palestine are victims of the cremation of the thought processes
that is
the wildly exaggerated >>Holocaust<< mania. These obsessed persons often
think
they have a license to kill.
{And here we have it: "the wildly exaggerated >>Holocaust<< mania." This
quote ices it, the man is
indeed a part and parcel of the Holocaust denying neo-Nazis who travel on
the fringes of the political
spectrum. Shame on any Palestinian giving support to this man.}
Israeli Army Officer Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered forty Palestinians
civilians while they knelt at prayer in a mosque in Hebron, Feb. 25, 1994,
would
sometimes wear a concentration camp costume with a yellow star of David
pinned
to it, similar to the star some Jews were compelled to wear by the Nazis.
{Goldstein was a reserve army officer. He acted alone, not as part of any
Israeli policy. He and his
followers were repudiated in the strongest terms by Yitzhak Rabin and
world Jewry. In the meantime, 60%
of West Bank Palestinians just love their suicide bombers. Who is morally
weak here?}
The overdose of the Auschwitz weeping and wailing publicity occurring on
the TV
airwaves and in print from Jan. 25 through the 29 is calculated to the
political, moral and cultural advantage of Jews worldwide in order that
their
privileges and immunities over subject populations will be heightened and
their
superiority ensured.
Yet, anniversaries of holocausts perpetrated by the Allies like the atomic
mass
murder in Hiroshima and Nagasaki passed with barely a blip of the screen
in
1994.
The tenth anniversary of the Israeli holocaust against Beirut, Lebanon
which
occurred in August of 1982, where clearly-marked schools and hospitals
were
deliberately firebombed by the Israeli air force, went almost completely
unnoticed in August of 1992.
Anniversaries of Jewish communist slaughters of Christians and non-Jews in
Russia, are almost never marked by the world media.
{More anti-Semitic pavlum. An echo of Nazi Germany's propaganda which
made of communism a Jewish
movement in service of the interests of world Jewry. Hoffman is a Nazi in
spirit. I wonder if he practices
goose-step marching in his living room, and if he masterbates to phots of
Hitler.}
Readers may wish to contrast how the media treats the forthcoming 50th
anniversary of the mass murder of some 100,000 women and children in the
undefended city of Dresden, Germany by Allied air force firebombs this
coming
Feb. 13 and 14, 1995 with the Auschwitz hoopla transpiring now.
{Yes, indeed. The media did a lot on the dreadful Dresden bombing,
including debates on talk shows,
etc.}
Publicity for the Dresden inferno will not consist of 1/100th the
intensity of
the attention given Auschwitz and what publicity for Dresden is given will
be
carefully placed >>in the context<< of what the Germans had allegedly done
to
the Allies.
But where is the context for Auschwitz given?Where are we told what the
communist Jews had done to Russia and Eastern Europe that made the Germans
fear
and hate them?Where is the context for Auschwitz when we are denied the
information about American-Jewish strategist Theodore Kaufman who called
for the
genocide of the German nation? This Auschwitz context is missing. It will
only
be supplied for Dresden.
{Again the "communist Jews" The man is an anti-Semite in every sense of
the word. The fact that Jews
and Judaism was severely repressed by the Soviet Union doesn't seem to
enter this Neanderthal's thick
skull.}
Now you know why the Western corporate media is execrated, not only by the
people of Palestine, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt and Iran but also by the people
in
the belly of the beast.
{Yes, we know why. Die Juden! The Jews! yes, we mustn't forget what
Hitler said, should we Herr
Hoffman: Die Juden is unser ungluck." The Jews are our misfortune. You
are a Nazi slime-bag, Herr
Hoffman.}
--Michael A. Hoffman II
(hoffm...@delphi.com).
Editor:Revisionist Researcher Magazine. Current issue U.S. $6.00. Book,
Tape
and sticker catalog U.S.$3 (Both for U.S.$7.00)
from:Wiswell Ruffin House, POBox 236, Dresden, New York 14441 U.S.A.
YitzhakS
Holocaust revisionist and anti-Semite. This has brought the discussion in
this newsgroup to a new low. Apox on your house.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////
>Wow!
It seems that someone stirred up the beehive.
After reading the article that initiated this controversy and reading
responses to it, I would have to say that Hoffamn has a point.
The negative response he has gotten seem to be knee jerk reactions to the
Holocaust, by most whom I would assume are of Jewish heritage, without
realizing what Hoffman is trying to say.
Let me take a crack at it. Is he trying to say that there is dark irony
that a race whose existence nearly came to an end due to psychotic
government policy and racism, are generations later practicing similar
tactics on another race "thinking" it will preserve their own.
From what I have seen and read about the events in that region, it would
seem reminiscent of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, etc. in the
late 50's - early 60's. "MY" point being that a race of people were
disenfranchised by the ruling government in their own homeland. Judged as
evil because of their race, religion or the actions of others. Why do
people think it so strange that individuals would react violently to
having there land and basic human rights taken away? I am by no means
saying that acts of terrorism are justified, but it should be expected
when oppression is policy. I would expect Americans to act the same way,
in fact we have, as oppressed and oppressors.
We all defend our own, most times. However we all must realize that no
government, race, culture is immune to the concept of "preservation by
racism" until we learn to embrace and not fear the differences of the
creatures that inhabit this tiny blue planet.
Love ya,
Seb
very powerful and to the point. Thanks Marwan
Omar M. Ramahi
za...@beauty.win-uk.net (Sumy)
Brendan D McKay
>Seb mentioned that Palestinians have been in the area for thousands of years.
>So have Jews. And many of the so-called "Palestinians" migrated to the area in
>the 20th century. Both folks have an historical claim to the area. If Seb is
>so supportive of the UN, maybe he should check out the 1948 partition plan.
>You know which country now covers 78% of land the Palestinians were given?
>Jordan.
I suggest you study some history before you bring it into your arguments.
Brendan.
Roger Froikin
writes:
>> In article <1995Feb16.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Jonathan David Byrd) writes:
>> :
>> : Israel was not formed peacefully, and I doubt that it
will
>> : remain a nation peacefully. Israel has responded to threats,
however it was
>> : a threat in and of itself first.
>> :
>> : Respectfully,
>> : Jonathan Byrd
>> :
>>
>> Mr. Byrd;
>
>I am just curious about something...can you really think of ANY
>nation that was formed in peace? I don't believe that forming a
>country violently is the right thing to do, but mankind
>has yet to find a better way. As much as I abhor the human
> rights of ANY people being violated...I also find it odd that
>Israel is "expected" to perform at a higher standard than other
>countries. I believe that concession & comprimise are the only
>order of the day..and, unfortunately, the Palestinians will do most
>of the "giving" if they are to remain where they are. It may not
>be a perfect solution for everyone, but history (unfortunately)
>bares out that there is a winner & a loser in every battle..
>
Sara,
If we are to restrict legitimacy to those nation states that were formed
without violence or coersion or takeover by some group or another, there
would be very very few legitimate nation-states in the world today.
Have we forgotten that the USA was born in conflict, for example ?
yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu
> > > Israel will survive whether the Arabs take the path to peace or not.
> >
> > and let Israeli stormtroopers beat them in front of CNN.
>
> HA! That would make my day! If that is the case, why the hell
> haven't the Arabs done so? Based on your logic, apparently the
> Arabs are just NOT interested in peace. Therefore, I am not
> interested in trying to make peace, either.
>
>
> > Next day Israeli lobbyist in D.C. will be avoided like lepers. Reason
> > being, that the U.S. people will be reminded of the instances in the
> > South, i.e. Alabama, during the Civil Rights Movement.
> > Israel will no longer have it's fictious moral highground.
> >
> > > Meet Jews on the road to peace and self-determination and we all prosper,
> > > choose war, and we all suffer.....your choice.
> >
>
> > Nope, that choice is yours my freind.
>
> Can we say, "Infantile"? Grow up, and stop trying to figure
> out whose choice it is! Deal with the situation as it is
> now...you can't change the past, you can't go back to where you
> once were (i.e. should we send African-Americans back to
> Africa--I think not.).
>
> -Heather
> >
>
> > >Seb
> --
Heather, Heather, Heather. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.
What a cheap shot. If you care to recall, I previously wrote that there
was blame for all INVOLED.
>-<There is enough blame for both Israeli and Palestinian to share.
Both need to stop thinking of just being Jew and Arab but rather ponder
on being human. Ackowledging that each coexist on the same soil, create
laws to PUNISH THOSE WHO COMMITT MURDER and not condemn an entire race,
and know that seperate is not equal.
As for wanting peace, there are other ways to attempt peace without
forming a rally. Maybe they feel it is too dangerous to be beaten by
Israali soldiers to form a peace that will not come soon after. But it is
not like the Israeli goernment will let the Palestininas have a political
gathering anyway.
However, even if the Palestinians do not want peace, does not mean that
you shouldn't?
Grow up huh? Maybe that is the problem. Why is it that children of all
races can play together without even thinking about social, racial, or
political differences while these differences seems to almost totally
occupy the minds of their parents in every aspect of life.
Later
Seb
Roger Froikin
writes:
>You know, Roger, I like the way you've managed to pick ONE point out
>of many that Nael made in the post you answered above. You take that
>one point and answer it, and then use it as evidence that this
>conference is used as "a place for Arabs to lie to each other and
>whine about the Jews." You claim to encourage discussion of solutions
>for the future, and then you ignore Nael's statements concerning
>what needs to happen in order for there to be a peaceful future. I
>guess you yourself find it easier just to whine?
>
By the way, Nael and I have continued the subject via e-mail and have
had a productive and interesting discussion. Jews and Arabs CAN
communicate and do so well.
kenley
>>In article <1995Feb19.0...@cs.rit.edu>,
>>Brendan D McKay <b...@cs.rit.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <3i4qih$1...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Efr...@ix.netcom.com (Roger Froikin) writes:
>>>>
>>>>A. The Jewish People returned at the first possible chance they had to
>>>>their homeland from which they were barred, for the most part, for a
>>>>long time.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. There have been only a few short periods during the past
>>>1800 years when Jews were barred from Palestine. Few Jews went
>>>there because few wanted to.
>>>
>>>Brendan.
>>
>>"Few Jews went there because few wanted to." Brenda (now you really deserve
>>it
>
>I like it! Kenley thinks he is punishing me by giving me a female name.
>I think it is an honour. It makes him look like a sexist twit, but
>heh, nobody's perfect.
It seemed to bother you in the past when you asked me to stop, and on other
occasions criticized my use of it. If it's an honour to you now, we'll
accept it as your new moniker, without any comment from you any more. Thanks
in advance.
>
>>because you can't hide your true beliefs) you have gone too far.
>>Outright liar that you are, calling others to recant "blood libels" while you
>>freely throw out yours.
>>
>>Let's start with the year 70 and we'll go as far as Ican get today. During
>
>Hmm, 1995 - 1800 = 70. Ok.
So, now you say you deliberately wanted to start in 195. Although I know
you're lying, why in particular 195? As you see below renewal of Jewish
life began shortly after the destruction in 70? As I've asked you
previously, why is your history so selective? If you were responding to
Roger's point that Jews returned at the first possible chance, because they
were barred, then if you
deliberately start at 195, are you agreeing with him that Jews were barred,
at least until 195? (They weren't, read carefully below)
In any case starting with 70 is the only logical place to start the history
of non-Jewish ruled Israel.
*************************
I should again remind you, Brenda, that you don't read carefully and when
you respond you look very, very foolish. I began this whole history lesson
because of your libel that "Few Jews went there because few wanted to".
I said this very clearly, and you should re-read the above.
Since you said this, it is the most relevant part of this thread, and was what
stirred me to write this long post, which I have not finished (I only got to
the fifth century). I was not responding to the "barred" point, but your
libel. As you can see below, Jews, so far, were not "barred" as such.
You seemed to have missed the whole point (not surprising, since I'm afraid
if you absorb too much information at one time which contradicts your bias,
your head might burst). The point is that Jews did return when they could,
but when anti-Jewish edicts and persecutions and pogroms befell them, how
could they return? When famine swept the land, Jews left, not came. Do you
blame them? This is not because they did not want to, they always wanted to.
This has been the Jewish dream since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Your whole
answer to my post is so off-base, I really hope you do take the time to
re-read it. I almost feel sorry for you, as you appear so desperately
pathetic. I also hope you retract your libel, the main point of my post, as
that smears the Jewish people. I know you're anti-Zionist, but don't go
further than that.
*************************
>Careful Kenley, your undies are showing. Better stick to your quotes.
Careful of what? Your selective historical posts?
You, when clearly caught in lies, run away and say you have no time
to respond. Aside
from that being a lie, you lose more and more credibility with each post.
I, on the other hand, stand behind what I say.
>
>>The authorities confiscated land on an extensive scale on the strength of
>>martial law or of offences against these new decrees, such as circumcision.
>>Large tracts of land lay waste, their owners having been taken captive or
>>compelled to flee. The Jews in the country underwent a harsh period of
>>persecution.
>>
>>The first signs of recovery of communal life appeared in the Galilee.
>>A period of political and economic growth came to the Jews of Erez Israel
>>under the Severan emperors (193-235). Emigration from Erez Israel was now
>>replaced by immigration from the Diaspora, among the immigrants being
>
>Time to recall what you are replying to: "the past 1800 years".
>Hmmm, 1995 - 1800 = 195. Closer. Too bad all your typing so far
>refers to a time period I intentionally did not include in my claim.
>
See above.
>>people with expert knowledge, initiative, and money, who developed new
>>branches of the economy, such as flax-growing and of agricultural industry,
>>such as the manufacture of clothes and dyeing. Then a period of anarchy
>>swept the Roman Empire (235-289) and Jewish Erez Israel suffered in
>>particular. There was no religious persecution at the time, however the
>>rural population suffered greatly from economic hardship, from taxation, and
>>from oppression at the hands of soldiers, and since the economy of Jewish
>>Erez Israel was largely agricultural, the Jews were affected more than the
>>non-Jewish population. During this period, too, the country suffered from
>>privation and an extremely severe famine. Emigration naturally increased, and
>>although there was also a considerable immigration to Erez Israel, it was
>>not large enough to balance the number of thos leaving the country.
>
>Like I said, they were NOT BARRED. Try to respond to what I write,
>not to what your feeble mind imagines I think.
See above. CAREFULLY REREAD ABOVE.
>
>>Stability returned to the imperial regime, but along with it emerged a new
>>force in the world: Christianity, commencing with Constantine's recognition
>>of the Christian religion (313). Hitherto the Jews had struggled culturally
>>against a pagan world, which by its very nature acknowledged the existence
>>of national religions. Christianity, which within a short period becme the
>>imperial religion (explaining its size today), did not recognize or tolerate
>>other religions (as other monothiestic religions do), and in this displayed
>>a greater bigotry and inflexibility than Judaism. The hostile attitude to
>>Judaism was expressed in the emperors' anti-Jewish legislation with is
>>insulting language , and in the attacks of fanatics on Jews and their
>>institutions. After Julian the Apostate's death in 363, the Christians
>>began to attack Jewish settlements in the south, and Christian sources
>>report the destruction "in the south of 21 cities of pagans, Jews and
>>Samaritans, who had had a share in Julian the Apostate's sin". Under
>
>Does your source mention that many of these Christians were converted
>Jews? Not that it makes these crimes less horrendous, but it sheds some
>light on the balance of the text you are quoting.
>
Are you saying the text I am quoting is not balanced? Please expand.
Maybe, horror of horrors, you are of Jewish descent somewhere along the
line, does that make a difference to the smears you are posting? I would
like to know the background of your personal
interest in this topic, which you will remain silent on, THAT would really
shed some light on the balance of your posts.
>>Theodosius I until the abolition of the office of the nasi, (379 to 428)
>>there was intensified anti-Jewish legislation which assigned and inferior
>>status to Judaism and the Jews. From 419 to 422, a monk Bar Sauma of
>>Nisibis, along with his band of Jewish hating followers, passed through Erez
>>Israel destroying synagogues, murdering and plundering. Henceforward it was
>>not the Jews alone who sought to have possession of Erez Israel, but
>>Christians too, who established many congregations in the country. In
>>short, it was not safe to be Jewish in Erez Israel at the time, and those
>>brave enough to remain there suffered greatly.
>>
>>This is a brief history until the mid-fifth century. To be continued ...
>
>There have been many hardships and persecutions suffered by Jews
>in Palestine over the past centuries. Is that your point? Since
YOUR LIBEL, MCKAY, YOUR LIBEL.
>I have posted examples myself, you are pretty silly (to be kind)
>to imagine I deny it. Alas for your "rebuttal", it is irrelevant
>to the thread. Roger made two specific claims:
>
>1. Jews were BARRED from Palestine.
>2. They returned at the first opportunity.
>
>I believe both claims are false. You can't proved "barred" by proving
>"discouraged". On point 2, the idea of returning en masse to Palestine
>before the coming of the Messiah was an unusual one until the 19th century.
An outright lie.
>You can find some limited exceptions to both, but my general point stands.
>
SEE ABOVE. VERY CAREFULLY BRENDA. YOUR LIBEL, MCKAY, YOUR LIBEL.
>>Brenda ("few Jews went there because few wanted too"), you little shit,
>>truth means nothing to you, but this is to educate the readers - you are
>>a lost cause.
>
>Have a nice day, Kenley.
>
>Brendan.
Have a nice day.
K. Sperry
P.S. Look seven written lines above this one. Read carefully, must I keep
on reminding you. This happened on our very first exchange, and you still
are not reading carefully.
P.P.S. I apologize to readers of my first long post here for all the
missing letters in words that appeared, I was tired, and don't have a spell
checker.
Ron Blum
>By the way, Nael and I have continued the subject via e-mail and have
>had a productive and interesting discussion. Jews and Arabs CAN
>communicate and do so well.
Congradulations! :)
Ron (who, for once, is being sincere and not sarcastic)
Roger Froikin
writes:
>>Brendan, you're wrong. Jews faced being barred, being massacred, or
>>being (during the few times they were tolerated there) being taxed at
>>several times the rates applied to gentiles (during most of the 1800's
>>the tax often exceeded income, making the Jewish communities dependant
>>on fund raising in Europe for their existance.
>
>I never said they were well treated. I said they weren't barred.
>
Any rational person would agree that being massacred for trying to
settle, or being taxed at 200 % what one earns so one cannot make a
living, is pretty much being barred from an area.
I'm sure if the Israelis would tax the Arabs at 200 % of what they
produce, you would be the first to accuse Israel of driving Arabs out.
Jonathan David Byrd
> Israel is America's ONLY ally in the middle east.
>> >The arab nations don't particularly like America too much. I'm
>> >glad israel is protecting my American interests in the MIddle East.
>>
>> >--Heather
>> >--
>>
>>
>> Heather,
>>
>> Have you not heard of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Bahrain.
>> These countries are our friends and allies. They also do not sit
>> around and beg for money with their mouths full-unlike some countries
>> in the Middle East.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Jonathan Byrd
>>
>Give me a break Jonathan. Are these the same Arab countries who held America
>hostage with the oil weapon in the 70's? The same Arab countries that
>supported International Terrorism financially for over 30 years, just to save
>their own asses. Who denied the Palestinians ANY kind of life for 50 years
>just to keep the pressure on? Was it Israel that kicked out ALL of it's
>Palestinian population after the gulf war ala Kuwait?
>The reason Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain etc are allies of the US is purely a
>matter of survival...without the US buying their oil and protecting their
>butts (How much did the Gulf War cost?) there wouldn't be a Saudi Arabia, a
>Kuwait, a Bahrain.
Sounds like the only reason Israel is allied with the US is so that
we can save their butts. The Israelis buy the same oil that we do, how do
you think you gas up the trucks to go and kill Palestinians. Or to drive to
Hebron and massacre innocent people. That is also the same oil btw that
Palestinians use to commit their acts of terror, so as not to sound to
partisan. Saudi Arabia was there before we bought their oil. The best part
is that they are not walking around with their hand out, poor-mouthing the
US, for more funds like some countries in particular.
>So take your stupid, no nothing Israel Bashing somewhere else. Or at least
>wait until you get out of your diapers, learn to walk and think for yourself.
>Learn something (that is why you're in school, isn't it) then come back with
>some facts before you offer up rehashed bs.
>Respectfully (full sarcasm mode)
>Harold Frydman
Poor Harold. Why must he impugn me and belittle me? Does anyone on
the wonderful NET know why a Jew can be so racist and bigoted and mean
spirited. I thought that was beyond them, the down-trodded race. Why
should I come back with facts I ask Harold? He has offered me none. Just a
bunch of stupid, no nothing student bashing with rehashed b.s. is all that
he has offered.
The facts are quite simple Harold. Those countries mentioned above
are allies of the US. Even a lightweight like yourself cannot possibly
disagree with that. Ms. Gottlieb made the incorrect statement that "Israel
is the only ally of the US in the mid-east." I just corrected her. And
then you came along and acted like a dickhead and tried to change the
subject. Poor Harold.
Disrespectfully
Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
YitzhakS
>In article <3ir82f$p...@werple.mira.net.au> mer...@werple.mira.net.au
(Morry >Sztainbok) writes:
>>The Palestinians were offered their own homeland in 1947, and very
>>clearly rejected it;
>From their point of view what they rejected was the idea of 2/3
>of their homeland being given to someone else. Btw, Israel also
>rejected the idea of a Palestinian State in 1947.
Actually, Brendan, Israel accepted UN Resolution 181 partitionaing
Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. So, in fact, Israel did
accept the two state solution in 1948 while the Arabs rejected it.
>>neither did they object to annexation by Jordan in 1949.
>How do you know? I think you are wrong about this.
>>It follows that they had no interest in their own
>>self-determination, only in Israel's destruction.
>Someone once said that if you start with false premises and argue
>illogically, you at least have a random chance of reaching a correct
>conclusion. Sorry, it didn't help you this time.
>>And clearly both of you have no concept of what Israel is about, and
>>until you develop one, all you say is hot air. Israel has NOTHING to do
>>with the Holocaust. Zionism (the movement to promote Jewish
>>self-determination in it's own national home) arose more than 50 years
>>before the Holocaust. Heather, expressed it very succintly above. The
>>right express your culture, religion, history, bond as a people in it's
>>own national homeland.
I would disagree with this only insofar as the Zionist movement's premise,
that Jews are defenseless without a nation-state, was tragically proven to
be correct. As long as Jews are everywhere a minority and nowhere a
majority, then they are vulnerable to genocide.
>I'm not going to start telling Israelis what Israel is about.
>I will just note that when one asks why Israel exists the Holocaust
>is mentioned at least 80% of the time.
Yes, Brendan, that is correct because had Israel been inexistence before
1939, there may not have been a Holocaust.
>I will also give my historical
>judgement that the international support for the creation of Israel
>in 1948 would not have been anywhere near as strong were it not for
>the Holocaust.
I agree.
>The Partition resolution would never have passed, for
>example. Israel would have declared independence sooner or later
>I guess, it is hard to say how things would have turned out.
This is a good supposition, and Brendan is right to say "it is hard to say
how things would have turned out." But, arguing what wasn't is silliness.
What was is this: Israel was founded as a safe-have for Jews suffering
persecution and the Holocaust was persecution in the extreme.
>>I don't know how it is in your country, but here in Australia, when you
>>are found in pocession of stolen property, it is confiscated and
returned
>>to its rightful owner, though this means pain and monetary loss for you.
>>In the Palestinians case, the stolen property was not even paid for, in
>>most cases. Yet the Israeli government has over the years indicated a
>>willingness to acknowledge title where property was PURCHASED in good
>>faith. Crown land, however, reverts to the State. Now, somebody wants
to
>>exchange some of this land for a real peace, let's make a deal.
>
>Discussing these things is like discussing evolution with a
>Creationist: pointless. But here is on point I can't resist.
>It seems that your argument detroys itself unless you can establish
>that most of the land thousands of years ago was PRIVATE land,
>as you yourself say that state land reverts to the state.
>Brendan.
We should discuss how much Israel owes the Palestinians in property in
context of how much the Arab governments owe the Jews they evicted after
1948. Perhaps some kind of exchange in the final agreement between Israel
and the Arab world?
Yitzhak Santis
Yitzhak Santis
Morry Sztainbok
<yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> > > Israel will survive whether the Arabs take the path to peace or not.
>> >
>> > Yeah right. All the Arabs have to do is hold one, just one peace rally
>> > and let Israeli stormtroopers beat them in front of CNN.
>>
>> HA! That would make my day! If that is the case, why the hell
>> haven't the Arabs done so? Based on your logic, apparently the
>> Arabs are just NOT interested in peace. Therefore, I am not
>> interested in trying to make peace, either.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >Seb
>> --
>
>Heather, Heather, Heather. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.
>
>
>As for wanting peace, there are other ways to attempt peace without
>forming a rally. Maybe they feel it is too dangerous to be beaten by
>Israali soldiers to form a peace that will not come soon after. But it is
>not like the Israeli goernment will let the Palestininas have a political
>gathering anyway.
What world have you been living in??? The Intefada represents two years
in which the Palestinians demonstrated very convincingly that they are
not at all shy of very violent demonstration......none of it (as in not a
single demonstration) for peace.
>However, even if the Palestinians do not want peace, does not mean that
>you shouldn't?
True, but it takes two to tango. Wanting (which Israel has demonstrated
since before its creation, as well as in its formal "charter", as opposed
to the Palestinian Charter, which still calls for Israel's destruction)
is not achieving.
>
>Grow up huh? Maybe that is the problem. Why is it that children of all
>races can play together without even thinking about social, racial, or
>political differences while these differences seems to almost totally
>occupy the minds of their parents in every aspect of life.
Ask Hamas. Arab and Jew working side by side as equal citizens in Israel
has proved Jewish goodwill.
>
>Later
>
>Seb
Morry
Brendan D McKay
> b...@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay) wrote:
>>In article <3ir82f$p...@werple.mira.net.au> mer...@werple.mira.net.au
>(Morry >Sztainbok) writes:
>>>The Palestinians were offered their own homeland in 1947, and very
>>>clearly rejected it;
>
>>From their point of view what they rejected was the idea of 2/3
>>of their homeland being given to someone else. Btw, Israel also
>>rejected the idea of a Palestinian State in 1947.
>
>Actually, Brendan, Israel accepted UN Resolution 181 partitionaing
>Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. So, in fact, Israel did
>accept the two state solution in 1948 while the Arabs rejected it.
Israel officially accepted 181, and might have accepted it in
practice in some circumstances, but it is well known that the
Jewish Agency was very much against the idea of a neighbouring
Palestinian State, especially one lead by the former Grand Mufti.
That was an important feature of their contacts with Abdullah,
who was also determined to prevent a Palestinian State from arising.
It must also be remembered that large parts of the "Arab State" as
defined by the UN was already in Israeli hands before the invasion
of the Arab States. Were they planning to hand it back? I doubt it.
>>>neither did they object to annexation by Jordan in 1949.
>
>>How do you know? I think you are wrong about this.
>
>>>It follows that they had no interest in their own
>>>self-determination, only in Israel's destruction.
>
>>Someone once said that if you start with false premises and argue
>>illogically, you at least have a random chance of reaching a correct
>>conclusion. Sorry, it didn't help you this time.
>
>>>And clearly both of you have no concept of what Israel is about, and
>>>until you develop one, all you say is hot air. Israel has NOTHING to do
>
>>>with the Holocaust. Zionism (the movement to promote Jewish
>>>self-determination in it's own national home) arose more than 50 years
>>>before the Holocaust. Heather, expressed it very succintly above. The
>>>right express your culture, religion, history, bond as a people in it's
>>>own national homeland.
>
>I would disagree with this only insofar as the Zionist movement's premise,
>that Jews are defenseless without a nation-state, was tragically proven to
>be correct. As long as Jews are everywhere a minority and nowhere a
>majority, then they are vulnerable to genocide.
>
>>I'm not going to start telling Israelis what Israel is about.
>>I will just note that when one asks why Israel exists the Holocaust
>>is mentioned at least 80% of the time.
>
>Yes, Brendan, that is correct because had Israel been inexistence before
>1939, there may not have been a Holocaust.
Or a greatly reduced one; that is probably true.
>[..some things deleted..]
>We should discuss how much Israel owes the Palestinians in property in
>context of how much the Arab governments owe the Jews they evicted after
>1948. Perhaps some kind of exchange in the final agreement between Israel
>and the Arab world?
I deny they are similar, but both cases for compensation are genuine.
Unfortunately the most likely final agreement would be to "forgive" both
debts, leaving the Palestinians with nothing as usual.
>Yitzhak Santis
>Yitzhak Santis
Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder :-)?
Brendan.
Roger Froikin
writes:
We should discuss how much Israel owes the Palestinians in property in
>>context of how much the Arab governments owe the Jews they evicted
after
>>1948. Perhaps some kind of exchange in the final agreement between
Israel
>>and the Arab world?
>
>I deny they are similar, but both cases for compensation are genuine.
>Unfortunately the most likely final agreement would be to "forgive"
both
>debts, leaving the Palestinians with nothing as usual.
>
I would also deny they are similar. Jews were expelled and their
property and businesses seized by Arab Governments who considered
themselves "at war" with Israel. They took action against Jews, for
being Jews.
In contrast, Arabs who left what was to become Israel did so as a people
taking sides with a combatant and taking action in a war to indicate
loyalty to one side or another.
There is a difference.
I have a question for you Brendan.
You comment that in a settlement, where both cases for compensation are
genuine, the most likely result would be to "forgive" the debt in favor
of the status quo. I agree. Why, though, do you comment only that the
Palestinian Arabs will be left with nothing ? What about the Jews who
lost everything just because they were Jews living under Arab rule ?
Don't you feel sorry for them as well ? 1.34 million Jewish refugees
from Arab countries, leaving everything behind don't count while 600,000
Arab refugees do ? Interesting.
YitzhakS
(YitzhakS) writes:
>>[..some things deleted..]
>>We should discuss how much Israel owes the Palestinians in property in
>>context of how much the Arab governments owe the Jews they evicted after
>>1948. Perhaps some kind of exchange in the final agreement between
Israel
>>and the Arab world?
>
>I deny they are similar, but both cases for compensation are genuine.
>Unfortunately the most likely final agreement would be to "forgive" both
>debts, leaving the Palestinians with nothing as usual.
>
>>Yitzhak Santis
>>Yitzhak Santis
>Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder :-)?
>Brendan.
As for my personality, let's leave both of them out of this discussion!
:-)
To answer your assertion that the Palestinians would be left with "nothing
as usual" I would disagree. If the peace process can be concluded
successfully, the Palestinians will have more than at any time in their
history: namely a state, a passport, their own government, and their own
politicians they can complain about. Even if most of the 1948 refugees
and their descendents do not "return" they still would have, finally, the
self-esteem that comes with a passport and country they can call their
own. Furthermore, I'm not so certain that the two refugee populations
(Jewish and Palestinian) would settle for a mere forgiveness of debts
owed. Somehow I think money will exchange hands. How the Palestinians'
leadership will handle the funds is an internal debate among Palestinians.
But, I wouldn't be so pessimistic or sardonic as to declare the
Palestinians will be left with nothing "as usual." That sounds almost
like a slogan of the Islamicists. Arafat & Co. could probably argue more
eloquently this position than I, however. Anybody know Arafat's e-mail
address?
Yitzhak Santis
Yitzhak Santis
Morry Sztainbok
<yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu> wrote:
>their govenment and therefore in opinion should not suffer it. My
>position is to deal with the current atmosphere of Israel and coexist with
>the Palestinians.
That's what positive discussion is made of. Hear, hear.
>
>Second. Some in this discussion say that Palestinians already do live
>with the same rights and privileges as an Israeli citizen. I find that
>hard to believe when the governing body is distrusful of every
>Palestinian, my proof is the curfew put on Palestinian citizens and
>enforced by soldiers. I am also curious as to why no Palestinians have
>responded in support of Israel if they enjoy the freedom of a democracy.
>I would assume that the Palestinians who do enjoy these rights and
>privileges would like to keep it that way and therefore speak out in
>defense of Israel. But they are silent. Why?
That there is distrust has already been stated. Also that it is both
logical and reasonable, and would that it wasn't necessary. As to why
there is no great groundswell of support from Arab Israeli ctizens, this
should have been just as obvious. They ARE Palestinian. Nobody takes up a
cause against their own, especially in this atmosphere, where working for
Israelis has represented a death warrant for many Gazans and West Bankers.
On the other hand you don't have great anti Israeli demonstrations, nor
condemnations from any civil liberties groups viv a vis Israeli Arabs.
Arab citizens of Israel are free to demonstrate (peacefully) if they so
desire. They ARE citizens of a democracy with all the rights that
entails. In addition to this their Arab cultural aspirations (schools, TV
programming etc) are subsidised by the government. If you have any
problems here, as you seem to, ask somebody who has visited Israel.
>
>Third. I feel that Israel is a superpower due to its intimate
>relationship with the US governemnt. I also feel that Israel is dangerous
Then Saudi Arabia and Egypt are too. But bigger (in both area area and
population) many times over.
>to itself and the Middle East because of its nuclear capability and the
>volatile region it exists in. I believe weapons of that nature should not
>be in the hands of a government that in my opinion would have no fear in
>using them. However I feel that way about every country that has this
>much destructive capability.
Israel has already offered to dispose of any nuclear capability when it
has peace with all it's neighbours including Iran. When speaking about
such a tiny entity (the size of a large Texan ranch) against such
overwhelming odds (most of the Arab world still considers itself in a
state of war with Israel), the lack of deterence would be a death sentence.
The path to disarmament lies not through Israel. Convince her neighbours
to acccept Israel's existence in peace, and clearly disarmament will follow.
>Maybe all the Middle East needs is some rain,
It would help.
>
>Seb
Morry
Morry Sztainbok
YitzhakS <yitz...@aol.com> wrote:
> b...@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay) wrote:
>>In article <3ir82f$p...@werple.mira.net.au> mer...@werple.mira.net.au
>(Morry >Sztainbok) writes:
>>>The Palestinians were offered their own homeland in 1947, and very
>>>clearly rejected it;
>
>>From their point of view what they rejected was the idea of 2/3
>>of their homeland being given to someone else. Btw, Israel also
>>rejected the idea of a Palestinian State in 1947.
>
>Actually, Brendan, Israel accepted UN Resolution 181 partitionaing
>Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. So, in fact, Israel did
>accept the two state solution in 1948 while the Arabs rejected it.
>
>>>neither did they object to annexation by Jordan in 1949.
>
>>How do you know? I think you are wrong about this.
know that the Population of the West Bank paid taxes and had their own
representatives, proportional to population, in the Jordanian parliament.
We know of no separatist movement existing at the time. This is quite
convincing to me. Also, the PLO, the SOLE representative of the
Palestinian people was attacking Israel, not Jordan (please don't cite
the 69-70 PLO-Jordan confrontation as this was post 67, and therefore not
relevant as Jordan could no longer be perceived as an occupier, rather it
is a substantial argument for Jordan is Palestine).
>
>>>It follows that they had no interest in their own
>>>self-determination, only in Israel's destruction.
>
>>Someone once said that if you start with false premises and argue
>>illogically, you at least have a random chance of reaching a correct
>>conclusion. Sorry, it didn't help you this time.
Then how do you explain the fact that the Palestine LIBERATION
organization was trying to liberate the 1/5 of the area known as
Palestine from the Jews while totally ignoring the 4/5 )almost 1/5
supposedly "occupied") in Jordanian hands? Also how do you explain
Palestinian satisfaction(apparent) at being Jordanian citizens?
>
>>>And clearly both of you have no concept of what Israel is about, and
>>>until you develop one, all you say is hot air. Israel has NOTHING to do
>
>>>with the Holocaust. Zionism (the movement to promote Jewish
>>>self-determination in it's own national home) arose more than 50 years
>>>before the Holocaust. Heather, expressed it very succintly above. The
>>>right express your culture, religion, history, bond as a people in it's
>>>own national homeland.
>
>I would disagree with this only insofar as the Zionist movement's premise,
>that Jews are defenseless without a nation-state, was tragically proven to
>be correct. As long as Jews are everywhere a minority and nowhere a
>majority, then they are vulnerable to genocide.
This was Herzl's view, and obviously shared by many in the Zionist
movement. But it is only one facet of a multifacetted ideology that
incorporates religion, messianism, history......you name it (delinitely a
big facet, especially in post-Holocaust times).
>
>>I'm not going to start telling Israelis what Israel is about.
>>I will just note that when one asks why Israel exists the Holocaust
>>is mentioned at least 80% of the time.
>
>Yes, Brendan, that is correct because had Israel been inexistence before
>1939, there may not have been a Holocaust.
>
>>I will also give my historical
>>judgement that the international support for the creation of Israel
>>in 1948 would not have been anywhere near as strong were it not for
>>the Holocaust.
>
>I agree.
So do I.
>
>>The Partition resolution would never have passed, for
>>example. Israel would have declared independence sooner or later
>>I guess, it is hard to say how things would have turned out.
Also has a very high probability of being right.
>
>This is a good supposition, and Brendan is right to say "it is hard to say
>how things would have turned out." But, arguing what wasn't is silliness.
> What was is this: Israel was founded as a safe-have for Jews suffering
>persecution and the Holocaust was persecution in the extreme.
>
>>>I don't know how it is in your country, but here in Australia, when you
>>>are found in pocession of stolen property, it is confiscated and
>returned
>>>to its rightful owner, though this means pain and monetary loss for you.
>
>>>In the Palestinians case, the stolen property was not even paid for, in
>>>most cases. Yet the Israeli government has over the years indicated a
>>>willingness to acknowledge title where property was PURCHASED in good
>>>faith. Crown land, however, reverts to the State. Now, somebody wants
>to
>>>exchange some of this land for a real peace, let's make a deal.
>>
>>Discussing these things is like discussing evolution with a
>>Creationist: pointless. But here is on point I can't resist.
>>It seems that your argument detroys itself unless you can establish
>>that most of the land thousands of years ago was PRIVATE land,
>>as you yourself say that state land reverts to the state.
First off, it's not my argument but international law (unless I've been
misled). Neither is it contradictory. Crown land back in 70AD would have
reverted to the Romans, the then occupying power, through the Turks etc
and back to Israel today.....so where's the contradiction?
>
>>Brendan.
>
>We should discuss how much Israel owes the Palestinians in property in
>context of how much the Arab governments owe the Jews they evicted after
>1948. Perhaps some kind of exchange in the final agreement between Israel
>and the Arab world?
Strange, this was something I'd aways meant to say, but opportunity never
seemed right. In light of ME Arab culture it is, I believe the only way
it could work.
>
>Yitzhak Santis
>
>Yitzhak Santis
Morry
Brian Robert Mildenberg
: Hi,
: Thanks in advance.
I really cannot answer this question with specifics, as I am not an expert.
However, I think that the answer to this question is one oth the things that
sets Judaism apart from most other religions.
I think that Judaism is truly a now-affirming religion.
Certainly, we look forward to the coming of the Moshiach, and pray for
his return. But, during the times in which he is not here, Jews do not
pine away. They affirm life, and believe that it is imperative to live
properly in the here and the now. hence, the famous toast "L'Chaim,"
which means "to life."
I am certain that many of my more religious comrades will
disagree with me on this one, but I think that the essence of Judaism
lies in the present-- how one lives right NOW. Not in a mystical
heavenly paradise some time in the future. Judaism takes joy in the
present, in the earthly, in the material, and does not forsake it for
spiritual essence.
I don't know if I am expressing my idea properly, as it is late
at night. Does anyone understand or agree or disagree?
Shalom,
Brian
*******************************************
* Brian Mildenberg *
* 2020 F St. NW #421 *
* Washington DC 20006 *
* bri...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu *
* Student at: *
* Elliot School of International Affairs, *
* The George Washington University *
*******************************************
Brendan D McKay
>b...@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay) wrote:
>>>In article <3itj46$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> yitz...@aol.com
>(YitzhakS) writes:
>>>[..some things deleted..]
>>>We should discuss how much Israel owes the Palestinians in property in
>>>context of how much the Arab governments owe the Jews they evicted after
>>>1948. Perhaps some kind of exchange in the final agreement between
>Israel
>>>and the Arab world?
>>
>>I deny they are similar, but both cases for compensation are genuine.
>>Unfortunately the most likely final agreement would be to "forgive" both
>>debts, leaving the Palestinians with nothing as usual.
>
>as usual" I would disagree. If the peace process can be concluded
>successfully, the Palestinians will have more than at any time in their
>history: namely a state, a passport, their own government, and their own
>politicians they can complain about. Even if most of the 1948 refugees
>and their descendents do not "return" they still would have, finally, the
>self-esteem that comes with a passport and country they can call their
>own.
Yes ok, I did not intend my comment to apply to more than the limited
issue of compensation for property seized. With your more general
interprettation I tend to agree.
>Furthermore, I'm not so certain that the two refugee populations
>(Jewish and Palestinian) would settle for a mere forgiveness of debts
>owed. Somehow I think money will exchange hands. How the Palestinians'
>leadership will handle the funds is an internal debate among Palestinians.
You might be right about money changing hands, I don't feel confident
about predicting details. I think that generous support from the Arab
states to the Palestinians could "balance the books". It is a matter
of images. The Palestinians can think "we are getting the money taken
from the Jews in return for what was stolen from us" and the Israelis
can think "why should we care what the Arabs do with their money".
> But, I wouldn't be so pessimistic or sardonic as to declare the
>Palestinians will be left with nothing "as usual." That sounds almost
>like a slogan of the Islamicists. Arafat & Co. could probably argue more
>eloquently this position than I, however. Anybody know Arafat's e-mail
>address?
No, but I think my further explanationm above will show you that we
are closer to agreement than you thought.
Brendan.
Morry Sztainbok
Ronnie Braverman <ron...@wirrah.tusc.com.au> wrote:
>:In article <yazdan-2702...@smf-g6.facsmf.utexas.edu> yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu writes:
>absolutely agree: the starting point should NOT be "the Jews stole
>Israel" nor "the Arabs originally stole it from the jews" but rather
>"the Jews are here to stay, and so are the Palestinians - how are we
>going to share Israel in the most equitable. practical way?"
I'll give the benefit of the doubt and consider this an error - SHARE
ISRAEL??
>
>: Second. Some in this discussion say that Palestinians already do live
>: with the same rights and privileges as an Israeli citizen. I find that
>: hard to believe when the governing body is distrusful of every
>: Palestinian, my proof is the curfew put on Palestinian citizens and
>: enforced by soldiers. I am also curious as to why no Palestinians have
>: responded in support of Israel if they enjoy the freedom of a democracy.
>: I would assume that the Palestinians who do enjoy these rights and
>: privileges would like to keep it that way and therefore speak out in
>: defense of Israel. But they are silent. Why?
Not "the same as". The Arabs of Israel ARE Israeli citizens with all the
rights that this involves. Your belief is irrelevant to fact. They have
no fear of losing these rights because in a democracy that simply doesn't
come into the equation. There is no curfew on any Israeli citizen,
regardless of cultural affiliation.
>
>Agree. They may have the same rights in theory, but in practice, not so.
>Whether this can be justified in terms of security fears or whatever,
>is irrelevant. The vast majority of Palestinians are not terrorists
>and should not have to pay the price for their few terrorist brothers.
The Bet Lid bombing should demonstrate that there is nothing irrelevant
about it. The security of the people is any governments obligation and
Arab citizens of Israel are indeed watched more carefully. Nevertheless
they are free to do everything a Jewish citizen does whether it is to
participate in politics or demonstrations.
>They also deserve a national independant statehood.
Are we still talking about citizens of Israel? If so, they have their
state of Israel. If they desire another, they will have to move there.
>
>: Third. I feel that Israel is a superpower due to its intimate
>: relationship with the US governemnt. I also feel that Israel is dangerous
>: to itself and the Middle East because of its nuclear capability and the
>: volatile region it exists in. I believe weapons of that nature should not
>: be in the hands of a government that in my opinion would have no fear in
>: using them. However I feel that way about every country that has this
>: much destructive capability.
>:
>This one I disagree with entirely. Israel is a tiny country,
>geographically, demographically, and economically. How can a
>super power have less than 7 million people?
>
>Personally, I believe that its nuclear capablity is a strong
>pre-emptive force. There are a number of countries in the
I think you mean deterrent force.
>Middle-East whose regimes, quite frankly, border on the insane.
>If they could unleash a nuclear bomb on Israel, particularly
>via some terrorist organisation, they would not hesitate a
>second. The fact that if that happened, Israel would respond
>in force, would make them think twice.
>
>: Fourth. I sincerely believe that a greater peace is possible. Because if
>: we look close enough, we realize that our differences are really our
>: similarities.
>
>Of course. Jews and Moslems are much more similar physically
>and culturally to other religions.
>:
>: Maybe all the Middle East needs is some rain,
>:
>It needs a miracle, I think, but who knows?
>
>: Seb
>
>
>Ronnie Braverman
It needs common sense
Morry
Brendan D McKay
I noticed that a new book I started reading (Mark Tessler, A History
of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Indiana Univ Press, 1994) has
a few pages on this subject, so I'll quote a tiny bit (pags 277-278).
"Although Abdullah's ambitions were strongly supported by a class
of Palestian notables with ties to the government in Amman, the
Jordanian monarch was bitterly opposed by the Palestinian rank
and file, and also by the All-Palestine government based in Gaza.
These Palestinian critics accused Abdullah of treason and charged
that his "land-grabbing" scheme would cost them most of what little
remained of Palestine. ...
[When Abdullah was shot by a Palestinian:] In the words of the
French consul in Jerusalem at the time, 'There are 600,000 Palestinian
Arabs who are delighted with the death of Abdullah'. "
Tessler also tells of congresses of Palestinians who supported
Abdullah. Btw, I am quite impressed with this book so far. Few
authors devote so much space to each side of every important issue.
Brendan.
Brendan D McKay
>YitzhakS <yitz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> b...@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay) wrote:
>>>In article <3ir82f$p...@werple.mira.net.au> mer...@werple.mira.net.au
>>>(Morry >Sztainbok) writes:
>>>>In the Palestinians case, the stolen property was not even paid for, in
>>>>most cases. Yet the Israeli government has over the years indicated a
>>>>willingness to acknowledge title where property was PURCHASED in good
>>>>faith. Crown land, however, reverts to the State. Now, somebody wants
>>to
>>>>exchange some of this land for a real peace, let's make a deal.
>>>
>>>Discussing these things is like discussing evolution with a
>>>Creationist: pointless. But here is on point I can't resist.
>>>It seems that your argument detroys itself unless you can establish
>>>that most of the land thousands of years ago was PRIVATE land,
>>>as you yourself say that state land reverts to the state.
>First off, it's not my argument but international law (unless I've been
>misled). Neither is it contradictory. Crown land back in 70AD would have
>reverted to the Romans, the then occupying power, through the Turks etc
>and back to Israel today.....so where's the contradiction?
Because to show some land that you consider "stolen" was in
fact still owned by you, you would need to show that it had
been private land in 70AD, or else it had been state land then
and did not become private under the laws of any of the
administrations since then. If it had been private land
in 70AD you would need to show that the original owners had
not relinquished it to the state by voluntary abandonment or
death without legal heirs, nor was the land seized legally
by the state (possible under some circumstances in almost
all states).
The problem is that most good areas of land have been in a
succession of hands, public and private, over the centuries.
There are plenty of legal ways for land to change from public
to private and back again. Frankly I doubt that more than
some very small places can be traced back to 70AD wrt their
ownership, other than maybe the worst of the Negev. Not only
that but the definition of "state land" is not at all clear.
What about land owned jointly by villages? What about urban
land held by communities rather than individuals? (A good
part of the Jewish sector of Jerusalam was like that.) What
about land held for generations without any formal title
(like most of the land in the whole world 1000 years ago)?
What about land held from the state under perpetual lease
(lots of that under the Ottomans)?
The British had a special court for classifying land, but in
20 years work they only managed about 20% of Palestine.
It isn't so easy.
Brendan.
yaz...@weiss.che.utexas.edu
s...@summit.novell.com ("Krieger S.M.") wrote:
re:
How many times must this be answered before the anti-Semites keep trying
to poison people's minds with this crap?
>Well our ally sank a U.S. Naval vessel I believe in 1978, I guess with the
>best intentions and upmost respect form American values and interests.
It was 1967, during the Six Day War, and the Liberty wasn't sunk, but it
was damaged. And the reason it happened, as has been explained numerous
times on the Internet, is that, through the U.S. Embassy, the U.S. denied
there was an American ship in the area, so when there was an explosion
near El Arish, which initially appeared to be a shelling of Israeli
positions there, the logical conclusion was that the "Egyptian" ship was
flying false colors.
--
All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
Stanley M Krieger if related to my employment or company's
products, are my own.
Wrong.
Wrong for two reasons. Make that three.
1. Wrong to call me an anti-semite. Jerk!
2. Wrong to take my sentence out of context and not posting what it was
responding to. I was responding to this:
> Hey you want to rely on them, be my guest. Because most nations go with
> self-interest, the wise choice of ally is the one who share's the most
> out of your pool of interests and values. I think your rejection of a
> democratic Israel whose Basic Law mirrors your own constitution, for
> autocratic theocracies and tyrannies, says everything about your
> prejudices.....
Which was written by Morry. I t was merely to point out that Israel does
not always act in U.S. favor.
3. Wrong about the facts of that incident. I will do more indepth
research to further prove my point.
Be waiting.
P.S. The only crap is the truth that you don't want heard.
Roger Froikin
Ron Feigen
>debts, leaving the Palestinians with nothing as usual.
>
How many billions have sponsor countries pledged to help build a
palastinean nation? Is that nothing?
Morry Sztainbok
YitzhakS <yitz...@aol.com> wrote:
>Shame on all of you below for voicing support for Herr Hoffman, a
>Holocaust revisionist and anti-Semite. This has brought the discussion in
>this newsgroup to a new low. Apox on your house.
>//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>/////////
>>Wow!
>
>It seems that someone stirred up the beehive.
>
>After reading the article that initiated this controversy and reading
>responses to it, I would have to say that Hoffamn has a point.
>
>The negative response he has gotten seem to be knee jerk reactions to the
>Holocaust, by most whom I would assume are of Jewish heritage, without
>realizing what Hoffman is trying to say.
makes him a self-confessed slanderer. In people like myself, who grew up
without benefit of Grandparents(3), aunts and uncles(10), and who knows
how many cousins (I couldn't even conceptualise what these relationships
could mean), those of Hoffman's ilk generate anger. Those who take it a
step further, and try to compare the same level of crowd control as is
practised in most other countries to the attrocities of the Holocaust,
are clearly incorrigible. Where exactly do you rate Assad's mas murder in
Hama, the Saudi machinegunning of 400 Iranian demonstrators in Mecca, Or
the Sudanes genocide of their Christan minority now?
>
>Let me take a crack at it. Is he trying to say that there is dark irony
>that a race whose existence nearly came to an end due to psychotic
>government policy and racism, are generations later practicing similar
>tactics on another race "thinking" it will preserve their own.
Clearly you don't read the postings here. The mere fact that over one
million "Palestinians" live as equal citizens in the State of Israel puts
the lie to any accusations of racism or parallels with Nazi Germany. The
fact that you are prepared to continue that line of argument, despite
this, is extremely suspect.
>
>From what I have seen and read about the events in that region, it would
>seem reminiscent of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, etc. in the
>late 50's - early 60's.
Alabama etc were bubkes compared to the Holocaust. Only sheer ignorance
or spite could make such a comparison.
>"MY" point being that a race of people were
>disenfranchised by the ruling government in their own homeland.
Clearly untrue as thes people ARE treated as free and equal citizens,
with the same voting right and parliamentary representation as all
others.(If you are referring to the West Bank/Gaza then what you say is
total distortion, as we are considering a state of occupation, with the
onus of keeping law and order per international convention......a totally
different situation. The Israeli government has no obligations to THESE
Palestinians,beyond the basic conventions, unlike her own citizens. To
say that they are disenfanchised because they cannot vote in Israeli
elections is ludicrous).
>Judged as
>evil because of their race, religion or the actions of others.
Wrong again. They are not judged as evil (except by a fringe minority) they
are (quite correctly) judged as a high security risk, which they have
proved themselves to be time after time. As they don't wear a "Hamas"
label on their foreheads, and it is therefore impossible to
differentiate, they are all treated as a security risk, because of the
actions of a relatively large percentage amongst them.
> Why do
>people think it so strange that individuals would react violently to
>having there land and basic human rights taken away?
Exactly which basic human rights? And the land? Those who paid for land
kept it, those who didn't, but merely squatted, lost what was never theirs.
They are angry because of this? I can understand that. So are tenants
evicted by landlords. They are right? No.
> I am by no means
>saying that acts of terrorism are justified, but it should be expected
>when oppression is policy. I would expect Americans to act the same way,
>in fact we have, as oppressed and oppressors.
This undoubtedly emphasises the danger of comparing apples with oranges.
So far Israel does as the Nazis and as the racists of the deep South though
the two are so different to each other, and so totally opposed to Israel
today.
>
>We all defend our own, most times. However we all must realize that no
>government, race, culture is immune to the concept of "preservation by
>racism" until we learn to embrace and not fear the differences of the
>creatures that inhabit this tiny blue planet.
This appears to be EXACTLY what Israel has done. Giving their "palestinian"
citizens an equal vote, constitutional equality, cultural independance
in their own schools and Mosques where they so desire, as well as their
own TV programming, watched throughout the ME because of its quality (not
to mention government subsidised) on which they take full advantage to
criticise government policy, with the immunity inherent in the Basic law.
All this is as it should be.
>
>Love ya,
>
>Seb
You have either been RADICALLY misled or .... who knows. The media have
definitely distorted all perspectives of the ME vis a vis Israel, and
perhaps you are one of those poor sods who believes them. They do have a
lot to answer for.
>
>
>very powerful and to the point. Thanks Marwan
>
>
>Omar M. Ramahi
>
>za...@beauty.win-uk.net (Sumy)
>
>WHAT IS HAPPENING IN HEBRON TODAY IS SIMILAR TO AN AUCHWITZ. ARABS
>ARE NOT TREATED BADLY BY THE ISRAELISBECAUSE THEY ARE HOSTILE TO
>THEM BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE ARABS. ARABS ARE LIKE EVERYBODY
>ELSE. WE ARE ALL PART OF THE HUMAN RACE BUT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
>HAS APPLIED THE TREATMENT THEY GOT FROM THE NAZIS TO THE
>PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. WHAT DO YOU THEIR ATTITUDE??? I WONDER WHAT
>CAN THEIR BEHAVIOUR BE TITLED LATER IN THE HISTORY BOOKS. MOST>
>PROBABLY IT WILL BE THAT THE ISRAELIS USED THE NAZI METHODS TO
>QUELL THE ARABS. NOT VERY NICE IS IT.
Had Israelis used "Nazi methods" there would today not be one Arab in
either Israel or the areas. Israelis don't even use the relatively
benign "Arab methods" of machinegunning all demonstrations (Mecca, Egypt)
and obliterating centres of dissent (Hama in Syria, Jordan vs the PLO).
Starving people, selecting them based on race (with third generation
ancestry), killing them efficiently whilst utilizing their hair, skin and
fat in products....need I go on.....are Nazi tactics. Do not confuse this
with Israeli security measures which are less stringent than those in
Arab countries.
This is no "knee-jerk" response, only very justifiable outrage at
extremely viscious slander.
Morry
Morry Sztainbok
>>YitzhakS <yitz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> b...@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay) wrote:
>>>>In article <3ir82f$p...@werple.mira.net.au> mer...@werple.mira.net.au
>>>(Morry >Sztainbok) writes:
>>>>>The Palestinians were offered their own homeland in 1947, and very
>>>>>clearly rejected it;
>>>
>>>>From their point of view what they rejected was the idea of 2/3
>>>>of their homeland being given to someone else. Btw, Israel also
>>>>rejected the idea of a Palestinian State in 1947.
>>>
>>>Actually, Brendan, Israel accepted UN Resolution 181 partitionaing
>>>Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. So, in fact, Israel did
>>>accept the two state solution in 1948 while the Arabs rejected it.
>>>
>>>>>neither did they object to annexation by Jordan in 1949.
>>>
>>>>How do you know? I think you are wrong about this.
>>We know that there were NO reports of intefada, or demonstrations. We
>
>assassinated Abdullah.
>
>>know that the Population of the West Bank paid taxes and had their own
>
>
>>representatives, proportional to population, in the Jordanian parliament.
>
>Israeli occupation is much less palatable in comparison.
Are we going round in circles. There are no recorded objections to
Jordanian citizens, nor any boycott of the parliamentary system. It
would be more logical to assume that with over 2/3 of Jordanians being
Palestinian, they were "home".
>>supposedly "occupied") in Jordanian hands? Also how do you explain
>>Palestinian satisfaction(apparent) at being Jordanian citizens?
>
>Because Jordan was not sitting in their homes and reaping
>their fields. Why can't you see it is totally different?
>
>I will reply to the rest of your article when I can; I am trying
>to get ready for an overseas trip.
>
>Brendan.
I deleted a bunch because the gist was so similar. The bottom line of
your argument is that there can never be peace between these two
people's. Palestinians feel dispossessed, Jews feel repossessed and there
is no meeting point.
Your argument takes no account of the desire of other ME nations to
eliminate Israel. Nor of the Islamic view that it is intolerable for
non-Muslims to occupy Muslim land or indeed to be "over" Muslims,
especially if they are of the "dhimmi". Do you not see any of this as
factors in the ME tapestry?
Morry
Ps. Successfully depressed. What now?
For whatever may have happened in the past, if the Palestinian intent, as
you seem to indicate, is to destroy us, come what may, to reclaim what they
perceive as theirs, then we must defend ourselves.
YitzhakS
>In <D54qv...@bony.com> ja...@eos.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>
>>In article <1995Mar6.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>>Jonathan David Byrd <jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>>>In <3j37lc$o...@sun.sirius.com> Harold S Frydman <fry...@ccnet.com>
writes:
>>>>Again Jonathan...please forgive me, but you like to bring up the
"fact"
>>>>that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain etc. (the so-called "moderate"
>>> A couple of nights ago on the evening news, it was reported that
all
>>>aid was paid back, not to mention that during the war, oil production
was
>
>>2 weeks ago, the US paid BNL Italy $ 400,000,000 as part payment for
>>US govt GURANTEES of loans to the govt of Iraq. This happened under
>>Secretary of Treasury and later Secretary of State James "Fuck the Jews"
>Baker III and Pres. Bush. Iraq has defaulted on $ 5.5 BILLION in loans
>>to the US. And WE THE TAXPAYERS are paying it off. That's what happens
>>when you put Texas oilmen like Bush and Baker into office.
>
> US taxpayers are paying more than that for Israels existence.
Again
>I am talking about Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.. You know, the countries
that
>are not on US international welfare doles(I know all about Egypt for
those
>thinking of trying that one).
Let's see, how many billions of dollars did the Gulf War cost the US
taxpayer? How much is the US
taxpayer being asked to forgive Jordan for its bad debts to the US for
making peace with Israel? How
many people in the US were made unemployed, homeless, poor because of the
recession and inflation
caused by the Arab oil boycott in the 1970s?
>>Don't forget that just a few weeks before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait,
>>Saddam was considered by Washington to be almost as valuable an ally
>>of the US as Saudi Arabia. Incredible, isn't it? We don't need any
>>more "moderate" friends like that...
>
> Exactly, Jake. We agree.
>
>
>>> I have never said I love Kuwait. They are a country that I have
no
>>>qualms with.
>>I wish you could say the same for Israel. Interesting...
>
> Sorry Jake, lots of qualms with Israel. Don't ask me to name
them.
>
>>>The PLO supported Saddam, not the Palestinian people per se.
>
>All those thousands of Palestineans in Israel chanting "Ya Saddam!"
>during the SCUD attacks were proud supporters of Arafat's policy,
>irrespective of how self-damaging it might be.
Don't forget all those Palestinian spokesmen in this country during the
Gulf War who were apologists for
Saddam, including Edward Said, Khalil Barhoum, et al.
> The overwhelming majority of Palestininas are supporters of
>political Hamas. However, I do not care if all Palestinians were
chanting
>"Ya Saddam" I would be too if I were them. Someone was attacking the
>oppressor Israel.
>
"Political Hamas" as you call it is a rabidly antisemitic organizaiton.
Just read its covenent which quotes
the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
>
>>>I can assure that the majority of Palestinian people do not support the
PLO.
>
>>Today. Why? Because now they are coming under a PLO govt which, it has
>>quickly become obvious, won't be very much different from any other Arab
>>regiime oppressing it's own people. Four years ago, though, PLO/Arafat
>>was king.
>
> The PLO is not liked because they slept with Israel. Nobody likes
a
>whore not to mention 2.
Sounds like to me, Mr. Byrd, you are a Hamas supporter. That is, a
neo-Nazi. Just read the Hamas
covenent. If you don't have a copy, I'd be happy to e-mail to you.
>
>
>
>>>Waiting for eminent rebuttal,
>>>Jonathan Byrd
>>That was easy. Now how about answering my questions to you from my
>>earlier postings, eh?
>
> What questions?
>
>--
>Jake Livni "How many times must the
cannonball fly
>ja...@eos.bony.com - note new address Before it's forever
banned?"
>My opinions only - employer has no opinions
>
>
>Respectfully,
>Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Yitzhak Santis
Jonathan David Byrd
>In article <1995Mar6.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>Jonathan David Byrd <jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>>In <3j37lc$o...@sun.sirius.com> Harold S Frydman <fry...@ccnet.com> writes:
>>>Again Jonathan...please forgive me, but you like to bring up the "fact"
>>>that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain etc. (the so-called "moderate"
>> A couple of nights ago on the evening news, it was reported that all
>>aid was paid back, not to mention that during the war, oil production was
>2 weeks ago, the US paid BNL Italy $ 400,000,000 as part payment for
>US govt GURANTEES of loans to the govt of Iraq. This happened under
>Secretary of Treasury and later Secretary of State James "Fuck the Jews"
>Baker III and Pres. Bush. Iraq has defaulted on $ 5.5 BILLION in loans
>to the US. And WE THE TAXPAYERS are paying it off. That's what happens
>when you put Texas oilmen like Bush and Baker into office.
US taxpayers are paying more than that for Israels existence. Again
I am talking about Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.. You know, the countries that
are not on US international welfare doles(I know all about Egypt for those
thinking of trying that one).
>Don't forget that just a few weeks before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait,
>Saddam was considered by Washington to be almost as valuable an ally
>of the US as Saudi Arabia. Incredible, isn't it? We don't need any
>more "moderate" friends like that...
Exactly, Jake. We agree.
>> I have never said I love Kuwait. They are a country that I have no
>>qualms with.
>I wish you could say the same for Israel. Interesting...
Sorry Jake, lots of qualms with Israel. Don't ask me to name them.
>>The PLO supported Saddam, not the Palestinian people per se.
>All those thousands of Palestineans in Israel chanting "Ya Saddam!"
>during the SCUD attacks were proud supporters of Arafat's policy,
>irrespective of how self-damaging it might be.
The overwhelming majority of Palestininas are supporters of
political Hamas. However, I do not care if all Palestinians were chanting
"Ya Saddam" I would be too if I were them. Someone was attacking the
oppressor Israel.
>>I can assure that the majority of Palestinian people do not support the PLO.
>Today. Why? Because now they are coming under a PLO govt which, it has
>quickly become obvious, won't be very much different from any other Arab
>regiime oppressing it's own people. Four years ago, though, PLO/Arafat
>was king.
The PLO is not liked because they slept with Israel. Nobody likes a
whore not to mention 2.
Jonathan David Byrd
>(Bullshit deleted>
>a note to Jonathan Byrd
>Of course you have no qualms with Kuwait, they're an Arab country. Arab
>countries can kill their own, this is acceptable. Arab's can expel their own,
>this is accpetable...Egypt, Morocco etc. hang fundamentalist Muslims on a
>daily basis, this is also acceptable. Don't insult me with your anti-semitic
>bullshit, ignoring everything else that goes on in the Middle East and blaming
>it all on Israel. And don't tell me that you're not anti-semitic, but anti-
>zionist...there is no difference between the two.
>Just because you have chosen to be a muslim (I'm assuming this because of your
>"new" name) doesn't mean you have to parrot the party line. Then again, come
>to think of it, it does mean exactly that.
>I have never said Israel was perfect, that Israel has not had it's share of
>mistakes (many more that I can count)...but to equate Israel with the
>terrorist, totalitarian regimes around it is crap.
This is so typical of people who are not comfortable with other
views. Why can we not disagree without calling each other names. I dislike
no one on the face of this earth because they come from a certain place or
follow a certian religion. However, it seems that my Jewish debators have
shown their hand early. I have not said anything anti-semitic because no
one i have argued with knows what the term means. I am completely
anti-Israel. The real racists on this group are Harold Frydman, Jake Livni,
Morry Saintbok(sorry for the misspelling). They constantly belittle Arabs,
and Muslims. I resent the fact that I have to defend myself against a
bunch of people who hate all Arabs and muslims. I have never said one
unkind word agianst anyone because they are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.
Again, anti-zionist is not anti-semitic. This is pathetic Harold. I am
calling it the way I see it. I will say that Israel is no different than
Hamas, Hezbollah, DFLP, etc. They crush their opposition, women, children,
men, it makes no difference. Note that I did not say that Jews crush their
opposition. Because from what I have been told, many Arabs live in former
Palestine(Israel) and they are I am quite sure, full supporters of wiping
out whole Palestinians villages. Therefore Israel is crushing their
opposition, not just the Jews or Christians, or Muslims, who live in former
Palestine.
Cries of Racism are falling on deaf ears you pathetic wussies,
Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
>Harold Frydman
>InfoWebb Communications
>1563 Leavenworth St.,
>San Francisco CA 94109
>(415) 928-6320
>fry...@infowebb.com
Jonathan David Byrd
>This is so typical of people who are not comfortable with other
>views. Why can we not disagree without calling each other names. I
>dislike no one on the face of this earth because they come from a certain
>place or follow a certian religion. However, it seems that my Jewish
>debators have shown their hand early. I have not said anything
>anti-semitic because no one i have argued with knows what the term means.
>I am completely anti-Israel. The real racists on this group are Harold
>Frydman, Jake Livni, Morry Saintbok(sorry for the misspelling). They
>constantly belittle Arabs, and Muslims. I resent the fact that I have to
>defend myself against a bunch of people who hate all Arabs and muslims. I
>have never said one unkind word agianst anyone because they are Jewish,
>Christian, or Muslim. Again, anti-zionist is not anti-semitic. This is
>pathetic Harold. I am calling it the way I see it. I will say that
>Israel is no different than Hamas, Hezbollah, DFLP, etc. They crush their
>opposition, women, children, men, it makes no difference. Note that I did
>not say that Jews crush theiropposition. Because from what I have been
>told, many Arabs live in former Palestine(Israel) and they are I am quite
>sure, full supporters of wiping out whole Palestinians villages.
>Therefore Israel is crushing their opposition, not just the Jews or
>Christians, or Muslims, who live in former Palestine.
>My response.
>It's simple Jonathon. Israel is THE JEWISH STATE. This is a fact, whether
>you like it or not. In my mind (and I know that I don't speak for all
>Jews) when you voice your opinions about Israel, it is a direct reflection
>on the Jewish people. When I speak of terrorist, totalitarian, brutal
>regimes in the Arab world I hold myself to the same standards. When
>Iranian sponsored terrorism tries to blow up the World Trade Center then I
>equate it with radical Islam. If this be racism and/or bigotry then so be
>it.
>Answer this question Jon. When you hear the name of Baruch Goldstein, do
>you think of him as an Israeli? Or as a Jew? And I know that if you asked
>Baruch Goldstein if he was commiting his terrible deed as a Jew or as an
>Israeli he would answer the former. Just as when an Arab terrorist yells
>"Allah Akbar" he is dying to go to heaven as a Muslim...not as an Iranian,
>a Syrian, an Egyptian. You see Jonathan...this is what makes this a very
>personal, very emotional issue with some of us. You can't seperate the
>Israeli from the Jew any more than you can seperate the Iranian from the
>Shiite.
I usually do not argue like this but this whole response is crap and
idiotic. You can easily separate the Jew from Israel, the Shiite from the
Iranian. It is done everyday. To not separate them is impossible. I am a
Muslim and an American. Those are easily separated. Muslims live in Israel
and I am sure that they easily separate. Just because you do not wish to,
does not mean you can't. Trying to define oneself by where you are is
draconian to say the least, and actually stupid. You should stick to
speaking for "Harold the racist bigot" and not Israelis or other Jews whom I
am sure you have embarassed with this drivel.
Do you not think that this is an emotional issue for me, actually
you probably do, I forgot only Jews can get emotional about this issue or at
least that is what you have claimed from above.
Baruch Goldstien was not a Jew or an Israeli, he was a racist
coward. I don't care what you ask him, he can't tell you anyway. But I am
sure you could speak for him, considering your blatant bigotry. No wonder
people admired him, they are even more of a coward than he is. They can't
even go in and shoot a bunch of Muslims praying who are by law not allowed
to own guns to defend themselves against the terrorist settlers.
>BTW...you still didn't answer any of the points in my post. I've responded
>to your little temper tantrum, see if you can get back to the facts now.
It was nice of you not to delete my original post, you usually do,
however, I was responding to your big temper tantrum of trying to call me an
anti-semite. Now I can see how confused you are, and so many other uptight
bigots like yourself. I can say that confidently because you have all
proven it. What facts were those that you are so eager to get back to BTW?
>--
>InfoWebb Communications
>1563 Leavenworth St.,
>San Francisco CA 94109
>(415) 928-6320
Sincerely,
Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Harold Frydman
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Lets see...I've left both our posts up and lo and behold Jon I did not in
any way disparage you or Islam or Palestinians or Arabs etc. Did I ever
call you an anti-semite...indirectly yes. For as I posted before, "I"
don't believe there is a difference between an Anti-Semite and an
Anti-Zionist. You disagree. Fine.
YOU can seperate Jews from Israeli's...that is simple. What you CANNOT do
is seperate Israel from Judaism...which is what every Muslim I've ever
argued about tries to do...mainly by stating that Jews no longer have a
claim to Israel/Palestine because they didn't accept Mohammed as the one
and true Prophet. When did the covenant with Hashem/Allah and the Jewish
people become obsolete? Basically what Islam has to do to legitimize
itself is discredit Judaism without discrediting the Bible and/or Biblical
history. So, as Christianity did before it, it claims Judaism is an
obsolete religion that has lost favor in the eyes of G-d by not accepting
Jesus/Mohammed (how many true prophets are there?) ;)
Can you now answer this question for me:
When did the covenant between G-d and the Jewish People regarding the
giving of the land of Israel to the people Israel become obsolete? Can you
answer that without deligitimizing Judaism?
Lets see...I've reread my post and I don't see anything insulting or
disparaging except that I equate Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism. This is
my opinion and how I feel. Am I not allowe to have my own opinions? Or is
it only you, who continually calls Israel a murderous/terrorist state
allowed an opinion?
BTW. What DOES the Koran say about Jews? What did Mohammed say about Jews
when the did not accpet him as a prophet? Enlighten me.
FYI...I only delete most of your previous messages because my newserver
doesn't allow more included text than new text. It's either that or have
me ramble on for a few more paragraphs...which would you prefer? :)
--
Sara Kaufman
1563 Leavenworth St.,
San Francisco CA 94109
(415) 928-6320
Saleem Nicola
>
> In <h>>
> >If US financial aid to Israel is significantly cut or eliminated then
> >Egypt will become largest beneficiary of US aid. Just thought I'd
> >mention that.
> >
>
> If the Egyptians would spend the money on Egypt and not on private bank
> accounts for big shots, maybe the aid would be justified.
I agree. There is a way to prevent the flow of US money to Egyptian
big shots. The US should require that the Egyptian government
immediately rectify all human rights abuses, and hold elections with
international oversight within six months. This should have been
a prerequisite for receiving US aid from the beginning. With such a
policy, no Egyptian government would risk losing the flow of American
cash, and the elections would result in a continuing democracy with
minimal corruption
Come to think of it, Israel should face the same requirements for
receiving US aid if the peace process falls through. Either Palestinians
living under the Israeli government are given the right to vote, or
aid to Israel is cut. Had this been done a long time ago, there would
have been no intifada and much less terrorism -- and no need for an
agonizing peace process.
Saleem Nicola
Saleem Nicola
> You say there is no moral high ground? I disagree. In Israel and in
> America it is ok to dissent...we can argue, debate, yell, scream etc. If I
> don't agree with Israeli Government action I can say so...I can protest, I
> can dissent. Lets compare that with the Palestinians. You have two choices
> as a Palestinian living in Gaza or the West Bank. One: Support the Peace
> Process, the PLO and deal with Israel. Result: Be labeled a collaborator
> by Hamas...and be killed. Two: Support Hamas and be hunted and killed by
> the Palestinian Police.
Now wait just a minute. You are ignoring the fact that there are many
prominent Palestinians in the Territories who do not necessarily
support Arafat and the PLO, but who want to be a part of the negotiations
with Israel. In fact, these voices have been calling for peace and
negotiation for years (Hanan Ashrawi is just one example). Ashrawi
and the others were shut out from the peace negotiations *BY ISRAEL*,
and since they have no authority to sway the Israelis, they have much
less popular support among Palestinians than Arafat or Hamas (which
is seen as capable of swaying Israel by violence). I think it's a
little bit disingenuous of you to say that Palestinians do not tolerate
dissent, when it is Israel that has ruined the possibility of
peaceful Palestinian dissenters having any kind of authority.
> Yes, as of today we have the moral high ground.
Nonsense. Where are the voices in Israel that call for the removal of
Israeli settlers from Palestinian land? How can we expect any peace
agreement to work while the Israeli army is deployed in great force in
the West Bank in order to protect the settlers there? What kind of
autonomy do Israelis want Palestinians to have?
> I
> admit wholeheartedly that both America and Israel have a LONG way to go
> before they are both truly free societies for ALL it's citizens...but you
> still can't compare our freedoms to ANY in the Arab world.
>
> But of course all this is irrelevant to you...your focus and bias against
> Israel precludes any of this to have any meaning to you. It is obvious in
> you posts that you don't EVER propose any solutions except where Israel
> ceases to exist and Israeli Jews live under Palestinian rule. This is a
> pipe dream Jon...and if it's not, and it does happen, it will be as bloody
> a death of a country you could EVER dream of. Is this solution acceptable
> to you? And if it's not acceptable could you please post a solution that
> is acceptable to you?
>
I don't know if Jon posted any concrete solutions, but allow me to
butt in with one. Israel should begin to include non-PLO Palestinian
leaders (ie, the current non-violent dissenters) in the peace
process. Israel should recognize that Palestinians have valid reasons
for mistrusting Arafat, and that the standing of Israel in the eyes of
Palestinians will be greatly increased if it gives in to some of the
demands of these dissenters. For instance, some settlements could be
removed, and elections held soon. Such moves would not compromise
the safety of Israelis, but would do much to reduce the anti-Israel
(and hence pro-Hamas) sentiment among Palestinians.
Saleem Nicola
Morry Sztainbok
>
>>This is so typical of people who are not comfortable with other
>>views. Why can we not disagree without calling each other names. I
>>dislike no one on the face of this earth because they come from a certain
>>place or follow a certian religion. However, it seems that my Jewish
>>debators have shown their hand early. I have not said anything
>>anti-semitic because no one i have argued with knows what the term means.
>>I am completely anti-Israel. The real racists on this group are Harold
>>Frydman, Jake Livni, Morry Saintbok(sorry for the misspelling).
cynical apology. The fact that you do either is "so typical of people
who are not comfortable with other views" and a clear indication of the
degree of your hypocricy.
>>They
>>constantly belittle Arabs, and Muslims. I resent the fact that I have to
>>defend myself against a bunch of people who hate all Arabs and muslims.
phrase, I have many friends of both persuasions. I have, and rightly so,
critcized actions of the Palestinian leadership or of the Fundamentalist
Muslims.
>>have never said one unkind word agianst anyone because they are Jewish,
>>Christian, or Muslim. Again, anti-zionist is not anti-semitic. This is
>>pathetic Harold. I am calling it the way I see it. I will say that
>>Israel is no different than Hamas, Hezbollah, DFLP, etc. They crush their
>>opposition, women, children, men, it makes no difference. Note that I did
>>not say that Jews crush theiropposition. Because from what I have been
>>told, many Arabs live in former Palestine(Israel) and they are I am quite
>>sure, full supporters of wiping out whole Palestinians villages.
>>Therefore Israel is crushing their opposition, not just the Jews or
>>Christians, or Muslims, who live in former Palestine.
if you besmirch its reputation with unsubstantiated lies as you do it is
the same form of biggotted propaganda. Your hairsplitting Jew-Israeli is
a copout. Israel represents Judaism to the same degree that Iran
represents Shiite Islam or America represents Christianity. The moral
slurs and lies are clearly aimed, whatever you want to call the target.
It was "Jews" until that became politically incorrect, now it's
"Israel". Both labels always referred to the same group of people, and
amongst Arabs it was the one between the Mediterranean and Jerusalem.
> Baruch Goldstien was not a Jew or an Israeli, he was a racist
>coward. I don't care what you ask him, he can't tell you anyway. But I am
>sure you could speak for him, considering your blatant bigotry. No wonder
>people admired him, they are even more of a coward than he is. They can't
Then, by the same criteria, you must aknowledge that Hamas, PLO, etc. are
"racist cowards" for such attacks as Bet Lid, the high scool at Maalot,
the current attacks on buses and unarmed Jews (by the way, it is ONLY
Jews who are being attacked, no other Israeli). Once we can agree on
this we can go a long way.
> It was nice of you not to delete my original post, you usually do,
>however, I was responding to your big temper tantrum of trying to call me an
>anti-semite. Now I can see how confused you are, and so many other uptight
You've made your point. You are only virulently biggoted against
Israelis. Undoubtedly some of your best friends are also Jewish.
>Sincerely,
>Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Morry
YitzhakS
>Nonsense. Where are the voices in Israel that call for the removal of
>Israeli settlers from Palestinian land? How can we expect any peace
>agreement to work while the Israeli army is deployed in great force in
>the West Bank in order to protect the settlers there? What kind of
>autonomy do Israelis want Palestinians to have?
Actually, the voices for removing Israeli settlers are present within the
Israeli government in the form of the Meretz party faction. As you know
Israel's government is a coalition. The present coalition is barely
holding on to a majority in the Knesset, thus making Rabin fairly weak.
The Meretz position, however, is being drowned out by fearful Israelis who
mostly believe the peace process has not brought them peace and security,
but increased terrorism and greater insecurity. In this respect, Hamas
and Islamic Jihad are succeeding in slowing down the peace process.
Today, in the news, a truck laden with dynamite was stopped by the IDF
just a few miles outside Be'ersheva. The truck was driven by three
Palestinians from Gaza. Had that truck bomb made it to Be'ersheva and
been detonated, the peace process would have been finished today, as would
have the Rabin government.
We are, indeed, that close -- one terror attack away -- from the
destruction of the best hope for peace in 50 years. Baruch Hashem (praise
G-d) the bombers didn't succeed today. I fear, however, that eventually
they will again kill dozens of Israelis and the peace process will die,
too.
We will then be condemned to another 100 years of perpetually escalating
warfare.
G-d help us all.
sim shalom tova u'bracha hayyim hen v'hesid v'rahamim 'aleynu -- "Grant
peace, goodness, and blessing; life grace, kindness and compassion upon
us." An ancient Jewish prayer.
That Rabin can persevere in the face of the mounting
Yitzhak Santis
Jonathan David Byrd
>Saleem Nicola <nic...@phy.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>>Nonsense. Where are the voices in Israel that call for the removal of
>>Israeli settlers from Palestinian land? How can we expect any peace
>>agreement to work while the Israeli army is deployed in great force in
>>the West Bank in order to protect the settlers there? What kind of
>>autonomy do Israelis want Palestinians to have?
Good Questions!
>Actually, the voices for removing Israeli settlers are present within the
>Israeli government in the form of the Meretz party faction. As you know
>Israel's government is a coalition. The present coalition is barely
>holding on to a majority in the Knesset, thus making Rabin fairly weak.
>The Meretz position, however, is being drowned out by fearful Israelis who
>mostly believe the peace process has not brought them peace and security,
>but increased terrorism and greater insecurity. In this respect, Hamas
>and Islamic Jihad are succeeding in slowing down the peace process.
This is absolutely correct. However, why does Rabin not stop the
settlement building. He knows as well as anyone on the face of the earth
that if he wants his people to stop being "terrorized" he should stop those
settlements. EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD UNDERSTANDS THIS. How can you expect
Palestinians to be anything but violent. How can you. It is the only thing
Israel responds to. The only reason Rabin is allowing those settlements to
continue is so that he will not be seen as soft on the Palestinians by the
Israelis. He wants to get re-elected-simple politics. We can analyze the
politic of his policies.
Why did Israel deal with Yasser? It was not to make peace. It
was to appease. They do not want Arafat to fail. They know that he will
fail. It is textbook colonialism to give the persecuted a leader.
Mind you not the leader they want, but one the Israelis want. That is why
Israel so graciously excluded Hanan Ashrawi, and the other very important
Palestinian diplomats in the US who have been working for decades to achieve
peace. Many people especially Israelis do not know that long before the
accord was signed or even known about, secret meetings between Shimon Peres
and Arafat took place in Cairo, that Peres denied in Israel, where the
leadership of the Palestinian people was discussed. Arafat was picked
virtually.
Why did Israel give Yasser Arafat command to root-out the
terrorists? It was not to give him responsibilties that he could live up
to. It was because they knew he would fail. Israel has not been able to
stop terrorism so why do you think Arafat can stop it???? Hmmmmmmm? Then
they tell Arafat that if he can't stop it, then the accord is off. The
accord was doomed from the beginning.
Why does Israel not stop the settlement expansion? It is because it
fuels terrorism. Those settlements are probably the biggest reason the
Palestinians hate the Israelis. Since it fuels terrorism, it means Arafat
can deal even less effectually with it, and then when Palestinians kill
Israelis, it gives them a reason to continually meddle in the lives of
people it has almost obliterated. Then Israel can rush to all the world
agencies and speak of how the Palestinians do not know how to govern
themselves and that all agreements are void. That the Palestinian governed
land of the Middle East is a harbor for international terrorists and a
breeding ground for anti-semitic, anti-Israeli demagoguery. This is why I
say that Israel is just a european colony. This is exactly what european
countries did to African nations all over the continent. This is textbook
colonialism. Arafat will fail. In addition, this also why Israel is
dragging its feet on free elections. Either Israel is very stupid or they
just don't care. I think it's the latter. I think it will be interesting
in about 20 years when the Arab population overtakes the Jewish population
in Israel. Israel then might get into the business of conversion by the
sword.
>Today, in the news, a truck laden with dynamite was stopped by the IDF
>just a few miles outside Be'ersheva. The truck was driven by three
>Palestinians from Gaza. Had that truck bomb made it to Be'ersheva and
>been detonated, the peace process would have been finished today, as would
>have the Rabin government.
Wrong. If that truck blows-up. Rabin can look stronger than ever.
He can say that he tried but now it is time to eradicate the Middle East of
Palestinians and all Israelis will rally round the star of David. Rabin
needs some trucks to blow-up to save his administration. Many will think
that I have gone off the deep end but crazier stuff has happened. FDR and
the attack on Pearl Harbor comes to mind.
>We are, indeed, that close -- one terror attack away -- from the
>destruction of the best hope for peace in 50 years. Baruch Hashem (praise
>G-d) the bombers didn't succeed today. I fear, however, that eventually
>they will again kill dozens of Israelis and the peace process will die,
>too.
>We will then be condemned to another 100 years of perpetually escalating
>warfare.
>G-d help us all.
Exactly! Ameen!!!
>sim shalom tova u'bracha hayyim hen v'hesid v'rahamim 'aleynu -- "Grant
>peace, goodness, and blessing; life grace, kindness and compassion upon
>us." An ancient Jewish prayer.
>That Rabin can persevere in the face of the mounting
>Yitzhak Santis
Praying that cooler heads will prevail,
Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Assaf Razon
>
>
Arguments to some very silly statements by Jonathan David Byrd:
>
> Wrong. That is what you think Muslims believe. We believe you do
>not have a claim to Palestine because it was given to you. Millions of
>people were displaced and killed because the Jews wanted a homeland. Israel
Correction: Millions of people were killed because Arabs wouldn't
compromise and opened wars. Arab regimes and persons today are demanding
concessions from Israel that are far worse than what they could have got
if they had enough brains not to monger war back in '48, or in '67.
>had not been a nation for thousands of years. Your existence now is a
>fraud. As much as people all over the world think, the origins of the
My existence is not a fraud. I have as much right to self determination as
everybody else.
>Palestinian-Israeli conflict are not religious, one word INJUSTICE. The
Arabs have attacked Jews in Israel back at the beginning of the
century, when we were still a minority living
on land we bought (not taken in war or displacing anyone). What reasons did
that have accept pure racism against Jews?
>British gov't began by taking land away from people whose families had lived
>there for thousands of years(Wonder why they made Iraq port-less), then
>drawing up boundaries that had never existed in the first place, then giving
>most of the land to zionist neocolonialists. Before you get your panties in
"most of the land"? Rubbish. Look at the area of the middle-east. Then
look at the area of Israel, and especially the area that Israel was to
hold in '48. Wouldn't hurt you to open a map sometime. Israel is, I
believe, less than half a percent of the land owned by Arabs. And they
don't even have the grace to accept non-arabs/non-muslims living in that
spot.
As to "Colonialists", again you don't know what you are talking off.
Colonialism was the phenomenom of a foreign country sending its own
citizens to foreign-occupied land in order that they use that land's
resources for the benefit of that forign power. This is not in any way
similar to Zionism. You just like using big words, don't you?
>a wad, this is not discrediting or faulting Judaism in any way. This is an
>indictment on zionism, and I know that you do not see the difference, but
>this is what literally billions of people see; a clear delineation between
>Judaism and nationalist, colonialist, elitist, zionism. I am merely trying
>to argue that whether or not Jews accepted Islam, Israel in its present form
>is an abomination to human justice. Incidentally, had Jews fought for the
I believe it is justice finally served. As you keep denying: had the
arabs not started war in 1948 there would have been a Jewish homeland and
a Palestininal homeland back then. Who opened the war? Who rejected a
fair compromise?
>land in a fair and square war before the land was given to you, then there
>would be no argument from me. That was not the case no matter how you spin
>it.
Very fascist thinking: A land fought for is a land you own. You earn the
right by fighting for it, no matter how?
How should I "spin it", by the way? Arabs attacked a country one day old,
in total denial of its existence. Surprisingly, we won. Palestinians lost
everything they had, including their homeland-to-be. Who's fault is that?
And why didn't we fight "fair and square"?
>>--
>>Sara Kaufman
>>1563 Leavenworth St.,
>>San Francisco CA 94109
>>(415) 928-6320
>>kau...@infowebb.com
>
>Salam and Shalom,
>Joanthan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Assaf Razon
Morry Sztainbok
Assaf Razon <s256...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>In article <1995Mar13....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>Jonathan David Byrd <jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>>In <frydman-1203...@slip226.sirius.com> fry...@infowebb.com (Harold Frydman) writes:
>>
>>
>
>Arguments to some very silly statements by Jonathan David Byrd:
>
>>
>
>I believe it is justice finally served. As you keep denying: had the
>arabs not started war in 1948 there would have been a Jewish homeland and
>a Palestininal homeland back then. Who opened the war? Who rejected a
>fair compromise?
>
>>land in a fair and square war before the land was given to you, then there
>>would be no argument from me. That was not the case no matter how you spin
>>it.
because we "fought for the land fair and square" AND to the territories
because we also "fought for the land fair and square". The fact that in
1948 Jews were settled on land that they had purchased makes this position
even more valid.
>
>Very fascist thinking: A land fought for is a land you own. You earn the
>right by fighting for it, no matter how?
>How should I "spin it", by the way? Arabs attacked a country one day old,
>in total denial of its existence. Surprisingly, we won. Palestinians lost
>everything they had, including their homeland-to-be. Who's fault is that?
>And why didn't we fight "fair and square"?
>
>
>>>--
>>>Sara Kaufman
>>>1563 Leavenworth St.,
>>>San Francisco CA 94109
>>>(415) 928-6320
>>>kau...@infowebb.com
>>
>>Salam and Shalom,
>>Joanthan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
>
>
>Assaf Razon
Morry
Jake Livni
>>The Meretz position, however, is being drowned out by fearful Israelis who
>>mostly believe the peace process has not brought them peace and security,
>>but increased terrorism and greater insecurity. In this respect, Hamas
>>and Islamic Jihad are succeeding in slowing down the peace process.
>
> This is absolutely correct. However, why does Rabin not stop the
>settlement building. He knows as well as anyone on the face of the earth
>that if he wants his people to stop being "terrorized" he should stop those
>settlements. EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD UNDERSTANDS THIS.
Right. If people suffer from crime, the answer is for them to move
away from the criminals. Yeah, right.
>How can you expect
>Palestinians to be anything but violent. How can you. It is the only thing
>Israel responds to.
Where did you learn such a thing?
Was it part of your Islamic studies?
> Why did Israel deal with Yasser? It was not to make peace. It
>was to appease. They do not want Arafat to fail. They know that he will
>fail. It is textbook colonialism to give the persecuted a leader.
>Mind you not the leader they want, but one the Israelis want.
I coulda sworn that the PLO, with Chairman Arafat at it's head, has been
called the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestineans" for years
now - and all the Arab govts have been saying this. He even addressed the
UN a few times in this position. With a machine gun in hand.
>That is why
>Israel so graciously excluded Hanan Ashrawi, and the other very important
>Palestinian diplomats in the US who have been working for decades to achieve
>peace.
Bull. Ashrawi has declined to join the PLO govt, despite several offers
of a position by Arafat. Instead, she is dedicating herself to Palestinean
civil rights. As a Christian, she knows what is in store for them under a
PLO govt. This has all been documented clearly in the NY Times in the past
few months.
> Why does Israel not stop the settlement expansion? It is because it
>fuels terrorism. Those settlements are probably the biggest reason the
>Palestinians hate the Israelis.
That's funny. The PLO was established in 1964, years before any of these
"settlements" were established. Palestinean hatred for Jews goes way, way
back. Ever heard of the Hebron massacres in the 1920's?
[rest of hysterical conspiracy drivel deleted...]
>Praying that cooler heads will prevail,
>Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Praying that you will get a brain...
Wa'el Qahoush
Received: from werple.mira.net.au by ix.ix.netcom.com
(8.6.9/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
id VAA01492; Tue, 21 Mar 1995 21:55:55 -0800
Received: from dialup-35.werple.mira.net.au
(dialup-35.werple.mira.net.au [203.9.191.163]) by werple.mira.net.au
(8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA23686 for <Wa...@ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 22
Mar 1995 16:56:41 +1100
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:56:41 +1100
Message-Id: <1995032205...@werple.mira.net.au>
X-Sender: mer...@werple.mira.net.au (Unverified)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Wa...@ix.netcom.com (Wa'el Qahoush)
From: mer...@werple.mira.net.au (Morry)
Subject: Re: Auschwitz and the Palestinians
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
Status: RO
I am disappointed that you didn't respond to the issues I raised. You
spoke of trust, and in that light I was very interested in your response
to the contradiction between the peace process and:-
a) The fact that the PA refuse to change clauses in the PNC charter
calling for Israel's destruction.
b) The PA are not keeping to agreements (15000 police instead of the
agreed 8000, for example)
c) Murderers have been inducted into the police force.
d) Arafat is either unwilling or unable to control terrorism, which has
risen over threefold with well over 100 Jews murdered since the DOP.
e) The first Palestinian trials will not be of those who killed Jews,
but of 20 Palestinians who supposedly "collaberated" with Israel (This
presupposes Israel as the "enemy", hardly consistent with peace moves).
f) No attempt has been made to disarm Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc.
I thank you for the following, though I may have to cut it up a little,
as it seems my mailer won't take such long postings (I had to delete the
previous dialogue as well).
Wa'el you wrote:
>First I would like to give a brief background of the whole problem, and
>I hope I won't bore you if it seems to be a bit too detailed. You are
>correct by saying that the Jewish people have lived in the land of
>Palestine for centuries, and have been often persecuted and oppressed.
> The Jews were slaughtered and exiled from Palestine by the Romans
>between 63 BC and AD 330. Very few Jewish communities remained in
>Palestine. The Arabs invaded Palestine in the mid 600's AD and
>Palestine was under the Muslim Empire for the next 450 years. They
came >as conquerors, but unlike the previous conquerors (Romans, and
>Babylonians), they never attempted to expel the current inhabitants,
and >never forced the Christians or Jews to convert to Islam, even
though >many voluntarily did so. The Crusaders invaded in 1096 and
massacred >the entire population, Muslims and Jews. The Muslims then
recaptured >Palestine in 1291 until 1516 when the Ottoman Turks
conquered Palestine, >however Palestinians remained to be by far the
majority in Palestine.
> In 1880 the population of Palestine was 480,000 of which 456,000
>were Arabs. The Jews were 24,000. 5% of the Population.
>The first Aliyah (return of the Jews) took place in 1881 and
established
>new colonies.
>By 1914 there were 60,000 Jews, 11% of the pop.
>After the British and French drove out the Turks in 1918, the British
>promised the Jews (11% of the pop.) a homeland. As the massive Jewish
>immigration, facilitated by the British mandate, increased, naturally
>the Palestinians resisted. The British did attempt to put a limit of
>75,000 immigrants for five years, though that was ignored. During the
>Holocaust the US and Britain refused Jewish immigrants into their
>countries. The Jews did purchase land (in 1918 the Jews owned 2
percent
>of the land, in 1935 they owned 5.5% of the land, and by 1947 they
owned
>6 percent of the land. However the purchases were often illegal as
many
>of the Palestinian peasants could not even read the contracts.
You have not defined "Palestine" here. Are you referring to the area
known
as "Palestine", 4/5 of which is today under Jordanian control? Does your
"Palestine" include the sandy desert Negev which at the time nobody was
claiming (over 50% of the area of Israel and the territories)?
> How can anyone justify that the UN voted, without even the
>consent of the people at stake (the owners of the land, the
>Palestinians)
That is the point. The Palestinians were not the owners, they were
squatting
on somebody else's land. They had no governmental structure that was
recognised by the world. In world terms, this was part of the Ottoman
empire
that had to be disposed of. The original owners had bought large tracts
of land and were claiming the rest. If you read the deliberations you
will find that the intent was to split the land (after Jordan had taken
a Palestinian 4/5) equally between Arab and Jew (taking the world Jewish
population and immigration into account, for this was to be RESTORED as
a Jewish homeland....nothing new about it). Substantially more arable
land went to the Arabs, so the Negev was thrown in so it wouldn't look
so bad on a map.
> that more than half of Palestine be given away to
>immigrants who made 31% of the pop. And owned a mere 6% of the land.
>The 48% that was "so generously given to Palestinians" was some of the
>worst un-arable land, while the Jews received the most coveted land.
Here we must disagree. Virtually all unarable land went to Jews, from
the swamplands of the Hula, to the desert of the Negev. There was arable
land in the Jezreel valley (purchased by Jews from a Lebanese effendi at
exhorbitant price), the Sharon valley (multiple small purchases) and
that was it. In other words most of the arable land the Jews were
"given" they already
owned. Compare this to the lush lands of the Galilee. the Dotan valley
etc. Beyond a small patch of Judean desert, all Arab partition land was
eminently arable. The fact that Jews (unexpectedly) found ways, with
sweat and disease, to make the swamps and deserts blossom to today's
fertility, is irrelevent to then.
>Naturally the Palestinian had to reject such a ludicrous offer.
>>The Irgun began their terrorist activities and murdered hundreds of
>innocent Palestinians. In 1967 the Israeli terrorist forces occupied
>the rest of Palestine, committing atrocious crimes, breaking
>international laws, not to mention defying tens of UN resolutions (not
>that they mean anything to me).
Here you are wrong. The primary target for the Irgun was the British.
They only began attacking Arabs in response to massacres including Jaffa
in 1920, and Hebron in 1929. You can blame King Hussein for 1967.
Despite pleas from Levi Eshkol he joined Syria and Egypt and attacked
Israel. The West Bank was taken as a result of this action.
>
>If I were to sit down and document to you the Israeli policies towards
>Palestinians I can write volumes of books. But I'll just say a few
>words. My parents were born and raised in Jaffa, Palestine. In 1948
>as the Jewish terrorist groups along with the Israeli forces were
>carrying out their atrocities, they came to my family's town and said,
>if you are not out of this area in a few hours, we will do to you what
>we did to other towns, massacre everyone and level the whole town. As
a
>result my family left with the clothes on their backs, as did thousands
>of other Palestinians. Because these Palestinians were "absent" the
>Israeli government took it upon itself to expropriate the homes and
>land.
Though it undoubtedly happened (your family is a case in point), there
was clearly no policy to empty Israel of Arabs, or you would not have
over a million Arab Israeli citizens living and working shoulder to
shoulder with Jews.
Once peace is in place, I am all for a refugee reckoning, to include
Jewish refugees from Arab lands, that will compensate everybody.
>
>Four years ago, a 17 year old cousin of mine who lives in Ramallah,
West >Bank, was among a group of teen-agers throwing stones at Israeli
forces. > He was captured. His family could not locate him for two
weeks. The >Red Cross could not find him. As it turned out the Red
Cross could not >recognize his face and body because of the extreme
disfigurement due to >the torture. He was placed outdoors naked for
hours, until he turned >blue, then brought inside to be singed with
boiling water. He was >kicked, beaten, and cigarettes were put out on
his skin. Why? They >wanted him to confess that he murdered an Israeli
soldier, which of >course he never did.
Why "of course"? What did the court do when the case came up? Are those
responsible in jail as are all the other soldiers found guilty of
abusing Palestinians?
I think he is lucky he is not dead. In an Arab regime he would be.
Throwing stones and endangering lives is not a valid form of protest.
Had I done that and my parents caught me they would have beaten me
within an inch of my
life. How do Palestinian parents find it acceptable? This will all end
with peace.
>In the Annual United States States Department Country Reports on Human
>Rights Practices in 1992 (which tends to be very nice to Israel) the
>following was reported. The Law of return accepts Jews of all
>backgrounds to become citizens, this does not apply to Palestinians,
>even though hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were born there.
This is what self-determination is about. The right to have a State that
reflects your own culture and ambitions as a people. It is also the
right of every state to set its own immigration criterion. Jews are
seen as dispossessed citizens of a Jewish state (Israel) and are granted
rights based on this. Others are not.
>There is no Israeli nationality in Israel, rationalizing that accepting
>a nationality would defeat the purpose of creating a Jewish State.
This >policy "perpetuates injustices which must inevitably arise in a
nation
>dedicated from its inception to the promotion and nurturing of one
group >exclusively. Palestinian with Israeli citizenship are considered
as
>second class citizens and are discriminated against continuously.
(This
>is what you call racism and discrimination.)
This is simply not so. All are equal under the law. Understandably,
Arabs
are seen as higher risk and tend to undergo more security checks etc.
Again,with peace even this inconvenience will disappear.
>
>The Palestinians in the occupied territories are discriminated against
>economically and politically in favor of settlers (Jews).
Settlers are Israeli citizens and warrant Israeli government support,
the
Palestinians aren't. That should be understandable in the same way the
settlers get no support from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Hamas or the PLO
while
the Palestinians do.
> The practice
>of transfer of prisoners outside the territories and demolition and
>sealing of homes belonging to Palestinians as a form of collective
>punishment is a almost a daily occurrence, defying the Geneva
>Convention.
Israel learnt it from the British. Nobody likes it.
> Beatings, mistreatment, bans on travel, restrictions on
>movement, extrajudicial detention and killing is also very common.
>"Israeli Defense Forces killed 158 and injured 2000, Palestinian
>Civilians in 1992 alone. At least 45 of those were killed by undercover
>units disguised as Palestinians (pp.1020-21)"?????"
Three times as many Palestinians have been killed by other Palestinians
than
by Israelis. Each killing is investigated and if it was not a
life-threatening situation, the soldier/settler is jailed. What can I
say,
don't attack and you won't be killed.
>
>The undercover units targeted certain activists (many of whom are below
>the age of 18) for execution. In May of 1992 the Red Cross in an
>unusual step released a report (Reporters and foreign organizations are
>usually banned from reporting on Israeli inhumane practices)
That's crap. First they do, and second, who can ban such a thing? The
UN?
Thirdly the fact that the Red Cross did proves it's untrue (Get back to
whoever told you that doozy....he was wrong).
which said
>that treatment of Palestinians under interrogation included "means of
>physical and psychological torture" that are of course in violation of
>any international law, but not that of Israel, because Israel has a
>policy of "bone-breaking". An Israeli soldier may arrest any
>Palestinian without any cause. Most of the 10,150 as of 1992 of
>Palestinian held in detention camps are arrested without charges.
Sounds much like the Arab regimes. Occupied territories and the need to
police them comes under separate UN rulings, by which Israel abides to
the letter (some of it subject to interpretation). If you don't like
it, blame the terrorists and Hamas. Without them, none of the above
would be necessary.
>
>Forced entry is practiced in Israeli Defense Forces operations and are
>accompanied by beating and destruction of property including
foodstuffs.
> They also demolish and seal homes of Palestinians whether they are
>owners or tenants before any charges are made. When a house is
>demolished, the Israelis confiscate the land and the owner is not
>allowed to rebuild or even remove the rubble.
>Israelis use live ammunition in response to rock throwing (usually by
>children between the ages of 5 and 18), many die and others suffer
>terrible injuries.
The same is true of victims of rock-throwing. It is an unjustifiably
violent
form of protest that, by its nature elicits a violent response.
Peaceful
placard bearers have never been fired upon, but "peaceful" and
"Palestinian"
has proved to be an anachronism.
> When curfews are in effect (and they are quite
>often) Palestinian are prohibited from even going to hospitals for
>emergencies.
It would be very easy to launch a terrorist attack in the guise of a
trip to
hospital. None of it would happen were it not for terrorists.
>
>This report is very mildly written by the US government (Israel's best
>friend). Hopefully it gives you an idea of what's happening, though
>it's much worse in reality.
>
>Another thought, why should the Palestinians even negotiate something
>which is theirs in the first place and that was stolen from them. Let
>us forget the 52% that they lost in 1948, what about the 48% that was
>supposed to be theirs and stolen by Israel. What about the UN
>resolutions, the International laws, the Geneva Conventions...... The
>West Bank and Gaza Strip are only 33 percent of Palestine, not 48%.
No, they are actually about 8% and Israel is about 12%. If you launch a
war
and lose, you pay a price. Israel accepted partion though it meant
giving
up 90% of Jewish territorial claim. The Palestinians did not, and cannot
now
claim its protection. The land was never Palestinian (I speak as a
nation,
for in both Israel and the territories Israel honours all valid titles),
but
it was Jewish, the LAST national home on that territory. The bottom
line is
we have it and are prepared to exchange the bulk of it for peace. The
sad
part is that all peace approaches have been ignored and we have to
blackmail
Palestinians into thinking along peaceful lines with land.
>
>How can anyone trust the Israelis when they don't even recognize the
>limits of their borders, they want to expand more. Why should anyone
>trust them when they've said time and again that they will never allow
a
>independent Palestinian state to be established in Israel (Palestine).
The simple answer is "because you no longer have any choice". A bunch
of rotten leaders have left you in this mess. If you want the
land.....but more importantly (much) if you don't want a Hamas run Arab
regime, but some possibility of democracy and a say in your future, you
must sit down at the table, make peace, set up a government and get on
with your lives. Time and poor choices have eroded your options. Had
you accepted partition you would have had more land and wealth as the
result of working in peace together with the Jews to build up the whole
MidEast. You chose war instead.
>
>The Israelis continue to delay the agreed upon movement of Israeli
>forces from the occupied territories
As the result of terrorist attaccks. A parliamentary bill to drastically
reduce the military was shelved in the wake of the Bet Lid massacre.
>, continue expropriation of more Palestinian land,
It was legally purchased 10 years ago (if you mean the recent dispute at
Efrat).
> and building more Jewish settlements on confiscated
>Palestinian land, defying all resolutions, laws and agreements,
Not a single new settlement has been started since the DOP. Natural
expansion is recognized in the DOP.
>including the DOP. Their economic policies continue to deprive
>Palestinians from opportunities for survival. How can anyone blame the
Working in Israel is a priviledge, not a right. The Israeli government's
first responsibility is to protect its own citizens from terrorist
attacks.
>Palestinians for their resistance against such brutal and atrocious
>treatment. Wouldn't you do the same if you were treated as so. I
No. I would recognize where my interests lie, and act accordingly.
Knowing that terrorism deprives my people, while peace promises security
and a future my choice would be obvious.
>assume you are an American. Would you think Americans would show a
>fraction of the restraint that the Palestinians show had the US been
>invaded and Americans treated the way Palestinians have been for the
>last fifty or so years.
a) I am Australian.
b) The only "invasion" that deprived anybody was the one that exiled the
Jews. Most Palestinians walked comfortably into somebody else's house
and made themselves at home. Now they're bitching because the owner has
returned. I don't think the world would be particularly upset if native
American Indians took over America tomorrow. It would be the same
justice as the return of the Jews to (at least a part of) theirs.
c) there is a perfectly good Palestinian nation called Jordan which
occupies 80% of Palestine; why side with those who have so much against
those who have so little.
>
>It is obvious that you have no idea what Israel is all about. You must
>be receiving your information from such sources as US New & World
Report
>and Time magazine, which are filled with Isaeli propaganda, and
>absolutely no truth. I hope this long reply shed some light on the
>Palestinian side of the story.. Thank you for being attentive, and I
>welcome your reply.
>
Again no. I lived in Israel for 17 years. I saw media distortions you
would not believe by virtue of seeing first hand. I counted Arabs and
Druze among my friends and feel that I have a better perspective than
most. Your own perspective indicates no real knowledge of Israel, but I
can understand how your families experiences could warp your view and
blind you. The fact that Arabs vote and work alongside Jews in a land
where all signs are in Arabic, because it is an official language must
prove that the myth of Jewish hatred of Arabs is a lie. Arabic TV,
schools, political parties and a profusion of mosques make Israel a
paradise for Arabs when compared to Arab regimes.
With peace and the accompanying loss of suspicion it could be much
better.Compare this to the constant attacks and terror. The deliberate
targetting of children, but not in self-defence. The territories and
accompanying Israeli policies cannot serve as an excuse, as this was
going on long before 1967.
Despite a little criticism, I very much appreciate the trouble you took
to prepare your response.
There are aspects of Palestinian viewpoint that are well known. I'm
looking for a Palestinian view of those issues you don't see, which is
why I ask so many questions. Knowing more of a Palestinian view of the
peace process,
for example, may help me better understand. For clearly we can both
look at
the same thing and see it in two totally different ways. This way I can
"borrow" your eyes, and hope that you will gain a wider perspective
through mine.
Regards
Morry
Jonathan David Byrd
>In article <1995Mar12.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>Jonathan David Byrd <jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>>In <frydman-1003...@140.174.229.181> fry...@infowebb.com (Harold Frydman) writes:
>>
>>>This is so typical of people who are not comfortable with other
>>>views. Why can we not disagree without calling each other names. I
>>>dislike no one on the face of this earth because they come from a certain
>>>place or follow a certian religion. However, it seems that my Jewish
>>>debators have shown their hand early. I have not said anything
>>>anti-semitic because no one i have argued with knows what the term means.
>>>I am completely anti-Israel. The real racists on this group are Harold
>>>Frydman, Jake Livni, Morry Saintbok(sorry for the misspelling).
>Please don't compound a deliberate and insulting misspelling with a
>cynical apology. The fact that you do either is "so typical of people
>who are not comfortable with other views" and a clear indication of the
>degree of your hypocricy.
Morry, it really was a misspelling, honest. I did not have a post
at hand to find the correct spelling of your name. I see now how it must
look, sorry.
First of all, the US does not support a religion like Israel does
Judaism or Iran does shi'a Islam. And what unsubstantiated lies are you
referring to? What moral slurs are you referring to? You implicate without
evidence.
>> Baruch Goldstien was not a Jew or an Israeli, he was a racist
>>coward. I don't care what you ask him, he can't tell you anyway. But I am
>>sure you could speak for him, considering your blatant bigotry. No wonder
>>people admired him, they are even more of a coward than he is. They can't
>Then, by the same criteria, you must aknowledge that Hamas, PLO, etc. are
>"racist cowards" for such attacks as Bet Lid, the high scool at Maalot,
>the current attacks on buses and unarmed Jews (by the way, it is ONLY
>Jews who are being attacked, no other Israeli). Once we can agree on
>this we can go a long way.
I do not condone anything that Hamas or the PLO did or does nor have
I ever. There, we have gone a long way. Then by the same token you should
acknowledge that the actions of the IDF and the settlers are just as bad and
that settlement building should stop. Then we can really get somewhere in
these debates.
>> It was nice of you not to delete my original post, you usually do,
>>however, I was responding to your big temper tantrum of trying to call me an
>>anti-semite. Now I can see how confused you are, and so many other uptight
>You've made your point. You are only virulently biggoted against
>Israelis. Undoubtedly some of your best friends are also Jewish.
Proof is in the pudding Morry, and you ain't gotts no pudding. You
can not show me one biggoted statement I have said against Israelis. All
that I have said is that is that I do not think that Israel should have been
created, my opinion, it was created and now it must be dealt with. Israel
has chosen to deal violently with the Palestinians, I am not talking about
wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and Palestinians are dealing
with Israel violently. Not condoning it, but understanding it.
>>Sincerely,
>>Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
>Morry
Cordially,
Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Joseph Hindin
: I do not condone anything that Hamas or the PLO did or does nor have
: I ever. There, we have gone a long way. Then by the same token you should
: acknowledge that the actions of the IDF and the settlers are just as bad and
: that settlement building should stop. Then we can really get somewhere in
: these debates.
There is something here I completely don't understand.
How settlement building is related to HAMAS/PLO terrorism?
Why, in your opinion, settlements justify killing?
--
Hindin Joseph _ _ _ _ _ _ Tel: (972) 9-594721
Robcad, Ltd |_) | | |_) | |_| | \ Fax: (972) 9-544402
Ha-Galim blvd, 16 | \ |_| |_) |_ | | |_/ INTERNET: hindin%rob...@uunet.uu.net
Herzlia, Israel 46733 UUCP: uunet!robcad!hindin
Gregor Samsa awoke one morning to find himself
transformed into an enormous software defect.
Jake Livni
Jonathan David Byrd <jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>In <3kilrh$4...@werple03.mira.net.au> mer...@werple.mira.net.au (Morry Sztainbok) writes:
>>"racist cowards" for such attacks as Bet Lid, the high scool at Maalot,
>>the current attacks on buses and unarmed Jews (by the way, it is ONLY
>>Jews who are being attacked, no other Israeli). Once we can agree on
>>this we can go a long way.
>
> I do not condone anything that Hamas or the PLO did or does nor have
>I ever. There, we have gone a long way.
Good start.
>Then by the same token you should
>acknowledge that the actions of the IDF and the settlers are just as bad and
>that settlement building should stop. Then we can really get somewhere in
>these debates.
The IDF and the 'settlers' are as bad as Hamas and the PLO???
Do any of them engage in international terrorism?
Do they respond to dissent with publix execution of collaborators?
How can you compare the two???
>>You've made your point. You are only virulently biggoted against
>>Israelis. Undoubtedly some of your best friends are also Jewish.
>
> Proof is in the pudding Morry, and you ain't gotts no pudding. You
>can not show me one biggoted statement I have said against Israelis. All
>that I have said is that is that I do not think that Israel should have been
>created, my opinion, it was created and now it must be dealt with. Israel
Is that like saying that you should not have been born but now that it has,
something has to be done with you? Or that the world would be a better
place had Mohammed not been born and Islam not invented but now that they
have, the world will have to deal with them?
Do you STILL think that your words are not bigotted?
>has chosen to deal violently with the Palestinians, I am not talking about
>wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and Palestinians are dealing
>with Israel violently. Not condoning it, but understanding it.
How else would you deal with the PLO and Hamas terrorists?
How have Arabs dealt with them when they have had differences with them?
Are you still so critical of Israel, seeing as more Palestineans have
been killed by other Muslims and Arabs in the past 50 years than by Jews?
Many, many more!
>Cordially,
>Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
--
Jonathan David Byrd
>Jonathan David Byrd (jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
>: I do not condone anything that Hamas or the PLO did or does nor have
>: I ever. There, we have gone a long way. Then by the same token you should
>: acknowledge that the actions of the IDF and the settlers are just as bad and
>: that settlement building should stop. Then we can really get somewhere in
>: these debates.
> There is something here I completely don't understand.
>How settlement building is related to HAMAS/PLO terrorism?
>Why, in your opinion, settlements justify killing?
>
Where in my post, just tell me, does it say that settlement building
justifies killing the settlers. Settlement building should stop because it
is wrong, immoral. Bulldozing the lives of people right out of existence is
what I am saying is wrong. Incidentally, if your land and homes that you
had lived on for thousands of years was stolen, would you not fight back? I
am not justifying what the Hamas or Hezbollah does or did, but I would do
the same in the same situation, no matter who was doing it. And anyone else
would to.
>--
>Hindin Joseph _ _ _ _ _ _ Tel: (972) 9-594721
>Robcad, Ltd |_) | | |_) | |_| | \ Fax: (972) 9-544402
>Ha-Galim blvd, 16 | \ |_| |_) |_ | | |_/ INTERNET: hindin%rob...@uunet.uu.net
>Herzlia, Israel 46733 UUCP: uunet!robcad!hindin
>Gregor Samsa awoke one morning to find himself
>transformed into an enormous software defect.
>
>
Cordially,
Jonathan Byrd(Waraqa Dawood Nawfaal)
Meir Lehrer
Yes, as one of those "Settlers", I'm wondering the same thing
Mister Einstein Political Theorist. By the way, "Jonathon David Byrd",
(shouldn't "seagull" be in there somewhere?), it seems a bit odd that
you're so passionate about this point while you're living cowardly in
the West. The two people writing in response to you are living in Israel.
So, in my humble opinion, you're opinion doesn't hold a heck of a lot
of clout. Why don't you grow some courage, move here, get voting rights,
and then you can put your convictions to the test?
- Meir Lehrer