Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Mindset of Islamist Arabs is Unlike Anything we are familiar with

5 views

Skip to first unread message

Pat Kohli

unread,

Aug 10, 2002, 11:04:23 PM8/10/02

Robert Arvay wrote:
(racist rant snipped)

Dear Robert,

Do you have something to contribute, something that might be on topic,
something that might be constructive, something that is not dripping w/
bigotry and hypocrisy?

Had it occurred to you that the phrase 'Father knows best' is from an
American TV show, that stoning is the punishment for adultury given in the
Torah (a whipping is the punishment in the Qor'an)? Will you ever again
see past the hypocrisy of your bigotted sources?

Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net

Robert Arvay

unread,

Aug 12, 2002, 8:48:17 AM8/12/02

Greetings;

It's too bad that you saw red ("racist rant?") instead of analyzing
what was said.
It is Arab scholars and intellectuals themselves who are lamenting the
decline of what once had been a brilliant culture of inquiry and free
expression in the Middle East, but which now is characterized by the
almost complete lack of democratic values in Arab nations.
But while the problem is deeply embedded in the mindset of many Arabs,
it is by no means hopeless. Look at Iran. Although not Arab, they
too were forced to live under repressive conditions. But they have a
consciousness about freedom and self-determination, and show signs of
liberating themselves.
It could be this way with Palestinians and Arabs. But the path will
not be easy. Until we find a way to start along this path, the cost
in bloodshed will be high (and needless). (Also see my comment near
the end.)
=======================

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D55D437...@ameritel.net>...

But the Jews do not stone women, and the Arabs DO practice "honor
killings" of their women.

>
> Blessings!
> - Pat
> ko...@ameritel.net

Pat Kohli

unread,

Aug 12, 2002, 9:00:27 PM8/12/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> It's too bad that you saw red ("racist rant?") instead of analyzing
> what was said.
> It is Arab scholars and intellectuals themselves who are lamenting the
> decline of what once had been a brilliant culture of inquiry and free
> expression in the Middle East, but which now is characterized by the
> almost complete lack of democratic values in Arab nations.

Aha! So, when Zev Chafits writes in "Jewish World Review", you read an Arab lamenting the decline of
his culture, now deteriorating into a lack of democratic values?

>
> But while the problem is deeply embedded in the mindset of many Arabs,

Like Zev Chafits, and the staff of the "Jewish World Review" which you like to parrot, and now even
represent as Arabs lamenting middle eastern culture?

>
> it is by no means hopeless. Look at Iran. Although not Arab, they
> too were forced to live under repressive conditions. But they have a
> consciousness about freedom and self-determination, and show signs of
> liberating themselves.
> It could be this way with Palestinians and Arabs. But the path will
> not be easy. Until we find a way to start along this path, the cost
> in bloodshed will be high (and needless). (Also see my comment near
> the end.)

Please read your racist rants before responding.

>
> =======================
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D55D437...@ameritel.net>...
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
> > (racist rant snipped)
> >
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > Do you have something to contribute, something that might be on topic,
> > something that might be constructive, something that is not dripping w/
> > bigotry and hypocrisy?
> >
> > Had it occurred to you that the phrase 'Father knows best' is from an
> > American TV show, that stoning is the punishment for adultury given in the
> > Torah (a whipping is the punishment in the Qor'an)? Will you ever again
> > see past the hypocrisy of your bigotted sources?
>
> But the Jews do not stone women,

So, you are glad that they have forsaken the law of your God?

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful
conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, `I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did
not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take
and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; ... But if the thing
is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the
young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with
stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you
shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
Deutornomy 22:13-21

> and the Arabs DO practice "honor
> killings" of their women.

How many Palestinian women have the Israelis killed in the past year? How many Palestinian women were
the victims of "honor killings"? Who is following your Bible, and who is not?

Robert Arvay

unread,

Aug 13, 2002, 7:53:27 AM8/13/02

Gretings;

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D585A2B...@ameritel.net>...

> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> > Greetings;
> >
> > It's too bad that you saw red ("racist rant?") instead of analyzing
> > what was said.
> > It is Arab scholars and intellectuals themselves who are lamenting the
> > decline of what once had been a brilliant culture of inquiry and free
> > expression in the Middle East, but which now is characterized by the
> > almost complete lack of democratic values in Arab nations.
>
> Aha! So, when Zev Chafits writes in "Jewish World Review", you read an Arab lamenting the decline of
> his culture, now deteriorating into a lack of democratic values?
>

That's an incorrect conclusion. A number of Arab intellectuals have
made world news for their critique of their own culture. And does
anyone seriously deny that among the 22 member states of the Arab
League there is a distinct lack of democratic values? These states
are characterized by dictatorships. I would hope you find it
NON-racist and indeed encouraging that the efforts of these Arab
scholars is recognized outside their inner circle. Because of them,
there is hope. These people need far more support than they are
getting.

> >
> > But while the problem is deeply embedded in the mindset of many Arabs,
>
> Like Zev Chafits, and the staff of the "Jewish World Review" which you like to parrot, and now even
> represent as Arabs lamenting middle eastern culture?
>
> >
> > it is by no means hopeless. Look at Iran. Although not Arab, they
> > too were forced to live under repressive conditions. But they have a
> > consciousness about freedom and self-determination, and show signs of
> > liberating themselves.
> > It could be this way with Palestinians and Arabs. But the path will
> > not be easy. Until we find a way to start along this path, the cost
> > in bloodshed will be high (and needless). (Also see my comment near
> > the end.)
>
> Please read your racist rants before responding.

Please try to re-read Zev without looking for the worst
interpretation.
He is making some useful points. Until we come to grips with the
"root causes" of the intransigent hatred which motivates many
Palestinians and Arabs, we can expect only escalating bloodshed and an
increasing threat to world peace.
If you could look at opposing viewpoints without automatically
assuming nefarious intent, perhaps you could help to solve the
problem.

(snip)

> > > Had it occurred to you that the phrase 'Father knows best' is from an
> > > American TV show, that stoning is the punishment for adultury given in the
> > > Torah (a whipping is the punishment in the Qor'an)? Will you ever again
> > > see past the hypocrisy of your bigotted sources?
> >
> > But the Jews do not stone women,
>
> So, you are glad that they have forsaken the law of your God?

Please! Must EVERYTHING be so negative?

>
> "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful
> conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, `I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did
> not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take
> and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; ... But if the thing
> is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the
> young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with
> stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you
> shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
> Deutornomy 22:13-21
>
> > and the Arabs DO practice "honor
> > killings" of their women.
>
> How many Palestinian women have the Israelis killed in the past year? How many Palestinian women were
> the victims of "honor killings"? Who is following your Bible, and who is not?

Surely you are not defending "honor killings" by saying that MORE
women died in military actions than were murdered by their own
relatives???
Again, please look at who IS doing the "honor" killing and who is NOT.
Can you draw any useful conclusions concerning how to advance womens'
rights from these facts?

Paul Hammond

unread,

Aug 13, 2002, 6:24:37 AM8/13/02

Robert Arvay <rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:67f4dff6.02080...@posting.google.com...
> I have been trying to gain an insight into the Arab Islamic mindset,
> to better understand the intransigent hatred and fanaticism besetting
> the Middle East.
> The following article presents a compelling analysis of facts that are
> well known, but poorly understood:
>
> Zev Chafets
>
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
>
> How can America win the hearts and minds of the world - particularly
> the Arab world? That conundrum is addressed in a report, issued this
> week, by the Council on Foreign Relations.
> ....
> The Council on Foreign Relations wants to sell American values - "our
> democratic tradition, the values of strength of family and religious
> faith, freedom of expression, women's rights and education."
>

The problem that America has with selling its world view to the
Arabs is that they have a fundamental disagreement with
actual American foreign policy. Therefore, the only thing that
will make them change their mind about America is a real
change in its actual foreign policy, and its implications for
their lives and their part of the world.

Basically, a PR offensive on "motherhood and apple pie and
The American Way" isn't going to cut it - and the reason for that
is that the average Arab can see through bullshit just as well
as anyone, and it has nothing to do with any idea that Arabs
just aren't the same kind of people as the rest of us, so, gee,
it just doesn't make any sense to try to understand this alien
species.

Paul

Paul Hammond

unread,

Aug 13, 2002, 7:06:19 AM8/13/02

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message

news:3D585A2B...@ameritel.net...

>
> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> > Greetings;
> >
> > It's too bad that you saw red ("racist rant?") instead of analyzing
> > what was said.
> > It is Arab scholars and intellectuals themselves who are lamenting the
> > decline of what once had been a brilliant culture of inquiry and free
> > expression in the Middle East, but which now is characterized by the
> > almost complete lack of democratic values in Arab nations.
>
> Aha! So, when Zev Chafits writes in "Jewish World Review", you read an
Arab lamenting the decline of
> his culture, now deteriorating into a lack of democratic values?
>

Yes - curious that. Now, I imagine there *are* Arab intellectuals
that lament the decline of Arab and Islamic culture and civilisation
(the culture and civilisation, btw, that produced the first Universities
in Europe, and gave birth to what now goes by the modern name
of Sociology, and left to Europe the copies of the classical
civilisations texts that led directly to the Renaissance in Christendom
(in the 12th, 13th century Plato and Euclid were being translated
into Latin from the Arabic))

However, I'm not going to treat the "Jewish World Review"
article peddling stereotypes about uncivilised Arabs as an
unbiased source.

Paul

Pat Kohli

unread,

Aug 13, 2002, 10:56:52 PM8/13/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Gretings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D585A2B...@ameritel.net>...
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings;
> > >
> > > It's too bad that you saw red ("racist rant?") instead of analyzing
> > > what was said.
> > > It is Arab scholars and intellectuals themselves who are lamenting the
> > > decline of what once had been a brilliant culture of inquiry and free
> > > expression in the Middle East, but which now is characterized by the
> > > almost complete lack of democratic values in Arab nations.
> >
> > Aha! So, when Zev Chafits writes in "Jewish World Review", you read an Arab lamenting the decline of
> > his culture, now deteriorating into a lack of democratic values?
> >
>
> That's an incorrect conclusion.

You are quite right there is an incorrect conclusion. Despite your uninformed assertions, the "Jewish World
Review" is _not_ I say again _not_ an Arab newspaper

> A number of Arab intellectuals have
> made world news for their critique of their own culture. And does
> anyone seriously deny that among the 22 member states of the Arab
> League there is a distinct lack of democratic values?

Is this a question? Are we not Americans? We have a distinct lack of democratic values - check out the
White House! The current leader of our state decided to weigh in w/ Israel in deciding that elected PA
leader Yasser Arafat was no longer representative. We are in no position to look to the Arabs for a lack of
democratic values, we need to recover our own democratic values!

> These states
> are characterized by dictatorships.

China is a dictatorship, too. The PA has an elected leadership.

> I would hope you find it
> NON-racist and indeed encouraging that the efforts of these Arab
> scholars is recognized outside their inner circle. Because of them,
> there is hope. These people need far more support than they are
> getting.

Zev Chafits is _not_ NOT NOT _not_ an Arab Scholar critiquing Arab culture!!!!!

>
> > >
> > > But while the problem is deeply embedded in the mindset of many Arabs,
> >
> > Like Zev Chafits, and the staff of the "Jewish World Review" which you like to parrot, and now even
> > represent as Arabs lamenting middle eastern culture?
> >
> > >
> > > it is by no means hopeless. Look at Iran. Although not Arab, they
> > > too were forced to live under repressive conditions. But they have a
> > > consciousness about freedom and self-determination, and show signs of
> > > liberating themselves.
> > > It could be this way with Palestinians and Arabs. But the path will
> > > not be easy. Until we find a way to start along this path, the cost
> > > in bloodshed will be high (and needless). (Also see my comment near
> > > the end.)
> >
> > Please read your racist rants before responding.
>
> Please try to re-read Zev without looking for the worst
> interpretation.

Zev is NOT NOT NOT the Arab scholar you misrepresent him to be! Don't you dare advise me to read his
hateful anti-American lies again!

>
> He is making some useful points.

No. He confuses Saddam Hussein w/ Islamic militancy. What a putz! 20 years ago Saddam was in trouble with
the do gooders for starting a war against Islamic militancy. 12 years ago Saddam was in trouble with the
do-gooders for fighting against his fellow Sunni Muslims who were ethnicly Kurds. Let me make this plain:
Saddam is a Ba'athist, an Arab nationalist who cares more about Arab ethnicity than religion; he is NOT an
Islamist, despite what Chafits is saying today.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0802/chafets.html

> Until we come to grips with the
> "root causes" of the intransigent hatred which motivates many
> Palestinians and Arabs, we can expect only escalating bloodshed and an
> increasing threat to world peace.

Hello, Hello! What about the zionist hatred of and complete disregard for Arabs? You present the bigotted
Zionist perspective to TRB on an almost daily basis. This is plain. It is almost as plain as the thousands
of Palestinians killed in the past dozen months by the state of Israel, the homes which have been bull
dozed, the olive groves which were detroyed. If you have the least interest in causes for Arab mistrust of
Israel, had you thought of looking into the many motives for ill will?

>
> If you could look at opposing viewpoints without automatically
> assuming nefarious intent, perhaps you could help to solve the
> problem.
>

Arrggghhhhh! You post this awful garbage here, loaded with hateful accusations. You have a lot of chutzpah
to put that one on me!

>
> (snip)
>
> > > > Had it occurred to you that the phrase 'Father knows best' is from an
> > > > American TV show, that stoning is the punishment for adultury given in the
> > > > Torah (a whipping is the punishment in the Qor'an)? Will you ever again
> > > > see past the hypocrisy of your bigotted sources?
> > >
> > > But the Jews do not stone women,
> >
> > So, you are glad that they have forsaken the law of your God?
>
> Please! Must EVERYTHING be so negative?

Well, 1) stoning women is the law of your God, and 2) you say the Arabs do it, so, 3) you now say it is
negative. It seems clear to me that you will argue that whatever they do is negative, so don't put it on
me!

>
>
> >
> > "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful
> > conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, `I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did
> > not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take
> > and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; ... But if the thing
> > is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the
> > young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with
> > stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you
> > shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
> > Deutornomy 22:13-21
> >
> > > and the Arabs DO practice "honor
> > > killings" of their women.
> >
> > How many Palestinian women have the Israelis killed in the past year? How many Palestinian women were
> > the victims of "honor killings"? Who is following your Bible, and who is not?
>
> Surely you are not defending "honor killings" by saying that MORE
> women died in military actions than were murdered by their own
> relatives???

Military actions? What military actions? I was not aware the Palestinians had a military.

>
> Again, please look at who IS doing the "honor" killing and who is NOT.
> Can you draw any useful conclusions concerning how to advance womens'
> rights from these facts?

Are you one of the secular humanists now, trying to destroy our traditional family values?

Robert Arvay

unread,

Aug 14, 2002, 8:58:40 AM8/14/02

Greetings;

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D59C6F3...@ameritel.net>...
(snip)

>
> You are quite right there is an incorrect conclusion. Despite your uninformed assertions, the "Jewish World
> Review" is _not_ I say again _not_ an Arab newspaper
>

(snip)

>
> Zev Chafits is _not_ NOT NOT _not_ an Arab Scholar critiquing Arab culture!!!!!
>
> >

(snip)

>
> Zev is NOT NOT NOT the Arab scholar you misrepresent him to be! Don't you dare advise me to read his
> hateful anti-American lies again!
>

(snip)

Just for the record, I did not represent Jewish World Review nor the
author I quoted to be Arab.

The Palestinian situation is very complex and emotion-laden, with each
side firmly convinced of its own rightness, and firmly convinced that
the other side is deliberately evil.
The fact is that there are good and bad people on both sides. If the
good people on each side were in control of the events, those events
would quickly lead to a just and fair settlement--- a settlement which
extremists of both sides would reject as unacceptable.
But the events are not so controlled. Consequently, events in the
mid-East will continue to spiral out of control, until world peace is
not only seriously threatened, but actually destroyed. The likelihood
is ever stronger that, in the lifetimes of our children, a world war
will erupt, with the mid-East at its center.
This area of the world seems to be a reflection of man's fallen
nature, and of his tragic flaws. Shakespeare and Homer together could
not have written a more telling epic.
But in the end, God will prevail. Only through Him can a just and
lasting peace be accomplished--- and even then, not until the brute
evil of man's sinful nature has run its course.
Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly!

Paul Hammond

unread,

Aug 15, 2002, 9:38:18 AM8/15/02

Rober...@Msn.Com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<457ff776.02081...@posting.google.com>...

> Greetings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D59C6F3...@ameritel.net>...
> (snip)
> >
> > You are quite right there is an incorrect conclusion. Despite your uninformed assertions, the "Jewish World
> > Review" is _not_ I say again _not_ an Arab newspaper
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > Zev Chafits is _not_ NOT NOT _not_ an Arab Scholar critiquing Arab culture!!!!!
> >
> > >
> (snip)
> >
> > Zev is NOT NOT NOT the Arab scholar you misrepresent him to be! Don't you dare advise me to read his
> > hateful anti-American lies again!
> >
> (snip)
>
> Just for the record, I did not represent Jewish World Review nor the
> author I quoted to be Arab.
>

So when, earlier in this thread, you said:

---
Greetings;

---

you were *not* in fact referring to the article you had
just quoted from the Jewish Review?

How could we tell?

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Aug 16, 2002, 2:42:03 PM8/16/02

Greetings;

paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.02081...@posting.google.com>...

> Rober...@Msn.Com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<457ff776.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> >

> > Just for the record, I did not represent Jewish World Review nor the
> > author I quoted to be Arab.
>
> So when, earlier in this thread, you said:
>
> It is Arab scholars and intellectuals themselves who are lamenting the
> decline of what once had been a brilliant culture of inquiry and free
> expression in the Middle East, but which now is characterized by the
> almost complete lack of democratic values in Arab nations.
> ---
>
> you were *not* in fact referring to the article you had
> just quoted from the Jewish Review?
>
> How could we tell?
>

I should have been more clear. I was referring to the fact that the
quoted author is not the only person who is calling for Arab
introspection. Arabs are also (I had posted on this earlier) sounding
the clarion call, albeit in very small numbers. Even today I heard on
a radio talk show that some Arabs are complaining that only a
minuscule number of patents are being granted to Arabs, with vastly
more going to Israelis. In other words, the Arab mindset is not being
devoted to creative solutions to problems.
When the 22 nations of the Arab League consist of only two or three
democracies, and at least a dozen absolute tyrannies, this is a
screaming indictment that something needs to be done to democratize
Arabia. In non-Arab dictatorships, one can ususally find evidence of
an energetic pro-democracy faction, despite persecution. In Arab
countries, the only rebels tend to be themselves tyrannical
absolutists. When there is a popular uprising among Arabs and
Palestinians, their motive rarely seems to be some noble principle
such as libertad, but rather, mob actions inspired by calls for the
destruction of some real or imagined enemy.
This is not a racist rant. I could as easily speak of my own heritage
(Eastern Europe) where vendetta is a way of life, and anti-Semitism an
inherent disease of the culture. But the topic here is the mid-east,
currently a much more volatile and dangerous arena than Hungary and
Romania (who also harbor inherited enmity).
Whatever the grievances the Palestinians may claim against Israel, the
amount of damage Israel has done to them could long ago have been
remedied by Arab wealth and western aid. Literally billions of
dollars have been spent, enough to enrich every Palestinian family in
the world. But vast amounts of this aid have been siphoned off to
weapons and to corruption. Once on their feet economically, the PA
could have been a potent force in regaining territory and justice at
Israel's expense--- if indeed they were more interested in doing that
than in enjoying the blessings of liberty and a productive economy.
And that is a crucial point. The Palestinians have a choice--- even
if an unfair one--- between war (and the poverty it brings) and peace
with prosperity.
The Israelis have a choice between war and the destruction of their
country (even if you consider them the enemy).
The most fruitful and promising solution to the mideast turmoil is to
democratize the Palestinians (currently, no one can run against Arafat
without winding up dead), and channel their available funds into
economic development.
A prosperous, democratic Palestinian people (not only on the west
bank, but also in Jordan and Lebanon) could become a highly
influential player on the world scene.
Then, if they still desired to oppose Israel, they could do so with
much more effect, and far less loss of life, than they now can.
Somehow, I imagine they'd have more pleasant interests.
In short, the Arabs are currently choosing to fight Israel in much the
same manner that Goliath did. But they have better choices, if they
truly want better.

Sufi Baha'i

unread,

Aug 19, 2002, 9:15:58 AM8/19/02

Did South Aficans accept the Transkei and Boputhatswana? No, so why
should the Palestinians accept the current setup? The reason the PA
is corrupt is the same reason Ciskei was corrupt, in order to be a
government you have to sell out your people to the white masters.
Apartied in Israel and the West Bank must end just as it ended in
South Africa.

"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d58...@212.67.96.135>...

george.fleming2

unread,

Aug 19, 2002, 9:40:34 AM8/19/02

" It is possible that some of the western friends, with remarkable naivete,
do not grasp the fact that there is absolutely nothing keeping those have
broken the Covenant, whether Baha'u'llah's or the master's, out of the Cause
of God except their own inner spirtually sick condition. If they were sound,
instead of diseased, and wanted to enter the service of our Faith , they
would apply directly to the Guardian (or today the Universal House) and he
would be able to adjudge of their sincerity and , if sincere would welcome
them into the ranks of the faithful as he didwith Sydney Sprague.
Unfortunately a man who is ill is not made well just by asserting there is
nothing wrong with him! Facts actual states, are what count. probably no
group of people in the world have softer tounges, or proclaim more loudly
their innocence, than those who in their heart of hearts, and by their very
act, are enemies of the Center of the Covenant. The master well knew this,
and that is why He said we must shun their company, but pray for them. If
you put a leper in a room with healthy people, he cannot catch their health:
on the contrary they are very likely to catch his horrible ailment.

(from a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the national Spirtual
Assembly of the United States, April 11, 1949)

in article 189ac3e8.02081...@posting.google.com, Sufi Baha'i at
pe...@capebyron.com wrote on 19/8/02 1:15 pm:

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random
Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

george.fleming2

unread,

Aug 19, 2002, 1:54:12 PM8/19/02

(from a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the national Spirtual
Assembly of the United States, April 11, 1949)

in article e247d7b6.02081...@posting.google.com, Robert Arvay at
Rober...@msn.com wrote on 16/8/02 6:42 pm:

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 20, 2002, 9:46:29 AM8/20/02

Here is something I presented to the World Federation of Methodist Women on
this topic.

As perhaps the only Middle Eastern historian in the state of
Mississippi,
I’ve been invited to speak to various organizations in the wake of
the events
related to 9-11. In all cases I have been asked to help provide some
understanding of what led to this tragedy. But my invitation to speak to
you
today represented a particular challenge, for I was told I could speak
for only
fifteen minutes. As the Methodist men could have told you who invited me
to
speak at their prayer breakfast, I could barely get off the ground when
they
gave me twice that long. But I was given a further challenge here, I was
told
that the World Federation of Methodist Women and Uniting Church Women
had
already committed themselves to seeking reconciliation and their hope
was that I
might contribute to that process. This was an endeavor very dear to my
own heart
and I was eager to accept. But the dilemma remained, “what can I
possibly say in
fifteen minutes? There would really be no time to discuss the internal
dynamics
of Islamic history or Middle Eastern politics or US foreign policy that
led us
to 9-11, there is not even time to discuss with you the basics of Islam
and how
much it shares in common with Christianity as I am wont to do when I
address an
audience of this type. So what then could I do?

The answer came to me as a result of a conversation I had with a man
earlier
in the week. When he found out I taught at Jackson State University he
wanted to
know what I taught. After finding out that I was a specialist in Middle
East
History, he made the remark, “Those people aren’t like us.
They just don’t think
the way we do.”

I couldn’t help but think to myself just how much he did have
in common with
those responsible for 9-11 and just how much of their mentality he
shared. You
see what this man had done was to ‘other’ Muslims and people
in the Middle East.
And it is a very short step between this ‘othering’ of
fellow human beings and
killing them without conscience. For that moral injunction common to all
the
great religions to treat others as we ourselves would wish to be
treated, to
love our neighbors as we love ourselves becomes null and void if we
define
others as not ‘like unto us’ and not our neighbors. And all
too often it has
been the fanatical impulses generated within these same religions,
whether it be
in the form of dividing the world between infidels and believers, saved
and
unsaved, the children of God and the children of Satan which has
encouraged
people to do this. If there is one thing I would like to impress upon
you this
morning it is the responsibility religious leadership has to work to
eradicate
this mindset which more than anything else stands in the way of
achieving world
peace and reconciliation, and beyond that the unity of humanity.

It is considered political correct these days to affirm that acts
committed
by Bin Laden and his followers did not represent Islam and that in fact
those
that committed them cannot be considered Muslims. Many Muslims have
themselves
affirmed this to be the case, for they no more wish to be associated
with these
acts than most Christians would like to be associated with abortion
bombings.
But there is a danger here. In defining Bin Laden and those like him as
not
really Muslim, they are ironically becoming like him. What do I mean by
this.
The kind of religiosity represented by Ben Laden and many other
terrorists
groups grew out of the Islamic revival movements of the 18th
and
19th centuries. While there were a number of differences
between
these groups, one of the things they shared in common was the tendency
to
pronounce *takfir* against their fellow Muslims. This meant that they
declared
Muslims who believed differently from them as infidels and apostates,
objects of
holy war, worthy of death. Because of the value most Muslims place upon
the
unity of the community most rejected this kind of sectarianism and I
submit that
they were right to do so. But if such a position is to be consistently
upheld we
cannot then turn around and say that these people are not Muslims. It
would be
more accurate and honest to acknowledge that evil and sin exists within
the
Islamic community just as there is within the Christian community,
rather than
to make judgments as to who is really Muslim or a Christian. We must
come to
recognize within our own religious communities and without it, that the
demarcation line between good and evil runs through each of our own
hearts, it
is not some axis which exists apart from us.

Because I come to you as an Islamicist, I will concentrate on that
evil as it
is found in the Muslim community, as Islam itself would define it, but
it should
not take too much imagination for you to see how it applies to your own.
In
Islam the paramount ethical value is unity, tawhid, the unity of God,
the unity
of religion, the unity of humanity. The worst sin then is to destroy
that unity.
This can be done in two ways. First is by doing what the Muslims call
‘joining
partners with God.” That can mean idolatry in the literal sense;
it also
includes the more subtle ways in which we make things more important in
our
lives than God is.

The second type of sin is that of sectarianism, creating divisions
within the
religion of God and hence giving rise to fanaticism. Much as the Prophet

Muhammad decried sectarianism, He recognized that Islam would not be
immune to
its effects. He is said to have stated, “The Jews have 71 sects,
the Christians
72, while my people will have 73 sects.” (He had apparently never
visited
Jackson, Mississippi.) The point, of course, is that Muhammad could
forsee that
sectarianism would prove as destructive to the Islamic community as it
had to
Judaism or the church. I submit to you that this kind of sectarianism is
at the
very heart of that ‘othering’ process which we have been
talking about. The
Qur’an states that what causes sectarianism is that each group
takes a part of
the truth and insists on making it the whole, cleaving to what is their
own.

It has been a number of centuries since Westerners have killed one
another in
the name of religion, but I would remind that this kind of behavior
largely
stopped, not because Europeans came to see it as unchristian but because
the
West became frankly less religious. Yet the secular ideologies which
replaced
religion, whether they be communism, materialism or nationalism proved
to be
equally divisive, to give rise to fanaticisms even more destructive than

religion. Without the moral compass which religion alone provides, the
brutalities of the Twentieth century soon exceeded those of the
Crusades, the
Inquisition, the 16th century Wars of Religion. Communism has
largely
died away in recent years, but in its wake virulent strains of
nationalism have
all to often reared their ugly, often racists heads.

So we can’t live with religion and we can’t live without
it. Is there any
solution before us? Karl Baarth once suggested that religion was mankind

reaching for God while Christianity was God reaching for humanity. That
works so
long as one knows nothing about what any religion says about itself. But

otherwise it is simply one more subtle way of othering. Nearly all
religions and
most especially the Abrahamic ones of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and
the Bahai
Faith are grounded in the claim that God, through His revelation has
disclosed
Himself to us. The term religion itself, as St. Augustine pointed out so
long
ago is derived from the word *religio* which means to bind together, in
community, in relationship. So the challenge is how to we get religion
to play
that role rather than driving us apart?

I submit that this can only happen if religious leadership commits
itself
unreservedly to promoting the unity of humanity. And so long as 11:00 am
Sunday
morning remains the most racially segregated hour in America that
isn’t going to
happen. And as long as we distinguish between the ‘saved and the
unsaved’ it
isn’t going to happen either. We must be prepared to recognize the
possibility
of genuine revelation occurring outside the context of our own religion,
our own
understanding, that God’s grace has been in operation among all
peoples and all
times. To accept as the Qur’an states, that there is no people to
whom a Prophet
has not been sent.

Among those religion born in the Middle East, one of them is the
Bahai Faith.
The Bahai Faith was born in Iran in the middle of the 19th
century
and though small, it bares the same relationship to Islam that
Christianity
bares to Judaism. I mentioned this because in 1912
‘Abdu’l-Baha, the son of the
Prophet-founder of the Bahai Faith came to this country and He gave a
talk which
I think very succinctly summed up the problem. I’d like to repeat
a part of it
to you now:

“Throughout past centuries each system of religious belief has
boasted of its
own superiority and excellence, abasing and scorning the validity of all
others.
Each has proclaimed its own belief as the light and all others as
darkness.
Religionists have considered the world of humanity as two trees: one
divine and
merciful, the other satanic; they themselves the branches, leaves and
fruit of
the divine tree and all others who differ from them in belief the
product of the
tree which is satanic. Therefore, sedition and warfare, bloodshed and
strife
have been continuous among them. The greatest cause of human alienation
has been
religion because each party has considered the belief of the other as
anathema
and deprived of the mercy of God.”

He went on to say:

God is equally compassionate and kind to all the leaves, branches and
fruit
of this tree. Therefore, there is no satanic tree whatever-- Satan being
a
product of human minds and of instinctive human tendencies toward error.
God
alone is Creator, and all are creatures of His might. Therefore, we must
love
mankind as His creatures, realizing that all are growing upon the tree
of His
mercy, servants of His omnipotent will and manifestations of His good
pleasure.

Even though we find a defective branch or leaf upon this tree of
humanity or
an imperfect blossom, it, nevertheless, belongs to this tree and not to
another.
Therefore, it is our duty to protect and cultivate this tree until it
reaches
perfection. If we examine its fruit and find it imperfect, we must
strive to
make it perfect. There are souls in the human world who are ignorant; we
must
make them knowing. Some growing upon the tree are weak and ailing; we
must
assist them toward health and recovery. If they are as infants in
development,
we must minister to them until they attain maturity. We should never
detest and
shun them as objectionable and unworthy. We must treat them with honor,
respect
and kindness; for God has created them and not Satan. They are not
manifestations of the wrath of God but evidences of His divine favor.
God, the
Creator, has endowed them with physical, mental and spiritual qualities
that
they may seek to know and do His will; therefore, they are not objects
of His
wrath and condemnation. In brief, all humanity must be looked upon with
love,
kindness and respect; for what we behold in them are none other than the
signs
and traces of God Himself.”

This then is the challenge I see facing the religious leadership of
today. I
hope you may all arise to meet it.

Susan Maneck
Associate Professor of History
Jackson State University

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 22, 2002, 1:11:44 AM8/22/02

> Even today I heard on
>a radio talk show that some Arabs are complaining that only a
>minuscule number of patents are being granted to Arabs, with vastly
>more going to Israelis. In other words, the Arab mindset is not being
>devoted to creative solutions to problems.

Dear Robert,

That is hardly a reflection of 'mindset.' Rather it is an indication of
relative wealth and education. Unfortuntately among the Arabs, those who have
one rarely have the other. For instance Gulf Arabs are the wealthiest but not
the best educated while Palestinians and Lebonese are the best educated but got
no money.

>In non-Arab dictatorships, one can ususally find evidence of
>an energetic pro-democracy faction, despite persecution.

That is until they get into power, just like the Arabs. ;-}

>When there is a popular uprising among Arabs and
>Palestinians, their motive rarely seems to be some noble principle
>such as libertad, but rather, mob actions inspired by calls for the
>destruction of some real or imagined enemy.

It is much simplier than that. They want their land back. Is that so hard to
understand?

>This is not a racist rant.

Sure it isn't. ;-}

>Literally billions of
>dollars have been spent, enough to enrich every Palestinian family in
>the world.

Do you have any idea how many Palestinians there are?

Robert Arvay

unread,

Aug 22, 2002, 1:58:02 PM8/22/02

Greetings, Susan;

Ya been away?
Over the course of several posts, I have quoted (and commented upon)
published articles by various people concerning the plight of the
Arabs, and in particular, the Palestinians.
For example, some few Arab scholars have been wondering out loud why
the formerly shining Arab civilization has been eclipsed by the west.
Now, surely, one could take the standard anti-Western point of view,
and talk about the unfairness of it all. But that just seems to get
nowhere. It seems more fruitful for the Arabs themselves to do a bit
of the kind of critical introspection which we in the West have done
(but not to our extreme of self-hatred). Surely it must be productive
for Arabs to wonder whether their culture might be being sapped of its
inherent strength by the fact that the vast majority of its
governments are dictatorships, or at the very least, if one quibbles
with the word "dictatorship," non-democracies. Surely there is room
for fruitful discourse among Arabs concerning this.
For the Palestinians specifically, we can try to reduce it to "They
want their land back." But this is non-productive on two counts.
First, the Israelis can make at least a plausible case that the land
has never rightfully belonged to the Palestinians. But, second, even
if one takes the Palestinian side, the PA claims wind up in the same
futile bucket with the Basque, Quebecois, American Indian, SW-USA
Mexicans, and Euro-Jews, among others, who may or may not have
legitimate grievances, but who also have no practical way of ever
accomplishing their stated, ambitious goals.
Ironically, the Palestininas have the greatest opportunity of any of
these groups of achieving the most redress of their grievances.
Billions of dollars have been spent (that is to say, squandered) in
their behalf, money which if applied to productive investments in
developing themselves economically, could long ago have greatly
alleviated the squalor in which they now live. Additional billions
are available from wealthy Arab states who have ZERO interest in
establishing a second democracy (Palestine) in the heart of despotic
Arabia.
Additional errors by the Palestinians include confusing enemies for
friends. By far the greatest number of Palestininas in the past 40
years who were killed, were killed by Jordanian soldiers (approx
20,000 over a few days) and Syria (which now oppresses Palestinians in
Lebanon to the level of atrocity).
By focusing their hatred on relatively benign Israel, the Palestinians
have become the pawns of their true enemies, and the scourge of their
most liberal potential allies in Israel.
If one wishes to take a truly pro-Palestinian position, perhaps one
should vigorously advocate an abandonment of hatred and violence,
effective opposition to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the establishment
of a truly democratic, economically free state, not only for the
Palestininas (who have never ever had a country), but more
importantly, for the sea of Arab nations among which they are
situated.
But, then, that would also be pro-Israel and pro-American, and we
can't have that now, can we?
=====================

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20020822011144...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
(snip)

>
> Dear Robert,
>
> That is hardly a reflection of 'mindset.' Rather it is an indication of
> relative wealth and education. Unfortuntately among the Arabs, those who have
> one rarely have the other. For instance Gulf Arabs are the wealthiest but not
> the best educated while Palestinians and Lebonese are the best educated but got
> no money.
>

(big snip)

Randy Burns

unread,

Aug 22, 2002, 3:04:26 PM8/22/02

Robert

Some Arab scholars have been asking this question for 300 plus years. You
might want to consult the book by Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, for
further information on this topic.

Cheers, Randy

Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message
news:457ff776.02082...@posting.google.com...

> For example, some few Arab scholars have been wondering out loud why
> the formerly shining Arab civilization has been eclipsed by the west.
>

> (big snip)

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 22, 2002, 5:08:39 PM8/22/02

>Ya been away?

Yep.

>For example, some few Arab scholars have been wondering out loud why
>the formerly shining Arab civilization has been eclipsed by the west.

Well, if you broaden that to mean the Islamic world in general, Abdu'l-Baha
addresses this issue in Secret of Divine Civilization. you can access it here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/Bahai/Texts/EN/SDC/SDC-1.html

>First, the Israelis can make at least a plausible case that the land
>has never rightfully belonged to the Palestinians.

On the basis of what? They didn't live there?

>PA claims wind up in the same
>futile bucket with the Basque, Quebecois, American Indian, SW-USA
>Mexicans, and Euro-Jews, among others, who may or may not have
>legitimate grievances, but who also have no practical way of ever
>accomplishing their stated, ambitious goals.

That much is true. But at least some of these groups are getting reparations.
And the what was done to them is more recent.

> Additional billions
>are available from wealthy Arab states who have ZERO interest in
>establishing a second democracy (Palestine) in the heart of despotic
>Arabia.

Oil rich Arabs, not only have no interest in democracy in Palestine, they have
no interest in the Palestinian people. That has nothing to do with being Arab.
It has to do with greed and seeing the Palestinian people as nothing more than
a cheap work force, kind of like we see Mexicans.

>Additional errors by the Palestinians include confusing enemies for
>friends.

The Palestinians have no illusions as to who are not their friends. Where do
you think the term Black September comes from?

Dermod Ryder

unread,

Aug 23, 2002, 6:02:36 AM8/23/02

"Robert Arvay" <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message
news:457ff776.02082...@posting.google.com...

> Greetings, Susan;
>
> Ya been away?

Yup! But unfortunately, or fortunately, has returned. Personally I'm
of the latter persuasion - it's useful to see the DST from time to
time as a yardstick by which we can measure how far society has
progressed and of what we would have to endure if we permitted any
regression to a religionist inspired and managed society

Paul Hammond

unread,

Aug 22, 2002, 2:50:19 PM8/22/02

Robert Arvay <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e247d7b6.02081...@posting.google.com...
<more "Arabs don't get democracy" stuff snipped>

> absolutists. When there is a popular uprising among Arabs and
> Palestinians, their motive rarely seems to be some noble principle
> such as libertad, but rather, mob actions inspired by calls for the
> destruction of some real or imagined enemy.

Erm, excuse me? Palestine LIBERATION Organisation?
A movement devoted to the noble principle of freedom, and
a Palestinian homeland?

What's up - is it only Zionists who are noble when they
campaign for a homeland?

> This is not a racist rant. I could as easily speak of my own heritage
> (Eastern Europe) where vendetta is a way of life, and anti-Semitism an
> inherent disease of the culture. But the topic here is the mid-east,
> currently a much more volatile and dangerous arena than Hungary and
> Romania (who also harbor inherited enmity).
> Whatever the grievances the Palestinians may claim against Israel, the
> amount of damage Israel has done to them could long ago have been
> remedied by Arab wealth and western aid. Literally billions of
> dollars have been spent, enough to enrich every Palestinian family in
> the world. But vast amounts of this aid have been siphoned off to
> weapons and to corruption. Once on their feet economically, the PA
> could have been a potent force in regaining territory and justice at
> Israel's expense--- if indeed they were more interested in doing that
> than in enjoying the blessings of liberty and a productive economy.
> And that is a crucial point. The Palestinians have a choice--- even
> if an unfair one--- between war (and the poverty it brings) and peace
> with prosperity.

When do the Palestinians get the chance of peace - oh, and
suggesting that "love of freedom, or love of war" are characteristics
that divide along racial lines *is* a racist proposition, like it
or not. It's a bit like when people argue that the preponderence
of blacks in the crime statistics means that blacks are
pre-disposed to crime.

> The Israelis have a choice between war and the destruction of their
> country (even if you consider them the enemy).
> The most fruitful and promising solution to the mideast turmoil is to
> democratize the Palestinians (currently, no one can run against Arafat
> without winding up dead), and channel their available funds into
> economic development.
> A prosperous, democratic Palestinian people (not only on the west
> bank, but also in Jordan and Lebanon) could become a highly
> influential player on the world scene.
> Then, if they still desired to oppose Israel, they could do so with
> much more effect, and far less loss of life, than they now can.
> Somehow, I imagine they'd have more pleasant interests.
> In short, the Arabs are currently choosing to fight Israel in much the
> same manner that Goliath did. But they have better choices, if they
> truly want better.

Hmm - "the war in Palestine is all the fault of the Arabs" - and
this from a person who routinely quotes with approval the
musings of the Jewish World Review. I wonder why I'm not
buying this line?

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Aug 29, 2002, 1:42:41 PM8/29/02

Greetings;

"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d65...@212.67.96.135>...

> Robert Arvay <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:e247d7b6.02081...@posting.google.com...
> <more "Arabs don't get democracy" stuff snipped>
>

> > When there is a popular uprising among Arabs and
> > Palestinians, their motive rarely seems to be some noble principle
> > such as libertad, but rather, mob actions inspired by calls for the
> > destruction of some real or imagined enemy.
>
> Erm, excuse me? Palestine LIBERATION Organisation?
> A movement devoted to the noble principle of freedom, and
> a Palestinian homeland?

The PLO is an anti-Israel, not a pro-Palestinian organization.
Otherwise, where is its outrage against Syria and its puppet, Lebanon
where Palestinians enjoy NONE of the rights which they do in Israel,
and where they are killed by official brutality in far greater numbers
than in Israel?
The original stated goal of the PLO was to destroy Israel, a statement
which they have recanted only under duress from the USA and the UN,
and which therefore is a disingenuous reformation at best. Perhaps
you agree with that stated goal. But one can hardly expect the
Israelis to share that goal.

>
(snip)

> When do the Palestinians get the chance of peace - oh, and
> suggesting that "love of freedom, or love of war" are characteristics
> that divide along racial lines *is* a racist proposition, like it
> or not. It's a bit like when people argue that the preponderence
> of blacks in the crime statistics means that blacks are
> pre-disposed to crime.

Palestinians have the chance for peace when they renounce the
deliberate targeting of small children for political purposes, and
when they elect representatives who are unambiguously committed to a
peaceful settlement of grievances.

>
> > The Israelis have a choice between war and the destruction of their
> > country (even if you consider them the enemy).
> > The most fruitful and promising solution to the mideast turmoil is to
> > democratize the Palestinians (currently, no one can run against Arafat
> > without winding up dead), and channel their available funds into
> > economic development.
> > A prosperous, democratic Palestinian people (not only on the west
> > bank, but also in Jordan and Lebanon) could become a highly
> > influential player on the world scene.
> > Then, if they still desired to oppose Israel, they could do so with
> > much more effect, and far less loss of life, than they now can.
> > Somehow, I imagine they'd have more pleasant interests.
> > In short, the Arabs are currently choosing to fight Israel in much the
> > same manner that Goliath did. But they have better choices, if they
> > truly want better.
>
> Hmm - "the war in Palestine is all the fault of the Arabs" - and
> this from a person who routinely quotes with approval the
> musings of the Jewish World Review. I wonder why I'm not
> buying this line?
>

I am not in a position to judge whose fault the war is. I can only
observe the reality of the situation and offer an opinion as to the
solution.
As an analogy, I can weep for the unjust conquest of the Americas by
Europeans. But the reality of it is that Cherokee nation is not
likely ever to regain control of the North American plains states, and
that a more peaceful quest for justice is the best for which the
Cherokee can hope.
In Israel, the reality is that the Israelis are unlikely to put
themselves at the mercy of a vengeful and suicidal political movement,
the PLO. The best hope for the Palestinians is to abandon violence
and seek a peaceful resolution.
And unlike the Cherokee, the Palestinians have never been a state, and
would never have had any hope of becoming one had the Arab states, not
the Israelis, occupied the region now controlled by Israel.
When the PA stops murdering its moderate citizens, peace can follow.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 29, 2002, 6:53:22 PM8/29/02

>
>Erm, excuse me? Palestine LIBERATION Organisation?

Dear Paul,

In fairness to Robert, I should probably point out that it is the *land* of
Palestine they wish to liberate. That's a little different from liberating
people.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 29, 2002, 6:54:46 PM8/29/02

>And unlike the Cherokee, the Palestinians have never been a state, and
>would never have had any hope of becoming one had the Arab states

Dear Robert,

The Native Americans never had a concept of statehood either. That didn't give
anyone the right to take their land.

Robert Arvay

unread,

Aug 30, 2002, 8:24:35 AM8/30/02

Greetings;

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20020829185446...@mb-fo.aol.com>...
(Robt wrote)

> >And unlike the Cherokee, the Palestinians have never been a state, and
> >would never have had any hope of becoming one had the Arab states
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> The Native Americans never had a concept of statehood either. That didn't give
> anyone the right to take their land.
> Susan Maneck
> Associate Professor of History
> Jackson State University
>

=============
Not in the Western sense, but they did have self-rule, which the
Palestinians have never had, and which the Arabs never granted them,
but suddenly, the Arabs have a great interest in "self-determination"
for the PA. Yeah, right.
The Israeli-Palestinian land dispute is simple only to those who take
sides a priori. But to the neutral observer, both sides have
compelling arguments to support them. I sympathize with the
Palestinians while at the same time not making the moral equivalence
between their tactics and those of the Israelis. The deliberate
targetting of children for murder is unjustified no matter what the
legitimacy of their territorial or other grievances.
The sending forth of children strapped with bombs to kill themselves
and others is also unambiguusly wrong.
This does not make the wrongdoing of the Israelis excusable. But
fairness does not require equating one degree of wrong with a worse
degree.
All that said, those who would bring justice to this region must
account for the realities. Israel is not going to just go away. A
large majority of the Palestinians are never in their lifetime going
to stop calling for the destruction of Israel (and the concurrent
killing of all Jews).
All that is left is for the establishment of secure borders between
the warring groups, enforced by whatever means are reasonable,
probably by external parties.
This of course is only a temporary fix. As we saw in former
Yugoslavia, ethnic hatreds persist for generations, erupting into war
and genocide, even when an artificial peace is imposed for 70 years.
Until the Palestinians and Israelis sincerely love each other, and
love each other's children as they do their own, there will never be
peace, but only bloodshed.
Until Jesus lives in the hearts of men, there is no hope.

Paul Hammond

unread,

Aug 30, 2002, 11:50:04 AM8/30/02

Rober...@Msn.Com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<457ff776.02082...@posting.google.com>...

> Greetings;
>
> "Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d65...@212.67.96.135>...
> > Robert Arvay <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:e247d7b6.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > <more "Arabs don't get democracy" stuff snipped>
> >
> > > When there is a popular uprising among Arabs and
> > > Palestinians, their motive rarely seems to be some noble principle
> > > such as libertad, but rather, mob actions inspired by calls for the
> > > destruction of some real or imagined enemy.
> >
> > Erm, excuse me? Palestine LIBERATION Organisation?
> > A movement devoted to the noble principle of freedom, and
> > a Palestinian homeland?
>
> The PLO is an anti-Israel, not a pro-Palestinian organization.

Sez *you*

> Otherwise, where is its outrage against Syria and its puppet, Lebanon
> where Palestinians enjoy NONE of the rights which they do in Israel,
> and where they are killed by official brutality in far greater numbers
> than in Israel?

The same place as *your* outrage at the unjust oppression of the
Palestinians by the state of Israel, perhaps?

> The original stated goal of the PLO was to destroy Israel, a statement
> which they have recanted only under duress from the USA and the UN,
> and which therefore is a disingenuous reformation at best. Perhaps
> you agree with that stated goal. But one can hardly expect the
> Israelis to share that goal.
>

Perhaps you will stop beating your wife one day, but a similar
thing happened in the N. Irish peace process, where part of
the negotations involved a removal of the Eire governments
claim to the territory of N. Ireland, usually considered
a part of my own country.

Now, we *could* have all sat around denouncing each other
as terrorists or oppressors until the cows came home, meanwhile
having the bombs go off in London, Birmingham and Manchester
month after month.

Trouble is, in these situations progress is not made
by one side sitting on their arses and saying the other
side are dirty terrorists, and I'm having nothing to
do with them.

> >
> (snip)
>
> > When do the Palestinians get the chance of peace - oh, and
> > suggesting that "love of freedom, or love of war" are characteristics
> > that divide along racial lines *is* a racist proposition, like it
> > or not. It's a bit like when people argue that the preponderence
> > of blacks in the crime statistics means that blacks are
> > pre-disposed to crime.
>
> Palestinians have the chance for peace when they renounce the
> deliberate targeting of small children for political purposes, and
> when they elect representatives who are unambiguously committed to a
> peaceful settlement of grievances.
>

And, if the British government had taken the same line, the
IRA would still be killing British children today.

Difference being, that the Israelis have not yet succeeded
in largely wiping out the Palestinians as yet.

> In Israel, the reality is that the Israelis are unlikely to put
> themselves at the mercy of a vengeful and suicidal political movement,
> the PLO. The best hope for the Palestinians is to abandon violence
> and seek a peaceful resolution.

Yes - it would be. What has Sharon done recently to improve
the probability that that happens?

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 30, 2002, 3:41:53 PM8/30/02

>Not in the Western sense, but they did have self-rule, which the
>Palestinians have never had, and which the Arabs never granted them,

Dear Robert,

Self-rule was never the Arabs' to grant them. As you surely know the Europeans
powers had divided up the Levant between themselves following WWI. Before that,
those territories were ruled by the Ottomans who were Turks, not Arabs.

> suddenly, the Arabs have a great interest in "self-determination"
>for the PA.

Suddenly? Arab interest in self-rule was quite strong in the 19th century. And
the British promised it to them in exchange for their support during WWI. The
Arabs did their part, but the British betrayed them.

>I sympathize with the
>Palestinians

We've noted your 'sympathy.'

>Until the Palestinians and Israelis sincerely love each other, and
>love each other's children as they do their own, there will never be
>peace, but only bloodshed.
>Until Jesus lives in the hearts of men, there is no hope.

One thing you seem to be forgetting in all this is that Christians make up a
large proportion of the Palestinian population. Prior to the rise of Hamas
(for which the Mosad was largely responsible), Christians basically ran the
mostly strongly terroristic wing of the PLO, the Front for the Liberation of
Palestine. I remember a colleague of mine (strongly pro-Zionist I might add)
who was meeting with a number of Arab bishops at the time Sadam Hussein
invaded Kuwait. They all drank to his health.

Susan Maneck
Associate Professor of History
Jackson State University

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time

Dermod Ryder

unread,

Aug 30, 2002, 6:25:48 PM8/30/02

"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message

news:c977f97b.02083...@posting.google.com...

> Now, we *could* have all sat around denouncing each other
> as terrorists or oppressors until the cows came home, meanwhile
> having the bombs go off in London, Birmingham and Manchester
> month after month.
>
> Trouble is, in these situations progress is not made
> by one side sitting on their arses and saying the other
> side are dirty terrorists, and I'm having nothing to
> do with them.

We still have people here with attitude like that, who fail to see
that a terrorist converted to peaceful political means to achieve his
political goals, is a far better prospect that body bags and severed
limbs.

Strangely enough, many of those who are most opposed to the peace
process here claim to be "Christians" of the "born again," "saved,"
"washed in the blood of the lamb" variety, many bearing strong
allegiance to the Bob Jones/Southern Baptist mentality. Savage
bastards really - all ready to be raptured into the arms of the lord
whilst the remainder who are all heathens can sally to perdition,
courtesy of these sanctimonious prats who deny any effort or sacrifice
for peace. Well why not? After all they are doing the lord's work!

And some folk wonder why I can't abide religionists!

Dermod.

Pat Kohli

unread,

Aug 30, 2002, 10:44:40 PM8/30/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

Can you explain to me what Ari Sharon's noble principle was in starting
this war? Was he
trying to remind the Palestinians that a retired Israeli could interfere
with any aspect of
the life of thousands of Palestinians, even their right to worship, even
after Israel signed
the Oslo accords?

>
> > Erm, excuse me? Palestine LIBERATION Organisation?
> > A movement devoted to the noble principle of freedom, and
> > a Palestinian homeland?
>
> The PLO is an anti-Israel, not a pro-Palestinian organization.
> Otherwise, where is its outrage against Syria and its puppet, Lebanon
> where Palestinians enjoy NONE of the rights which they do in Israel,
> and where they are killed by official brutality in far greater numbers
> than in Israel?

Why should the Palestinians have rights in Syria and Jordan, where they
are foreigners, when
they don't have those rights in the land of their birth, Palestine?
Would you expect to have
rights in Mexico and Canada that you do not have in the USA?

Zionism has been twisted into a movement to remove a people from their
homeland, yielding a
new diaspora.

>
> The original stated goal of the PLO was to destroy Israel, a statement
> which they have recanted only under duress from the USA and the UN,
> and which therefore is a disingenuous reformation at best. Perhaps
> you agree with that stated goal. But one can hardly expect the
> Israelis to share that goal.
>

Israel now fights to exterminate the Palestinians, and with our tax
dollars, I might add. The
PLO had conceded Israel's right to exist in the Oslo Agreement, nine
years ago, but after
Israel elected a genocidal butcher as PM, they might reconsider whether
they should trust
Israel.

>
> >
> (snip)
>
> > When do the Palestinians get the chance of peace - oh, and
> > suggesting that "love of freedom, or love of war" are characteristics
> > that divide along racial lines *is* a racist proposition, like it
> > or not. It's a bit like when people argue that the preponderence
> > of blacks in the crime statistics means that blacks are
> > pre-disposed to crime.
>
> Palestinians have the chance for peace when they renounce the
> deliberate targeting of small children for political purposes, and
> when they elect representatives who are unambiguously committed to a
> peaceful settlement of grievances.

Pssst, it is Israel killing small children to incite more violence from
their terrorist friends among the
Palestinian! Last month they killed nine kids with a US made F-16.
Today they are shelling a kid with tanks! When will stop subisidizing
serial child killers?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Israeli Tanks Kill 4 In an Attack in Gaza Palestinian Woman, Sons Among
Victims

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, August 29, 2002; Page A22

JERUSALEM, Aug. 29 (Thursday) -- Four members of a Palestinian family,
including a woman and two of her sons, were killed early today when
Israeli tanks opened fire on a house south of Gaza City, residents and
hospital workers said.

It was the most serious incident in the Palestinian territories since
efforts began 10 days ago to enact new confidence-building measures that
officials hoped would eventually lead to a broader cease-fire in the
23-month Palestinian uprising against Israel's occupation of the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.

It was unclear what sparked today's tank firing, which occurred shortly
after midnight near Sheikh Ajlin, a seaside farming community south of
Gaza City and just north of the Jewish settlement of Netzarim. The area
was the site of an intensive operation Wednesday by the Israeli military
to stop arms smuggling, but Israeli security sources said there was no
apparent connection between the two events.

Early today, residents said two tanks entered Sheikh Ajlin and fired
about four shells at a two-room house, killing four people and injuring
seven others, including a 4-year-old boy. Red Crescent rescue workers
described the area where the incident occurred as an encampment of
Bedouin farmers.

"Israeli tanks rolled into our area, they were firing everywhere and one
house was hit by at least four shells," a resident of the community,
Rami Shamalakh, told the Reuters news agency.

Officials at Shifa Hospital said the victims were all from the Alhageen
family and included a woman, Huwayda, about 55; two sons, Ashraf and
Mohammed; and another relative, also named Mohammed. The three men were
in their twenties. Doctors told local reporters that Israeli military
forces prevented ambulances from reaching the wounded for about 40
minutes.

Israeli military officials said they knew of no incident Wednesday night
or today in which Israeli tanks in the Gaza Strip fired at buildings.
They said that late Wednesday night the army fired at a group of
suspicious people crawling through an open area toward a military
outpost near Netzarim, injuring some of the people.

"It must be emphasized that these suspicious figures were in a place
where there shouldn't be Palestinian civilians moving at any time, and
particularly not during these late hours," an Israeli military official
said.

Meanwhile, another Palestinian man was shot and killed Wednesday near
the Jewish settlement area of Gush Katif in southern Gaza. Local
residents said the man, a vegetable vendor, was shot by Israeli troops
while riding his bicycle, but Israeli military officials said he was
shot while trying to scale an army position.

The killings came as Israelis and Palestinians continued to test a new
agreement, called Gaza First, under which Israeli troops have pledged to
withdraw from areas in the Gaza Strip if Palestinians prevent the areas
from being used as staging grounds for attacks on Israel and Jewish
settlements.

But the agreement has not been put into effect in the Gaza area, Israeli
officials said, because of continuing violence, particularly regular
nightly mortar fire at Jewish settlements.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9156-2002Aug28.html

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Did you see that? They burnt this family where they slept, and then
said the victims shouldn't have been there at night. They want them all
dead and gone, folks.

The Israelis are the murderous butchers. So long as we subisdize them,
they will continue to bomb and shell their way through enduring enmity.

> And unlike the Cherokee, the Palestinians have never been a state, and
> would never have had any hope of becoming one had the Arab states, not
> the Israelis, occupied the region now controlled by Israel.
> When the PA stops murdering its moderate citizens, peace can follow.

The Palestinians had been a state moreso than Israel prior to 1948,
there were Arab Muslim and Christian kingdoms there a thousand years
ago; in contrast, to find Judea you'd go back another thousand years.
One possible resolution of the Palestinian question had been political
union w/ Transjordan. There really is a bit you could know about these
things before repeating what you've read from some misinformed person.

Brian Walker

unread,

Aug 31, 2002, 1:59:11 AM8/31/02

Robert - I see you keep digging yourself holes ...

Robert Arvay wrote:

snip

> The PLO is an anti-Israel, not a pro-Palestinian organization.
> Otherwise, where is its outrage against Syria and its puppet, Lebanon
> where Palestinians enjoy NONE of the rights which they do in Israel,
> and where they are killed by official brutality in far greater numbers
> than in Israel?

1. Palestinians belong in Palestine
2. I was not aware that the Syrians were killing children in their homes
with tanks - where did you get this information?

Are you suggesting that the current goals of the PLO are lies? You base
this on your perception that the efficacy of negotiation is worthless
because the changes made to the goals are not credible? So you feel (by
definition) that negotiation is worthless?

snip

> Palestinians have the chance for peace when they renounce the
> deliberate targeting of small children for political purposes, and
> when they elect representatives who are unambiguously committed to a
> peaceful settlement of grievances.

And when, may we ask, will Sharon stop targetting children?

> I am not in a position to judge whose fault the war is. I can only
> observe the reality of the situation and offer an opinion as to the
> solution.

OK - so you will no longer quote from the Zionist lobby

> As an analogy, I can weep for the unjust conquest of the Americas by
> Europeans. But the reality of it is that Cherokee nation is not
> likely ever to regain control of the North American plains states, and
> that a more peaceful quest for justice is the best for which the
> Cherokee can hope.

The analogy is wrong - the conquest is not over ... it is on-going. So
action can very well be taken.

This would involve the Israelis pulling out of Palestinian territory.
That would be a good first step, right?

Ah ... Robert ... the Israelis did not occupy Israel - the UN mandated
the creation of a Jewish homeland.

> When the PA stops murdering its moderate citizens, peace can follow.

You equate the PA with Hamas??

Brian

--
Brian F. Walker
Registered Linux User 270078
Debian GNU/Linux

Robert Arvay

unread,

Aug 31, 2002, 12:19:59 PM8/31/02

Greetings;

Brian Walker <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message news:<3D705B2F...@net-yan.com>...

> Robert - I see you keep digging yourself holes ...

No, they are called foundations :)

>
> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
>
> snip
>
> > The PLO is an anti-Israel, not a pro-Palestinian organization.

Do you doubt this?

> > Otherwise, where is its outrage against Syria and its puppet, Lebanon
> > where Palestinians enjoy NONE of the rights which they do in Israel,
> > and where they are killed by official brutality in far greater numbers
> > than in Israel?
>
> 1. Palestinians belong in Palestine

The boundaries of which are undefined but very much broader than
Israel.

> 2. I was not aware that the Syrians were killing children in their homes
> with tanks - where did you get this information?

This is the first I've heard of that. And I get my information about
Syrians killing Palestinians in Lebanon from the news services and
from the net. In fact, I re-posted one or two articles of that in
this forum.
Brian, why is the international outrage against killing Palestinians
directed ONLY at Israel, which offers far more rights to Palestinians
than does any Arab state? And can you doubt that were it not for the
state of war in which Hamas and Jihad call for the annihilation of
Israel, that Israel would offer even MORE rights to the Palestinians?

>
> > The original stated goal of the PLO was to destroy Israel, a statement
> > which they have recanted only under duress from the USA and the UN,
> > and which therefore is a disingenuous reformation at best. Perhaps
> > you agree with that stated goal. But one can hardly expect the
> > Israelis to share that goal.
>
> Are you suggesting that the current goals of the PLO are lies?

I am only stating the obvious: that the actions of the PA speak
louder than its words.

> You base
> this on your perception that the efficacy of negotiation is worthless
> because the changes made to the goals are not credible? So you feel (by
> definition) that negotiation is worthless?

Negotiation is worthwhile when it is conducted in good faith.

>
> snip
>
> > Palestinians have the chance for peace when they renounce the
> > deliberate targeting of small children for political purposes, and
> > when they elect representatives who are unambiguously committed to a
> > peaceful settlement of grievances.
>
> And when, may we ask, will Sharon stop targetting children?

Still insisting on moral equivalence, are we? Israel does not set out
to see how many Palestinian children and grandmothers it can kill.
Hamas and Jihad do, and there can be no doubt that they have the
sympathies of the PA. Were Israel to adopt the same philosophy, the
Palestinian people would cease to exist in short order.

>
> > I am not in a position to judge whose fault the war is. I can only
> > observe the reality of the situation and offer an opinion as to the
> > solution.
>
> OK - so you will no longer quote from the Zionist lobby

I'll quote truthful, relevant statements from any source I find
helpful to the discussion.

>
> > As an analogy, I can weep for the unjust conquest of the Americas by
> > Europeans. But the reality of it is that Cherokee nation is not
> > likely ever to regain control of the North American plains states, and
> > that a more peaceful quest for justice is the best for which the
> > Cherokee can hope.
>
> The analogy is wrong - the conquest is not over ... it is on-going. So
> action can very well be taken.

That's what the American Indian Movement says, too. The fact is that
Israel is not going to go quietly to its grave--- and the PA yearns
for a way to "kill all Jews wherever they are to be found."

>
> > In Israel, the reality is that the Israelis are unlikely to put
> > themselves at the mercy of a vengeful and suicidal political movement,
> > the PLO. The best hope for the Palestinians is to abandon violence
> > and seek a peaceful resolution.
>
> This would involve the Israelis pulling out of Palestinian territory.
> That would be a good first step, right?

As soon as those areas are no longer platforms from which to kill
Israeli children.

>
> > And unlike the Cherokee, the Palestinians have never been a state, and
> > would never have had any hope of becoming one had the Arab states, not
> > the Israelis, occupied the region now controlled by Israel.
>
> Ah ... Robert ... the Israelis did not occupy Israel - the UN mandated
> the creation of a Jewish homeland.

Which the Arab states opposed murderously from the outset, and
continue to this day through their proxies.

>
> > When the PA stops murdering its moderate citizens, peace can follow.
>
> You equate the PA with Hamas??

Only to the extent that the PA allows Hamas and Jihad terrorists to
openly walk the streets in PA jurisdiction, and to prepare their
terrorist attacks, without arresting them.
>

Paul Hammond

unread,

Aug 31, 2002, 10:01:47 PM8/31/02

Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020829185322...@mb-fo.aol.com...

> >
> >Erm, excuse me? Palestine LIBERATION Organisation?
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> In fairness to Robert, I should probably point out that it is the *land*
of
> Palestine they wish to liberate. That's a little different from liberating
> people.
> Susan Maneck

That's true - but surely the freedom of a "land" involves the
self-determination of the political destinies of those people
who live there.

Dirt itself has no such desires, and is generally neutral as
to which set of people considers itself in charge of what
happens upon it.

Anyhow, Robert suggests that Arabs in general, and
Palestinians in particular are a curious people who
have not our own sense of natural justice, and somehow
*prefer* oppression to freedom. I think the formation
of such organisations as PLO and Hamas actually
gives the lie to such suggestions.

Paul

Susan Maneck

unread,

Sep 1, 2002, 1:36:59 AM9/1/02

>
>That's true - but surely the freedom of a "land" involves the
>self-determination of the political destinies of those people
>who live there.

Dear Paul,

Not always. Sometimes just wanting your land back is just wanting your land
back. But my guess is they would like both if they had their druthers.

>
>Anyhow, Robert suggests that Arabs in general, and
>Palestinians in particular are a curious people who
>have not our own sense of natural justice, and somehow
>*prefer* oppression to freedom.

You noticed that. :-)

Dermod Ryder

unread,

Sep 1, 2002, 1:16:54 PM9/1/02

"dweadful steam twap" <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020901013659...@mb-mu.aol.com...

> >Anyhow, Robert suggests that Arabs in general, and
> >Palestinians in particular are a curious people who
> >have not our own sense of natural justice, and somehow
> >*prefer* oppression to freedom.
>
> You noticed that. :-)

Yeah! Surprise! Surprise! Paul actually has a brain that works ...
unlike a certain "professor" way down south in Dixie, whose name
escapes me at the moment and who would otherwise have no claim to fame
but that she has kill-filed the Dreaded Reaper and the Saintly Michael
the Canny!

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 1, 2002, 2:33:23 PM9/1/02

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20020901013659...@mb-mu.aol.com>...
> >
(Paul wrote)

> >
> >Anyhow, Robert suggests that Arabs in general, and
> >Palestinians in particular are a curious people who
> >have not our own sense of natural justice, and somehow
> >*prefer* oppression to freedom.
>
> You noticed that. :-)
>
>

You noticed wrong. People are not enculturated at birth. They learn
their values from their elders. I have mentioned both the
Palestinians, here in the USA who assimilate and adopt American-style
values, and on the other hand, my own ethnic origins of Eastern Europe
where perpetual vendetta is a way of life. It's cultural, and despite
what the multi-culturalists say, not all cultures are equally good.

But why is there this implied (or explicit?) denial that something is
wrong in an Arab culture where 19 of 22 nations are dictatorships?
(The exceptions prove it's not genetic.) Why is there more abhorrence
over Israeli territoriality than over Palestinian mothers boastfully
sending their sons out with bombs strapped to them? Why were so many
people here (on TRB) so completely willing to believe, on the
flimsiest of evidence that the Israelis had massacred 500 people in
Jenin? (UN says it did not happen--- they faulted the Israelis for
delaying ambulances, and faulted the Palestinians for emplacing
military equipment among civilians, where civilian casualties would be
the inevitable result).

How is one to persuade himself that there is not some form of
Jew-hatred among those make such blatant accusations, while utterly
ignoring the atrocities committed by the terrorists?

Perhaps my own unclarity is to blame for my words being interpreted to
be anti-Arab. And perhaps your unclarity is to blame for your
sounding anti-Semitic. But I think that by now, there should be a
clearer line of communication between the participants--- unless there
really is a racist bent on one side or the other. I hope that's not
the case.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Sep 1, 2002, 3:42:10 PM9/1/02

>
>But why is there this implied (or explicit?) denial that something is
>wrong in an Arab culture where 19 of 22 nations are dictatorships?

Dear Robert,

Unfortunately this is almost an inevitable legacy of colonialism.

>Why is there more abhorrence
>over Israeli territoriality than over Palestinian mothers boastfully
>sending their sons out with bombs strapped to them?

I guess for the same reason mothers have always proudly sent their boys off to
war.

>How is one to persuade himself that there is not some form of
>Jew-hatred among those make such blatant accusations, while utterly
>ignoring the atrocities committed by the terrorists?

It seems to me that you are the one who came on board here making accusations
against another Semitic group.

>And perhaps your unclarity is to blame for your
>sounding anti-Semitic.

Being anti-Arab is being anti-Semitic. I don't think that description fits any
of us except maybe Nima. ;-}

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 2, 2002, 9:55:14 AM9/2/02

Greetings;

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20020901154210...@mb-fp.aol.com>...

> >
> >But why is there this implied (or explicit?) denial that something is
> >wrong in an Arab culture where 19 of 22 nations are dictatorships?
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> Unfortunately this is almost an inevitable legacy of colonialism.

That is too typical an excuse for an educated historian to repeat. At
some point, people have to be held accountable for their actions, at
least to some degree, even if they WERE locked in a closet during
their childhood. To do otherwise is to regard them as helpless
puppets of their past--- a fate WORSE than being locked up.

>
> >Why is there more abhorrence
> >over Israeli territoriality than over Palestinian mothers boastfully
> >sending their sons out with bombs strapped to them?
>
> I guess for the same reason mothers have always proudly sent their boys off to
> war.

There is no comparison. We send our children to war with fear and
trepidation, and hope for their safe return. We don't send them in
hopes that they'll kill sixteen-year-olds in a pizza parlor, and die
in the process.

>
> >How is one to persuade himself that there is not some form of
> >Jew-hatred among those make such blatant accusations, while utterly
> >ignoring the atrocities committed by the terrorists?
>
> It seems to me that you are the one who came on board here making accusations
> against another Semitic group.

I was not demonizing them. I was not saying, "Kill all Arabs wherever
they are to be found," nor excusing those Jews who feel that way, nor
justifying their present behavior because of the holocaust, nor any
such thing. Perhaps your desire to find symmetry has caused you to
see it where it is not.

>
> >And perhaps your unclarity is to blame for your
> >sounding anti-Semitic.
>
> Being anti-Arab is being anti-Semitic. I don't think that description fits any
> of us except maybe Nima. ;-}

I carelessly used the a-S word, but my context was clear. I suspect
that a great deal of anti-Israeli sentiment is grounded in Jew-hatred.
At least in Europe this seems to be the case, although there is also
generalized xenophobia harming Arabs and Moslems also. But the
anti-Israel sentiment seems to enjoy more official sanction in Europe.
I certainly hope that no one here is anti-Jew, and if I've unfairly
implied that they are, I retract and apologize. One of my favorite
conservative speakers used to be Patrick Buchanan, until I felt I
detected a degree of that prejudice in him--- which others have
detected also--- and which I also hope is a false indictment. There
is no reasoning with hatred.
But I do detect here a very large anti-Israel bias, along with an
inexplicable moral equivalence that comes off as making excuses for
terrorism. If we can make excuses for suicide/homicide bombers, then
that is truly distressing to me.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!

Susan Maneck

unread,

Sep 2, 2002, 12:26:47 PM9/2/02

>I suspect
>that a great deal of anti-Israeli sentiment is grounded in Jew-hatred.

Dear Robert,

Some of us are perfectly capable of making a distinction between Jews and
Zionism.
Susan Maneck

"How very strange the imaginings of those who speak as prompted by their own
caprices, and who wander distractedly in the wilderness of self and passion!"
Baha'u'llah
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 2, 2002, 12:36:15 PM9/2/02

Look at the title you put in the thread. You assert that 'they don't think like we do'. You've been
demonizing them, and it didn't just start on this thread.

Robert Arvay wrote:

> (snip)

>
> I was not demonizing them. I was not saying, "Kill all Arabs wherever
> they are to be found," nor excusing those Jews who feel that way, nor
> justifying their present behavior because of the holocaust, nor any
> such thing. Perhaps your desire to find symmetry has caused you to
> see it where it is not.

This may be the misunderstanding. To me, it seemed you were casting Arabs, and particularly Palestinian
Muslims, as a hateful and dangerous bunch of folks; to me, this is demonization. I don't see that one
must target a group for murder to 'demonize' them, particularly since demons are seen as angelic beings,
not subject to being killed by mortal man.

Remember "Muslim Women Magazine"? I don't think it is representative of a magazine of interest to Muslim
women, yet you seemed to swallow the line becuase it suits your prconceived agenda of demonizing the
Muslims.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=7aae11037fdc64a43db9d4d56efc1109.82869%40mygate.mailgate.org

When you can't find that it is a mainstream magazine, you just stick to your preconceived demonizations:
"I am sure you have seen the TV news documentaries about the
madrassas--- small Muslim schools where young boys are taught hatred.
Undoubtedly you have read the Western news accounts--- of Arab press
reports--- that Jews drink the blood of Arab children. These press
reports could never be printed without the approval of the dictatorial
Arab states in which they are published (and where there is no freedom
of the press). And no doubt you are aware of the rampant belief among
many Palestinians and Arabs that no Jews died at the WTC--- because
they supposedly planned and carried out the atrocity, and stayed home
from work that day."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=457ff776.0206181510.6cb8e607%40posting.google.com

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 2, 2002, 8:26:26 PM9/2/02

Greetings;

In the era 1933 to 1945, Germans brutally persecuted, tortured, and
murdered millions of Jews. Even if you disbelieve in the holocaust, a
reading of the popular literature of Nazi Germany (Mein Kampf et al)
provides convincing evidence of the viciousness and hatred with which
Jews were treated.

Am I demonizing the Germans?
Hardly. The irony has often been noted that the same culture which
produced Bach and Beethoven, scientists and mathematicians, beautiful
architecture and art--- this same Germany welcomed Hitler to power and
went, for the most part willingly, into battle for him, sacrificing a
generation of young men (and thousands of women and children) to death
in a futile and evil cause which harmed millions worldwide.

And it could happen anywhere. Within all humans there lurks a dark
nature which, when the individual eludes God's protection, festers
into the pustulent sore of racism, hatred and violence.

It could happen to any nation, to any race, and to any individual,
including you and me.

Presently, this evil has taken root among a desperate, disenfranchised
people, the Palestinians. They are impoverished, powerless, and in
pain.

But guess what? So were the Germans post-1918. If we try to
sympathize with WHY people become violent and full of hatred, without
also sympathizing even MORE with their victims, we do a service to no
one.

The greatest service the world can now do for the Palestinians is not
to blame Israel or the Jews--- who certainly are not innocent--- but
rather, to do two other things at once. First, help the Palestinians
to become economically self-sufficient as individuals, so that they do
not feel beholden to the extremists among them. And second, of no
less importance, we must try to change their hearts--- to teach them
the values of peace and democracy, instead of harboring an enduring
desire for vengeance.

Ironically, it is then that the Palestininas would be strongest in
their disputes with Israel. It is then that they could choose
sensibly between peace (with honor) or war, if war is justified.

As it is now, the Palestinians are the pawns of the Arabs who are
using them as proxies in their anti-Jewish hatred, and the objects of
sympathy for European nations which have yet to come to grips with
their own racist instincts.
The fact is that neither Germans, nor Palestinians, nor American
Christians, nor any others, are genetically worse than any others.
But all of us are subject to temptation, and all of us must contend
with parts of our culture which we inherit.

And the practical fact is that the Palestinians are presently
powerless to do anything except destroy themselves, unless they step
back and take stock of the reality of their own plight, and make the
necessary, albeit painful, adjustments to lift themselves from
hopelessness.
===========================

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D73937E...@ameritel.net>...

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 2, 2002, 9:02:32 PM9/2/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> In the era 1933 to 1945, Germans brutally persecuted, tortured, and
> murdered millions of Jews. Even if you disbelieve in the holocaust, a
> reading of the popular literature of Nazi Germany (Mein Kampf et al)
> provides convincing evidence of the viciousness and hatred with which
> Jews were treated.
>
> Am I demonizing the Germans?
> Hardly.

Right, if anything you have narrowed the breadth and depth of the
crime. Hitler did not just have the Germans for
accomplices, he had help across Europe - collaborators from France and
Poland, the Ukrane and Denmark, fellow travelers in
Spain, and Finland, allies in Austria and Italy.

Hitler did not jsut kill millions of innocent Jews. He wanted to
exterminate the Gypsies as well. He tried to wipe out
Communists, and homosexuals, and even some small religious groups with
notions of race mixing got put in jail.

> The irony has often been noted that the same culture which
> produced Bach and Beethoven, scientists and mathematicians, beautiful
> architecture and art--- this same Germany welcomed Hitler to power and
> went, for the most part willingly, into battle for him, sacrificing a
> generation of young men (and thousands of women and children) to death
> in a futile and evil cause which harmed millions worldwide.

They thought they were saving the world from the great evil of
Communism.

>
> And it could happen anywhere.

Yes!

> Within all humans there lurks a dark
> nature which, when the individual eludes God's protection, festers
> into the pustulent sore of racism, hatred and violence.

Wasn't Hitler a Christian when he was young? But the question isn't so
much, 'how did Hitler go bad'? I see the
significant question as 'how did a man who had made his reputation as a
murderous bigot, get elected to be Prime Minister
of a country, apparently on his first election to a national office?'
I'd like to know, what is it about the Israeli
psyche that has them voting for a racist butcher like that? Was it that
they felt threatened? Was it that they felt they
were humiliated in the previous war? Was it a sense of race
entitlement? What was the role of propaganda in convincing
them that they could live off the blood of their neighbors?

>
> It could happen to any nation, to any race, and to any individual,
> including you and me.

No doubt.

>
> Presently, this evil has taken root among a desperate, disenfranchised
> people, the Palestinians. They are impoverished, powerless, and in
> pain.

And the victims of a murderous bigot, and his national security assets.

>
> But guess what? So were the Germans post-1918. If we try to
> sympathize with WHY people become violent and full of hatred, without
> also sympathizing even MORE with their victims, we do a service to no
> one.

It needs to stop.

>
> The greatest service the world can now do for the Palestinians is not
> to blame Israel or the Jews--- who certainly are not innocent--- but
> rather, to do two other things at once. First, help the Palestinians
> to become economically self-sufficient as individuals, so that they do
> not feel beholden to the extremists among them. And second, of no
> less importance, we must try to change their hearts--- to teach them
> the values of peace and democracy, instead of harboring an enduring
> desire for vengeance.

#3 Stop arming those who slaughter them?

>
> Ironically, it is then that the Palestininas would be strongest in
> their disputes with Israel. It is then that they could choose
> sensibly between peace (with honor) or war, if war is justified.

BTAIM, you've been demonizing them.

>
> As it is now, the Palestinians are the pawns of the Arabs who are
> using them as proxies in their anti-Jewish hatred, and the objects of
> sympathy for European nations which have yet to come to grips with
> their own racist instincts.

I think you are confused. The Palestinians are the pawns of the Israeli
MIC - by squeezing the Palestinians, they provoke
an attack on Israelis, and the Israeli MIC uses the attack on the
Isrealis to justify their excessive influence and
additional aid from the US. Read the editorial in the Washington Post:
TEL AVIV Back in 1955, Israel was swept by a wave of
terror attacks from Gaza and the West Bank. As it does
today, the government debated its response. Moshe Sharet,
then prime minister, opposed the military's recommendation
of massive retaliation. However, Sharet could not withstand
pressure from Gen. Moshe Dayan, then the military chief
of staff, and Col. Ariel "Arik" Sharon, who led a
paratrooper battalion that carried out frequent reprisals.
"Time and again I have ...
http://nl13.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/

Susan Maneck

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 2:18:45 AM9/3/02

Dear Pat and Robert,

It might interest you to know that not only did the vast majority of Christians
in Germany go along with the holocaust but even the "Confessing Church" which
established their independence from the Nazis insisted that the Jews were a
special category that had to be treated differently from other German citizens
because of their supposed perversity as "Christ killers."

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 7:21:55 AM9/3/02

Rober...@Msn.Com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<457ff776.02090...@posting.google.com>...

Mein Kampf was "popular literature"?

Actually, I _don't_ think that reading anti-semitic literature of
the time is enough to conclude that the Jews *must* have been
persecuted. Looking for actual evidence of persecution is
the way to do this - like, for instance, the Acts of Law which
discriminated against Jews and allowed others to steal their
property (is this similar to the way you want the law to
discriminate between men and women, Robert??)

> Am I demonizing the Germans?
> Hardly. The irony has often been noted that the same culture which
> produced Bach and Beethoven, scientists and mathematicians, beautiful
> architecture and art--- this same Germany welcomed Hitler to power and
> went, for the most part willingly, into battle for him, sacrificing a
> generation of young men (and thousands of women and children) to death
> in a futile and evil cause which harmed millions worldwide.
>
> And it could happen anywhere. Within all humans there lurks a dark
> nature which, when the individual eludes God's protection, festers
> into the pustulent sore of racism, hatred and violence.
>
> It could happen to any nation, to any race, and to any individual,
> including you and me.
>
> Presently, this evil has taken root among a desperate, disenfranchised
> people, the Palestinians. They are impoverished, powerless, and in
> pain.
>

Hmm. The Palestinians are Nazis now?

> But guess what? So were the Germans post-1918. If we try to
> sympathize with WHY people become violent and full of hatred, without
> also sympathizing even MORE with their victims, we do a service to no
> one.
>
> The greatest service the world can now do for the Palestinians is not
> to blame Israel or the Jews--- who certainly are not innocent--- but
> rather, to do two other things at once. First, help the Palestinians
> to become economically self-sufficient as individuals, so that they do
> not feel beholden to the extremists among them.

Okay - this aim involves overturning Israeli discriminatory
policies against the Palestinians that *prevents* them from
such self-sufficiency. Have you not heard how the checkpoints
stop honest Palestians from earning a fair living by making it
virtually impossible for them to get to work, for instance?

And second, of no
> less importance, we must try to change their hearts--- to teach them
> the values of peace and democracy, instead of harboring an enduring
> desire for vengeance.
>

And we teach them that by your "send in the tanks" attitude?

Simply crazy!

> Ironically, it is then that the Palestininas would be strongest in
> their disputes with Israel. It is then that they could choose
> sensibly between peace (with honor) or war, if war is justified.
>
> As it is now, the Palestinians are the pawns of the Arabs who are
> using them as proxies in their anti-Jewish hatred, and the objects of
> sympathy for European nations which have yet to come to grips with
> their own racist instincts.

Well, the Palestine issue is the one usually used to *justify*
anti-Jewish sentiment. Seems like a chicken and egg thing
to me - if this issue were settled it would no longer prop
up such attitudes. You spouting anti-Palestinian hatred in
a Baha'i newsgroup doesn't seem like a constructive way to do
anything about this.

Oh, and thanks by the way for the gratuitous reflex anti-Europeanism.

> The fact is that neither Germans, nor Palestinians, nor American
> Christians, nor any others, are genetically worse than any others.
> But all of us are subject to temptation, and all of us must contend
> with parts of our culture which we inherit.
>

This is true.

> And the practical fact is that the Palestinians are presently
> powerless to do anything except destroy themselves, unless they step
> back and take stock of the reality of their own plight, and make the
> necessary, albeit painful, adjustments to lift themselves from
> hopelessness.

I don't think so - the suicide bombers seem to have the power to
destroy Israeli's too - so perhaps the Israel government should
tread more wisely.

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 7:46:37 AM9/3/02

Greetings

There can be no doubt that the Nazi regime required the complicity of
many people and institutions to carry out its evil.
It was not, however, internally unopposed. While the majority of
Christians and clerics cowered, there were also many who gave up their
lives--- some of them enduring torture--- some of them seeing their
families brutalized and murdered--- many Christians became what the
Jews honor as the "righteous gentiles."
The Roman Catholic Church, which is often blamed for being too
friendly to the Nazis, did what in the fallible opinion of their
leaders they could to protect Jews. The Jewish state recognizes that
the RC church has gotten a bum rap. But undoubtedly, in an ideal
world, the RC church would rather have let the Nazis raze the Vatican
than for a single moment to have tolerated their presence.
While it is popular on the left to portray the Israelis as the
present-day Nazis of the Middle East, the fact is that the critics are
disproportionately harsher on the Israelis than on the terrorist
groups.
We saw a similar sentiment in the Smithsonian Institute, where the
Imperialist Japanese were deemed to merely be defending their way of
life, while the Americans waged a bloody war of vengeance against
them.
The bottom line fact is that Israel is daily confronted with a
determined enemy who will stop at nothing--- nothing, to utterly
destroy Israel, and to kill every last man, woman and child among
them.
But Israel, in the leftist mind, is the villain in all this.
==============

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20020903021845...@mb-cg.aol.com>...

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 7:50:10 AM9/3/02

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20020902122647...@mb-fo.aol.com>...

> >I suspect
> >that a great deal of anti-Israeli sentiment is grounded in Jew-hatred.
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> Some of us are perfectly capable of making a distinction between Jews and
> Zionism.
> Susan Maneck

As are some of us equally capable of distinguishing between Arabs and terrorism.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 7:59:39 AM9/3/02

>The Jewish state recognizes that
>the RC church has gotten a bum rap.

Since when!!! If Pope Pious XI strongly condemned anti-Semitism before his
death. Unforunately Pope Pious XII didn't follow his example.

>We saw a similar sentiment in the Smithsonian Institute, where the
>Imperialist Japanese were deemed to merely be defending their way of
>life, while the Americans waged a bloody war of vengeance against
>them.

Nonsense. Because there was one exhibit condemning Hiroshima and Nagasaki did
not make it a pro-Japanese exhibit.

>The bottom line fact is that Israel is daily confronted with a
>determined enemy who will stop at nothing--- nothing, to utterly
>destroy Israel, and to kill every last man, woman and child among
>them.

This is nonsense as well. The Palestinians want their land back not the lives
of every man, woman and child.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 2:08:54 PM9/3/02

>
>
>As are some of us equally capable of distinguishing between Arabs and
>terrorism.

You couldn't tell from the way you talk about them. I, on the other hand, did
not even mention the word "Jew" until you started accusing me of anti-semitism.

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 7:48:11 PM9/3/02

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20020903140854...@mb-mq.aol.com>...

> >
> >
> >As are some of us equally capable of distinguishing between Arabs and
> >terrorism.
>
> You couldn't tell from the way you talk about them. I, on the other hand, did
> not even mention the word "Jew" until you started accusing me of anti-semitism.
>

First, I made no such accusation. I did express some doubts, and not
about you personally. Second, however, I have been directly accused
of anti-Arabism myself.
All this personal stuff is a sideshow. I'll refrain, in the future,
from making remarks which (whether thru my carelessness or
insensitivity) could be construed that way. And I'll return to my
practice of ignoring ad hominems against me.

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 8:33:24 PM9/3/02

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20020903075939...@mb-mv.aol.com>...

> >The Jewish state recognizes that
> >the RC church has gotten a bum rap.
>
> Since when!!! If Pope Pious XI strongly condemned anti-Semitism before his
> death. Unforunately Pope Pious XII didn't follow his example.

An article I read at the JewishWorldReview website gives many
specifics. I'll research their archives.

>
>
> >We saw a similar sentiment in the Smithsonian Institute, where the
> >Imperialist Japanese were deemed to merely be defending their way of
> >life, while the Americans waged a bloody war of vengeance against
> >them.
>
> Nonsense. Because there was one exhibit condemning Hiroshima and Nagasaki did
> not make it a pro-Japanese exhibit.

There were a whole host of politically correct revisions which the
Smithsonian made a couple years ago, which received a great deal of
attention in the press. The bit about the Japanese was fairly close
to the exact quote put forth by the curators in their official
depiction of the war. Veterans groups across America were incensed
about this, and were promised a full discussion about the issue, in a
bid to assuage their sensitivities. The Smithsonian representatives
showed up for the discussion, read their prepared statements, and
departed without listening to anything the vets had to say.

>
> >The bottom line fact is that Israel is daily confronted with a
> >determined enemy who will stop at nothing--- nothing, to utterly
> >destroy Israel, and to kill every last man, woman and child among
> >them.
>
> This is nonsense as well. The Palestinians want their land back not the lives
> of every man, woman and child.

\
And you have Arafat's word on this, no doubt.

I'm curious.
I have seen on this message-board expressed the ideals of gay-rights,
women's liberation, and freedom of religion.
Where are these ideals honored, and where are they punished?
In Israel there are gay pride parades, women have the same rights as
men, and there are synagogues, churches and mosques, as well as a
Baha'i temple.
In the lands controlled by Israel's enemies, gays are put to death,
women are oppressed, and Moslems who convert to Christianity are
killed. Other religions are only barely tolerated if at all. (When I
was in Saudi Arabia, the customs officer confiscated my book on
Buddhism. It was not a religious scripture, just a book ABOUT
Buddhism. I was fortunate not to have been arrested.)
If you truly believe that the "land" issue is a cut-and-dried settled
fact barring all further discussion, then perhaps I could understand
why you would take only the Palestinian side. But it's not all
one-sided, as any informed person knows.
Beyond the land issue, there is the killing. When rumors of a
massacre in Jenin surfaced, there were howls of outrage. When the UN
certified that no such event had occurred, the outrage over baseless
accusations (being made) was muted. When the Israelis killed a
terrorist who had cloaked himself in the presence of women and
children (who as a result died), the outrage again reached
earsplitting levels. When the Palestinians deliberately targeted a
baby in its grandmother's arms killing both, I heard nary a whisper
from the left.
It is this abject disproportion that has me amazed. The same people
who cry out against a US citizen's right to own a gun for protection
express no comparable opposition to Palestinians making bombs out of
their children.
When I suggested that anti-Israeli-ism may be motivated at least in
part by Jew hatred, great offense was taken. Yet it seems to be
assumed that I hate Palestinians and Arabs. I'm routinely called a
Zionist.
When Palestinian spokesmen and Moslem clerics publicly call for the
killing of Jews "wherever they are to be found," from mosques in
Bethlehem to Riyadh to Amsterdam, there is not nearly--- not
remotely--- the outrage that would happen if PM Sharon were reported
to have said "Arabs are bad."
When official Arab publications accuse Jews of drinking Arab
children's blood, I see little if any condemnation, despite the
intense hatred that is whipped up when millions read and believe such
a statement, and when many will act upon that hatred, whether directly
or thru financial support of terrorists.
Why? Why this vast disproportion? When I speak even a bit
carelessly, I'm accused of demonizing Arabs, and making them out to be
genetically inferior--- my thorough discourse to the contrary
notwithstanding.
But the Palestinians are just people who want their land back. And
their actions prove that the Jews could trust them.

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 4, 2002, 12:43:32 AM9/4/02

Rober...@Msn.Com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<457ff776.02090...@posting.google.com>...
>

> But why is there this implied (or explicit?) denial that something is
> wrong in an Arab culture where 19 of 22 nations are dictatorships?
> (The exceptions prove it's not genetic.)

Could we look at the similar number of dictatorships and coups
in Africs, and say "the black mindset is unlike anything we
are familiar with"? And, would that be a racist kind of statement?

Why is there more abhorrence
> over Israeli territoriality than over Palestinian mothers boastfully
> sending their sons out with bombs strapped to them?

Could it be? Is it because? Perhaps that's because the Palestinians
are fighting for their own homes and their own land, which is
dwindling, while the expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied
territories - these are settlements of the invaders?

Could it really be that simple?

Why were so many
> people here (on TRB) so completely willing to believe, on the
> flimsiest of evidence that the Israelis had massacred 500 people in
> Jenin? (UN says it did not happen--- they faulted the Israelis for
> delaying ambulances, and faulted the Palestinians for emplacing
> military equipment among civilians, where civilian casualties would be
> the inevitable result).
>

I've already had a go at this untruth in another place.

> How is one to persuade himself that there is not some form of
> Jew-hatred among those make such blatant accusations, while utterly
> ignoring the atrocities committed by the terrorists?
>

Robert - you're just being silly now. We haven't been "utterly
ignoring the Palestinian atrocities" (I call tanks killing
children Israeli terrorism also). It's just that when people
are goaded by your biased comments, the impulse is to provide
a corrective of the other point of view.

I'm sure there is no shortage of pro-Israeli Americans around.

Paul

Paul Hammond

unread,

Aug 31, 2002, 11:38:47 PM8/31/02

Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message
news:457ff776.02083...@posting.google.com...

> Greetings;
>
> Brian Walker <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message
news:<3D705B2F...@net-yan.com>...
> > Robert - I see you keep digging yourself holes ...
>
> No, they are called foundations :)
> >
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > The PLO is an anti-Israel, not a pro-Palestinian organization.
>
> Do you doubt this?
>

The two kind of seem to be definitions of each other in the
current climate. The correct response appears to be a shrug.

Why do you attach so much importance to the fact that the
PLO is against those people who kill its people? Seems
only natural to me - like it seems only natural to you
that the Israelis would hate the Palestinians - some of
whom have been engaged in bombing their citizens.

> >
> > > The original stated goal of the PLO was to destroy Israel, a statement
> > > which they have recanted only under duress from the USA and the UN,
> > > and which therefore is a disingenuous reformation at best. Perhaps
> > > you agree with that stated goal. But one can hardly expect the
> > > Israelis to share that goal.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that the current goals of the PLO are lies?
>
> I am only stating the obvious: that the actions of the PA speak
> louder than its words.
>

And the same applies to the Israelis...

What actions, exactly, do you expect them to take when the
Israelis imprision Arafat, and destroy PA police buildings,
etc., etc., etc.

> > You base
> > this on your perception that the efficacy of negotiation is worthless
> > because the changes made to the goals are not credible? So you feel (by
> > definition) that negotiation is worthless?
>
> Negotiation is worthwhile when it is conducted in good faith.
>

So, the Palestinians are all liars, and you can never trust the
Arabs?

>
> > snip
> >
> > > Palestinians have the chance for peace when they renounce the
> > > deliberate targeting of small children for political purposes, and
> > > when they elect representatives who are unambiguously committed to a
> > > peaceful settlement of grievances.
> >
> > And when, may we ask, will Sharon stop targetting children?
>
> Still insisting on moral equivalence, are we?

Yes indeed we are.

Israel does not set out
> to see how many Palestinian children and grandmothers it can kill.
> Hamas and Jihad do, and there can be no doubt that they have the
> sympathies of the PA.

This is just such a pathetic argument "and there can be no
doubt" just means "and I have no evidence for my belief that".

*You* are insisting on moral equivalence between the PA
and Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

> Were Israel to adopt the same philosophy, the
> Palestinian people would cease to exist in short order.
> >
> > > I am not in a position to judge whose fault the war is. I can only
> > > observe the reality of the situation and offer an opinion as to the
> > > solution.
> >
> > OK - so you will no longer quote from the Zionist lobby
>
> I'll quote truthful, relevant statements from any source I find
> helpful to the discussion.
>

Like, the Jewish World Review and Fox News - the prosecution
rests.

>
> > > As an analogy, I can weep for the unjust conquest of the Americas by
> > > Europeans. But the reality of it is that Cherokee nation is not
> > > likely ever to regain control of the North American plains states, and
> > > that a more peaceful quest for justice is the best for which the
> > > Cherokee can hope.
> >
> > The analogy is wrong - the conquest is not over ... it is on-going. So
> > action can very well be taken.
>
> That's what the American Indian Movement says, too. The fact is that
> Israel is not going to go quietly to its grave--- and the PA yearns
> for a way to "kill all Jews wherever they are to be found."
>

That's the facts how *you* see them. The real facts however
are somewhat different...

>
> > > In Israel, the reality is that the Israelis are unlikely to put
> > > themselves at the mercy of a vengeful and suicidal political movement,
> > > the PLO. The best hope for the Palestinians is to abandon violence
> > > and seek a peaceful resolution.
> >
> > This would involve the Israelis pulling out of Palestinian territory.
> > That would be a good first step, right?
>
> As soon as those areas are no longer platforms from which to kill
> Israeli children.
>

And, of course, as long as Israel gets to choose who the
Palestinian leader they negotiate with is...

>
> > > And unlike the Cherokee, the Palestinians have never been a state, and
> > > would never have had any hope of becoming one had the Arab states, not
> > > the Israelis, occupied the region now controlled by Israel.
> >
> > Ah ... Robert ... the Israelis did not occupy Israel - the UN mandated
> > the creation of a Jewish homeland.
>
> Which the Arab states opposed murderously from the outset, and
> continue to this day through their proxies.
>

Robert: "I really just don't like the Arabs"

>
> > > When the PA stops murdering its moderate citizens, peace can follow.
> >
> > You equate the PA with Hamas??
>
> Only to the extent that the PA allows Hamas and Jihad terrorists to
> openly walk the streets in PA jurisdiction, and to prepare their
> terrorist attacks, without arresting them.
>

So, to what extent then do you equate the PA with Hama?
Are they 50% identical, 75% identical, only barely related
or what?

Paul

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 11:03:20 PM9/3/02

Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message

news:457ff776.02090...@posting.google.com...

> The bottom line fact is that Israel is daily confronted with a
> determined enemy who will stop at nothing--- nothing, to utterly
> destroy Israel, and to kill every last man, woman and child among
> them.
> But Israel, in the leftist mind, is the villain in all this.
> ==============

It's simple, Robert.

The bottom line fact is that Israel has the tanks, the paid army,
and the blood money from America as Pat keeps pointing
out. Palestinians have stones and their own lives.

That's why Israel can be fairly accused of villainy in all this.

You could write that whole paragraph out again with the
word "Israel" replaced by "Palestine" (yes, I am asserting
"moral equivalence" again)

btw - neat use of the word "leftist" as an insult!

Paul

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 3, 2002, 11:32:09 PM9/3/02

Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message
news:457ff776.02090...@posting.google.com...

> sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message
news:<20020903075939...@mb-mv.aol.com>...

> > >The bottom line fact is that Israel is daily confronted with a

> > >determined enemy who will stop at nothing--- nothing, to utterly
> > >destroy Israel, and to kill every last man, woman and child among
> > >them.
> >
> > This is nonsense as well. The Palestinians want their land back not the
lives
> > of every man, woman and child.
> \
> And you have Arafat's word on this, no doubt.
>

And, your cheap shots are getting extremely wearing - if in doubt,
call your opponent a "terrorist", a "leftist" or an "anti-American".

Insults are no substitute for argument, you know.

> I'm curious.
> I have seen on this message-board expressed the ideals of gay-rights,
> women's liberation, and freedom of religion.
> Where are these ideals honored, and where are they punished?
> In Israel there are gay pride parades, women have the same rights as
> men, and there are synagogues, churches and mosques, as well as a
> Baha'i temple.

This shows that you're just not getting it. If you support human
rights, you support human rights for *all* human beings, and
not only those you like, or those who live in countries you
think are "nice".

I might hate Robert Mugabe and all he stands for, but I still
have to accept his right to be a bigot, and stand up in
Johannesburg and blame Tony Blair for all his own
problems.

Oh, and in Israel there is *more* than just a Baha'i Temple,
it is the Baha'i World Centre. But, what does the historical
accident of Baha'u'llah ending up exiled to Haifa by the
Ottoman authorities have to do with the price of fish? Why
should that mean in your mind that Baha'is should
automatically take Israel's side and oppose the Palestinians?

> In the lands controlled by Israel's enemies, gays are put to death,
> women are oppressed, and Moslems who convert to Christianity are
> killed. Other religions are only barely tolerated if at all. (When I
> was in Saudi Arabia, the customs officer confiscated my book on
> Buddhism. It was not a religious scripture, just a book ABOUT
> Buddhism. I was fortunate not to have been arrested.)

So what? Is this the new American attitude to everything now?
If you don't like the way another country is run, you have to
send in the tanks to get "regime change" to a US-approved
government?

> If you truly believe that the "land" issue is a cut-and-dried settled
> fact barring all further discussion, then perhaps I could understand
> why you would take only the Palestinian side. But it's not all
> one-sided, as any informed person knows.

Why not? Isn't it true that the Palestinians have always
lived there, and the Israelis are the latest incomers?

That seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.

Anyhow, Susan hasn't asserted that it is a cut and dried issue -
only that your extremist version that the Palestinians will not
rest until every Israeli man woman and child is false. So,
you are actually changing your argument here.

> Beyond the land issue, there is the killing. When rumors of a
> massacre in Jenin surfaced, there were howls of outrage. When the UN
> certified that no such event had occurred,

The UN has not certified such a thing. All that has happened is
that a report has been produced noting that access to the
site was refused, and therefore that no evidence for or
against these claims could be evaluated.

The report only exonerates Israel to those predisposed to
hear Israel's version and dismiss the other side already.

Check your facts first.

the outrage over baseless
> accusations (being made) was muted.

I believe that the accusations were not at all baseless, and
you'll be eating your words if the truth ever does come out.

When the Israelis killed a
> terrorist who had cloaked himself in the presence of women and
> children (who as a result died), the outrage again reached
> earsplitting levels. When the Palestinians deliberately targeted a
> baby in its grandmother's arms killing both, I heard nary a whisper
> from the left.

Bugger off, asshole. You seem so inordinately concerned that
you *need* to hear this or that statement from your political
opponents - why is that?

> It is this abject disproportion that has me amazed. The same people
> who cry out against a US citizen's right to own a gun for protection
> express no comparable opposition to Palestinians making bombs out of
> their children.

You are arguing on the basis of your distaste for people that you
are inventing in your own head - not a good argument.

> When I suggested that anti-Israeli-ism may be motivated at least in
> part by Jew hatred, great offense was taken.

That's because you are clearly an anti-Arab racist.

Yet it seems to be
> assumed that I hate Palestinians and Arabs. I'm routinely called a
> Zionist.

Really? I haven't seen that here, though it might be true.

> When Palestinian spokesmen and Moslem clerics publicly call for the
> killing of Jews "wherever they are to be found," from mosques in
> Bethlehem to Riyadh to Amsterdam, there is not nearly--- not
> remotely--- the outrage that would happen if PM Sharon were reported
> to have said "Arabs are bad."
> When official Arab publications accuse Jews of drinking Arab
> children's blood, I see little if any condemnation, despite the
> intense hatred that is whipped up when millions read and believe such
> a statement, and when many will act upon that hatred, whether directly
> or thru financial support of terrorists.

Why do you keep repeating this Arab propaganda with such
evident glee? You know, Pakistanis have burnt the American
flag, and effigies of George Bush - does that mean you
have to have nothing to do with them now?

> Why? Why this vast disproportion? When I speak even a bit
> carelessly, I'm accused of demonizing Arabs, and making them out to be
> genetically inferior--- my thorough discourse to the contrary
> notwithstanding.

Erm - you make racist statements about Arabs. Maybe you don't
*really* believe that the Arab mindset is alien and incomprehensible
to us, but you sure as shit did start a thread under that title.

> But the Palestinians are just people who want their land back. And
> their actions prove that the Jews could trust them.

Now you're just being sarcastic!

So, you are saying that *we* are being unreasonable if we *don't*
say "The Palestinians are people who just want to kill all the
Jews"?

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 4, 2002, 8:50:48 AM9/4/02

Greetings;

"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d75...@212.67.96.135>...
(snip)

>
> And, your cheap shots are getting extremely wearing - if in doubt,
> call your opponent a "terrorist", a "leftist" or an "anti-American".
>

(snip remainder)

Paul, your reply exemplifies the chasm which separates the points of
view on this issue. I suppose it is true what the Bible says, that
Jerusalem will become (and now has become) a millstone about the neck
of the world (loosely quoted).

When I quote Arabs, Palestinians and those who oppose the existence of
Israel, that is deemed to be foul. But those statements make clear
that the enemies of Israel are in a no-compromise, take-no-prisoners
mode. And their rules of warfare give no quarter to civilians,
children, or the elderly.

When I asked for the easiest to obtain evidence about the so-called
Jenin massacre I am asked to simply take the word of the accusers, and
that even though no evidence has surfaced yet, it's just a matter of
time before it does. Just believe. It seems inconceivable to some
that the accusations might possibly be false--- even remotely
possible? Why, that just cannot be! Yet, the same people who take
on faith the word of the terrorist factions, tell me to get MY facts
straight.

When I mention that it is a tactic of the Palestinians to hide their
weapons and terrorists among civilians (human shields), thereby
inviting the specter of civilian casualties, there is no discussion of
the matter. I'm either ignored or accused of being a Zionist.

When I mention that Israeli society respects the rights of various and
diverse opinions within their society, and grants rights which have
never been respected in Palestinian and Arab culture, I'm accused of
racism.

Zionism is considered such a terrible evil that, in the minds of some,
it seems to make terrorism either justified, or excusable, or at least
"understandable." But compare the weak condemnation of terrorism with
the horrified outrage over the killing of innocent children by
Israelis, and one must wonder why this disproportion exists. But
merely to point that out brings an angry response instead of a
thoughtful analysis.

It matters not to me whether or who acknowledges the tragedy of the
mid-East. Everyone can express his opinion and believe on whatever
basis he wishes. I'm neither angry nor insulted by the remarks made
here.

But it is an excellent microcosm of sorts, and does to some extent
mirror the hopeless situation in the region. How can we expect the
direct participants to be reasonable when the discussion here is so
visceral? Despite 9/11, we don't plan our shopping trips with the
consideration that tanks or suicide bombers might kill or cripple us.
They, in the region of Israel, do. If we, who are detached, cannot
see both sides sympathetically and propose solutions, how can they?

A millstone about our necks, indeed.

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 4, 2002, 8:58:52 AM9/4/02

Greetings;

"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d75...@212.67.96.135>...
> >

(mega-snip)

Robt wrote:
> > Only to the extent that the PA allows Hamas and Jihad terrorists to
> > openly walk the streets in PA jurisdiction, and to prepare their
> > terrorist attacks, without arresting them.
>
> So, to what extent then do you equate the PA with Hama?
> Are they 50% identical, 75% identical, only barely related
> or what?
>

Paul, your remarks are so distant from what I said, that I must
conclude either that I failed utterly to express myself, or else---
well, let's just leave it at that.

God bless you.

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 5, 2002, 2:10:37 PM9/5/02

Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message

news:457ff776.0209...@posting.google.com...

You were asked whether you equated the PA with Hamas and
Islamic Jihad.

Your reply was as above.

I think my question is a fair one given that context, don't you?

And as for the second half of your "so far removed... or., I'll
leave it at that".

How about you quit trying to hint things about me, and actually
say what you are thinking instead of hiding behind pretend
reticence like this. If you've got something to say about
me, say it, don't hint it.

Paul

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 5, 2002, 2:38:25 PM9/5/02

Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message
news:457ff776.02090...@posting.google.com...

> Greetings;
>
> "Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:<3d75...@212.67.96.135>...
> (snip)
> >
> > And, your cheap shots are getting extremely wearing - if in doubt,
> > call your opponent a "terrorist", a "leftist" or an "anti-American".
> >
> (snip remainder)
>
> Paul, your reply exemplifies the chasm which separates the points of
> view on this issue. I suppose it is true what the Bible says, that
> Jerusalem will become (and now has become) a millstone about the neck
> of the world (loosely quoted).
>
> When I quote Arabs, Palestinians and those who oppose the existence of
> Israel, that is deemed to be foul.

No, Robert. What I deem to be foul is that you consider the
most extreme and Jew-hating statements of Arabs that you
can find to be representative of what *all* Arabs think.

I know fine well that Palestinians don't like the Jews much - that
means *squat* to my assessment of the justice of their cause. I
suspect that the Jews in the 1940s didn't much like Nazis
either, but that didn't make the Nazis right to persecute them.

I bet I could find the most extreme statements by Jewish
settlers (which would actually sound a lot like the threads
you start - "Arabs don't understand democracy, they don't
think like we do, we came and civilised the place and now
they want to destroy it") and pretend that they were
representative of the views of *all* Israelis - but that would
be untrue and you and I both know that.

But those statements make clear
> that the enemies of Israel are in a no-compromise, take-no-prisoners
> mode. And their rules of warfare give no quarter to civilians,
> children, or the elderly.
>

Yeah - much like the extremists who settle in the occupied
territories want the Israeli army to eradicate the Palestinian
vermin from their back yard, and give no quarter to civilians,
children or the elderly. Does the PA kidnap Israeli
citizens and dump them in no-mans land without trial
and on the mere suspicion that they have committed a crime?

> When I asked for the easiest to obtain evidence about the so-called
> Jenin massacre I am asked to simply take the word of the accusers, and
> that even though no evidence has surfaced yet, it's just a matter of
> time before it does. Just believe. It seems inconceivable to some
> that the accusations might possibly be false--- even remotely
> possible? Why, that just cannot be! Yet, the same people who take
> on faith the word of the terrorist factions, tell me to get MY facts
> straight.
>

Yes - I did that. You need to get your facts straight because
you've got your facts skewed. A UN Report that merely
notes that no firm conclusions can be drawn about the
Jenin massacre because of the massive obstruction the
Israeli government put in the way of anyone doing any
sensible investigation has been quoted by you *twice* as
proof that nothing happened and that everyone was
wrong about Jenin.

I get pretty hacked off at you when you come the raw prawn
with such things and use them as an excuse to stick your
tongue out and go "nyah, nyah na nyah nah" at us, demanding
"apologies" from us for being "wrong".

The trouble with finding evidence of the Jenin massacre is
precisely that it is *not* easy to obtain - and *that* is the
fact that the UN report confirms, not *your* skewed
interpretation. The reason for this is easy to understand
- those repsonsible for the massacre are also those
whose consent must be sought for any investigation
to take place.

As I understand it, the Nazis too ordered the evidence to
be destroyed when it became clear that they were losing
the war - and much of it was. Some of this evidence,
of course, was human beings - those who were still left
alive in some of the death camps.

> When I mention that it is a tactic of the Palestinians to hide their
> weapons and terrorists among civilians (human shields), thereby
> inviting the specter of civilian casualties, there is no discussion of
> the matter. I'm either ignored or accused of being a Zionist.
>

Perhaps because the self-serving Donald Rumsfeld nature
of this crap is apparent. I've never accused you of
being a Zionist however. But this crap only comes out
when Rumsfeld wants to tell us that actually, although
it appears that the Americans have made a mistake
and bombed a dangerous wedding party, really it
*was* a dangerous wedding party.

> When I mention that Israeli society respects the rights of various and
> diverse opinions within their society, and grants rights which have
> never been respected in Palestinian and Arab culture, I'm accused of
> racism.
>

It's because rather than merely point out the good points of
Israel, you have to go the whole way into the "Arabs aren't
civilised like we are" bollocks.

> Zionism is considered such a terrible evil that, in the minds of some,
> it seems to make terrorism either justified, or excusable, or at least
> "understandable." But compare the weak condemnation of terrorism with
> the horrified outrage over the killing of innocent children by
> Israelis, and one must wonder why this disproportion exists. But
> merely to point that out brings an angry response instead of a
> thoughtful analysis.
>

You're quite right. Your harping on about this *does* provoke an
angry response from me.

Oh, and you know this is a thinly veiled accusation of
jew-hatred at the rest of the group - don't you? "one
must wonder why this disproportion exists"? sheesh!

> It matters not to me whether or who acknowledges the tragedy of the
> mid-East.

Yeah, right. That's why you post here 9 or 10 times a day about
all this stuff. Because it doesn't matter to you what we think.

> But it is an excellent microcosm of sorts, and does to some extent
> mirror the hopeless situation in the region. How can we expect the
> direct participants to be reasonable when the discussion here is so
> visceral? Despite 9/11, we don't plan our shopping trips with the
> consideration that tanks or suicide bombers might kill or cripple us.
> They, in the region of Israel, do. If we, who are detached, cannot
> see both sides sympathetically and propose solutions, how can they?
>

There *are* people in Israel who see both sides - we just
never hear from them - and the fact that Israel voted
for Sharon was perhaps the worst thing that could have
happened.

You're right, also, that America *doesn't* know what it
is to live with the daily fear of terrorism (thank God) - 9/11
was a big deal, but might remain an isolated incident.

But, just as you say that the people of Israel live in the
daily expectation of terrorist attacks on school
buses, shopping centres, pizza parlours, and so on -
the Palestinians live with the daily terror of tanks,
bombs, and army attacks, brothers being taken
away, being taken blind-fold in a tank and dropped
in no-man's land in Gaza - etc., etc.

Now, if you want to come here and express a one-sided
view about possibly the toughest and most
violent region in the world, with so much twisted up
in it - well, you must expect to encounter the opposite
view expressed with the same one-sidedness as
a corrective.

If you stir up a hornet's nest, you'll expect to get stung,
won't you? And, if you're doing the stirring, it doesn't
bring much sympathy to whine about it when the stinging
happens.

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 6, 2002, 8:40:00 AM9/6/02

Greetings;

"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d77...@212.67.96.135>...

> > (snip)
> > >
> > > And, your cheap shots are getting extremely wearing - if in doubt,
> > > call your opponent a "terrorist", a "leftist" or an "anti-American".
> > >
> > (snip remainder)
> >
> > Paul, your reply exemplifies the chasm which separates the points of
> > view on this issue. I suppose it is true what the Bible says, that
> > Jerusalem will become (and now has become) a millstone about the neck
> > of the world (loosely quoted).

(snip)

> The trouble with finding evidence of the Jenin massacre is
> precisely that it is *not* easy to obtain - and *that* is the
> fact that the UN report confirms, not *your* skewed
> interpretation. The reason for this is easy to understand
> - those repsonsible for the massacre are also those
> whose consent must be sought for any investigation
> to take place.
>

There are three things wrong with this: (1) if the evidence is not
easy to obtain, then the accusations should not be easy to make,
especially accusations of such a grave nature. (2) The UN's report
did not state (as it could have were it true) that no firm conclusion
could be drawn based on limitations imposed by Israel upon the
investigation and (3) despite what anyone says, there has been plenty
of time for the people of Jenin to draw up at least a partial list of
those who were killed (or are missing) in the so-called massacre.
Given the extreme value that such a list would have for public
relations purposes, it is unimaginable that the Palestinians have left
any stone unturned in compiling such a list.
Therefore, unless one is accepting the word of the terrorists on
faith, the benefit of the doubt still goes to Israel until and unless
something more verifiable shows up, at which point sir, I will eat my
words--- a promise your side has steadfastly refused to make.
(Compare the willingness to believe Israel's guilt with the
unwillingness of many--- not you, sir--- to believe that bin Laden---
or any Arabs or Muslims--- had anything to do with WTC911, and you get
a picture of the propaganda factor involved.)

>
> > When I mention that it is a tactic of the Palestinians to hide their
> > weapons and terrorists among civilians (human shields), thereby
> > inviting the specter of civilian casualties, there is no discussion of
> > the matter. I'm either ignored or accused of being a Zionist.
>
> Perhaps because the self-serving Donald Rumsfeld nature
> of this crap is apparent. I've never accused you of
> being a Zionist however. But this crap only comes out
> when Rumsfeld wants to tell us that actually, although
> it appears that the Americans have made a mistake
> and bombed a dangerous wedding party, really it
> *was* a dangerous wedding party.

Not knowing all the facts here, I can't categorically state what
happened. Online reports quoting those "on-the-scene" indicate that
the forward spotters swear they saw a large anti-aircraft emplacement
and reported it. Another complicating factor is that Afghan warlords
routinely try to call in American airstrikes on each other. All that
said, the record of "friendly fire incidents is in my opinion
appalling. In the Falklands war, British aircraft strafed and killed
50 of their own men. Since then, errant American strikes have killed
numerous American and Allied troops. While no one claims these were
intentional, and while some may have been unavoidable mistakes in the
heat of combat, I find the majority of them to be worthy of the utmost
and highest-level efforts to prevent in future.

>
> > When I mention that Israeli society respects the rights of various and
> > diverse opinions within their society, and grants rights which have
> > never been respected in Palestinian and Arab culture, I'm accused of
> > racism.
>
> It's because rather than merely point out the good points of
> Israel, you have to go the whole way into the "Arabs aren't
> civilised like we are" bollocks.

The contrasts I pointed to are valid ones, and cannot be ignored if
one is to seriously discuss a solution to the problem that benefits
both sides.
>
> > (snip) But compare the weak condemnation of terrorism with

> > the horrified outrage over the killing of innocent children by
> > Israelis, and one must wonder why this disproportion exists.

(snip)

> Oh, and you know this is a thinly veiled accusation of
> jew-hatred at the rest of the group - don't you? "one
> must wonder why this disproportion exists"? sheesh!

It's an opportunity to address the matter, which sticks out like a
sore thumb in the overall discussions here and elsewhere. Recently,
more and more Arab spokesmen are in fact making statements critical of
terrorism, and perhaps they are responding to the "veiled" criticisms
of people who could not help notice their timid responses in the past.

> > It matters not to me whether or who acknowledges the tragedy of the
> > mid-East.
>
> Yeah, right. That's why you post here 9 or 10 times a day about
> all this stuff. Because it doesn't matter to you what we think.

Okay, it matters--- I just meant to me personally. And I post because
it's a vital subject.

>
> > But it is an excellent microcosm of sorts, and does to some extent
> > mirror the hopeless situation in the region. How can we expect the
> > direct participants to be reasonable when the discussion here is so
> > visceral? Despite 9/11, we don't plan our shopping trips with the
> > consideration that tanks or suicide bombers might kill or cripple us.
> > They, in the region of Israel, do. If we, who are detached, cannot
> > see both sides sympathetically and propose solutions, how can they?
> >
>
> There *are* people in Israel who see both sides - we just
> never hear from them - and the fact that Israel voted
> for Sharon was perhaps the worst thing that could have
> happened.

Actually, we do hear from dissident Israelis, far more so than from
dissident Palestinians--- perhaps because the Al Aqsa brigade
regularly thins their ranks.

>
> You're right, also, that America *doesn't* know what it
> is to live with the daily fear of terrorism (thank God) - 9/11
> was a big deal, but might remain an isolated incident.
>
> But, just as you say that the people of Israel live in the
> daily expectation of terrorist attacks on school
> buses, shopping centres, pizza parlours, and so on -
> the Palestinians live with the daily terror of tanks,
> bombs, and army attacks, brothers being taken
> away, being taken blind-fold in a tank and dropped
> in no-man's land in Gaza - etc., etc.

I have acknowledged that, and my sympathies are equally for the
innocent victims on both sides.

>
> Now, if you want to come here and express a one-sided
> view about possibly the toughest and most
> violent region in the world, with so much twisted up
> in it - well, you must expect to encounter the opposite
> view expressed with the same one-sidedness as
> a corrective.
>
> If you stir up a hornet's nest, you'll expect to get stung,
> won't you? And, if you're doing the stirring, it doesn't
> bring much sympathy to whine about it when the stinging
> happens.
>

I've neither been stung, nor have I whined. A millstone about our
necks, indeed.

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 6, 2002, 12:54:40 PM9/6/02

Greetings;

"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d77...@212.67.96.135>...

> Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message
> news:457ff776.0209...@posting.google.com...

(snip)

> > >
> > Paul, your remarks are so distant from what I said, that I must
> > conclude either that I failed utterly to express myself, or else---
> > well, let's just leave it at that.
>
> You were asked whether you equated the PA with Hamas and
> Islamic Jihad.

No, I was asked in terms of percentage, which lent an air of absurdity
to the question, which I had already answered before it was asked. Do
I equate Chevy with Ford? Or Nissans with Audis? Well, there
certainly are many similarities. But how could one assign a
percentage?

The point I made, and I thought it was straightforward, is that the PA
allows known terrorists to walk about freely and openly in those areas
where the PA has jurisdiction to arrest them. This is no big secret,
and it speaks volumes about Arafat's attitude. As for the
percentages, I'll leave that to the mathematicians to work out. I
have not the faintest clue how to begin to give you a number, nor what
purpose it would serve even if I could.

>

> And as for the second half of your "so far removed... or., I'll
> leave it at that".
>
> How about you quit trying to hint things about me, and actually
> say what you are thinking instead of hiding behind pretend
> reticence like this. If you've got something to say about
> me, say it, don't hint it.
>

Very well, I'll say it, although it's not about any one person. To be
frank, I've all but given up on getting some straightforward answers
to straightforward questions. Instead of answers, I get "How dare
you" types of retorts. How dare I mention that the Arab governments
are nearly all dictatorships? I mention it not as an insult, but as
an obvious fact that clearly has a bearing on the political and
spiritual issues surrounding the mid-East. How dare I mention that
Arab citizens in Israel enjoy rights and freedoms which are never
granted to non-Arabs in Arab-controlled countries (with 2 or 3
exceptions out of 22)? I mention this not to insult anyone, but to
explore why it might be that many Israelis feel they would not be
treated justly by the Palestinians, were Israel to capitulate.
And I could continue on.
But instead of answers, I'll just be told how rude I am to ask.

May God bless Jerusalem!

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 6, 2002, 7:52:19 PM9/6/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> "Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d77...@212.67.96.135>...
> > > (snip)
> > > >
> > > > And, your cheap shots are getting extremely wearing - if in doubt,
> > > > call your opponent a "terrorist", a "leftist" or an "anti-American".
> > > >
> > > (snip remainder)
> > >
> > > Paul, your reply exemplifies the chasm which separates the points of
> > > view on this issue. I suppose it is true what the Bible says, that
> > > Jerusalem will become (and now has become) a millstone about the neck
> > > of the world (loosely quoted).
>
> (snip)
>
> > The trouble with finding evidence of the Jenin massacre is
> > precisely that it is *not* easy to obtain - and *that* is the
> > fact that the UN report confirms, not *your* skewed
> > interpretation. The reason for this is easy to understand
> > - those repsonsible for the massacre are also those
> > whose consent must be sought for any investigation
> > to take place.
> >
> There are three things wrong with this: (1) if the evidence is not
> easy to obtain, then the accusations should not be easy to make,
> especially accusations of such a grave nature.

The accusations were made when the mounds of bodies were being picked at by the birds. The
IDF would not allow UN or Red Cross observers until after they had buried them, or otherwise
disposed of them.

> (2) The UN's report
> did not state (as it could have were it true) that no firm conclusion
> could be drawn based on limitations imposed by Israel upon the
> investigation and

The IDF forbid the observation by neutral parties at the time that the massacre occurred. For
crying out loud Robert, don't you remember when they were besiging the church of the Nativity,
down in Bethleham, at that time! Your wolves shot and killed the retarded bell ringer! It
was observed because Bethlehem has a religious significance which makes it harder for the
Israelis to get away with this sort of crime. Since they did that where they knew they were
being watched, how do you think they acted in an overgrown refugee camp of no particular
interest to the western world, were they knew they were not being watched??? Of course they
wanted no observers!

> (3) despite what anyone says, there has been plenty
> of time for the people of Jenin to draw up at least a partial list of
> those who were killed (or are missing) in the so-called massacre.

Post it here. They've been constantly harassed by the IDF. Has the western press had a
chance to get a copy of this list?

>
> Given the extreme value that such a list would have for public
> relations purposes, it is unimaginable that the Palestinians have left
> any stone unturned in compiling such a list.

For same reason, it is extremely unlikely IDF will allow such a list to see the light of day
in the US. Remember where they get their funding?

>
> Therefore, unless one is accepting the word of the terrorists on
> faith, the benefit of the doubt still goes to Israel until and unless
> something more verifiable shows up, at which point sir, I will eat my
> words--- a promise your side has steadfastly refused to make.

A logical contradiction there, Robert: if we accept the Israeli version, then we have
accepted the word of terrorists. Remember that Jenin is in the west bank. Palestinians live
there. The IDF kills people there. The IDF is the terrorists whose word should _not_ be
taken in any dispute.

>
> (snipo)

> > Perhaps because the self-serving Donald Rumsfeld nature
> > of this crap is apparent. I've never accused you of
> > being a Zionist however. But this crap only comes out
> > when Rumsfeld wants to tell us that actually, although
> > it appears that the Americans have made a mistake
> > and bombed a dangerous wedding party, really it
> > *was* a dangerous wedding party.
>
> Not knowing all the facts here, I can't categorically state what
> happened. Online reports quoting those "on-the-scene" indicate that
> the forward spotters swear they saw a large anti-aircraft emplacement
> and reported it. Another complicating factor is that Afghan warlords
> routinely try to call in American airstrikes on each other.

Bingo! I'd hope that by know we would stop doing free 'hit' jobs for them them.

> All that
> said, the record of "friendly fire incidents is in my opinion
> appalling. In the Falklands war, British aircraft strafed and killed
> 50 of their own men. Since then, errant American strikes have killed
> numerous American and Allied troops. While no one claims these were
> intentional, and while some may have been unavoidable mistakes in the
> heat of combat, I find the majority of them to be worthy of the utmost
> and highest-level efforts to prevent in future.

Good for you, Robert!

>
> It's an opportunity to address the matter, which sticks out like a
> sore thumb in the overall discussions here and elsewhere.

I had the impression that you go plumbing for this. 1) You start a thread about those 'evil
Palestinians'. 2) Other contributors point out that the problems did not start with the
Palestinians and that lately they have been taking more than they have been giving. 3) You
variously respond along the lines of a) ain't got no dog in the fight, b) criticisms of Israel
get equated w/ anti-Jewish prejudice which gets equated w/ anti-god prejudice, and/or c) "I'm
just sayin', so why are you all gettin' in my face like the Palestinians don't do no
wrong?!?!" If you would stop posting the propaganda, others would stop trying to bring you to
a more balanced perspective on the troubles in the middle east, that's it: 'the matter' is
you trying to scapegoat the Palestinians for the troubles, over and over again, even when you
wriggle off on one thread, you just start another one in the same chord.

> Recently,
> more and more Arab spokesmen are in fact making statements critical of
> terrorism, and perhaps they are responding to the "veiled" criticisms
> of people who could not help notice their timid responses in the past.
>

For the past nine years, Robert, Palestinian leaders have been pursuing peaceful coexistence.
The news will be when Israel votes for a peace candidate, rather than a genocideal butcher.

>
>
> > Yeah, right. That's why you post here 9 or 10 times a day about
> > all this stuff. Because it doesn't matter to you what we think.
>
> Okay, it matters--- I just meant to me personally. And I post because
> it's a vital subject.

Yeah, right. You've convinced me to write my congressmen to pull the plug on our $upport for
middle east terrorism.

>
> >
> > There *are* people in Israel who see both sides - we just
> > never hear from them - and the fact that Israel voted
> > for Sharon was perhaps the worst thing that could have
> > happened.
>
> Actually, we do hear from dissident Israelis, far more so than from
> dissident Palestinians--- perhaps because the Al Aqsa brigade
> regularly thins their ranks.

Perhaps the Al Aqsa brigade fills the ranks of the dissident Palestinians.

>
> >
> > You're right, also, that America *doesn't* know what it
> > is to live with the daily fear of terrorism (thank God) - 9/11
> > was a big deal, but might remain an isolated incident.
> >
> > But, just as you say that the people of Israel live in the
> > daily expectation of terrorist attacks on school
> > buses, shopping centres, pizza parlours, and so on -
> > the Palestinians live with the daily terror of tanks,
> > bombs, and army attacks, brothers being taken
> > away, being taken blind-fold in a tank and dropped
> > in no-man's land in Gaza - etc., etc.
>
> I have acknowledged that, and my sympathies are equally for the
> innocent victims on both sides.

Well, Robert, your sympathies don't appear to be w/ the innocent victims, but with the IDF,
and those who wish to blame the problems on the victims. The statement looks like somthing
you say some days after you've started another one of these 'blame the victims' threads, and a
day or two before you start another 'blame the victims' thread. So, instead of _telling_ me
you have sympathy for the victims, _show_ me, and leave them alone, for years, not hours.

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 6, 2002, 8:09:27 PM9/6/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> "Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d77...@212.67.96.135>...
> > Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message
> > news:457ff776.0209...@posting.google.com...
> (snip)
> > > >
> > > Paul, your remarks are so distant from what I said, that I must
> > > conclude either that I failed utterly to express myself, or else---
> > > well, let's just leave it at that.
> >
> > You were asked whether you equated the PA with Hamas and
> > Islamic Jihad.
>
> No, I was asked in terms of percentage, which lent an air of absurdity
> to the question, which I had already answered before it was asked. Do
> I equate Chevy with Ford? Or Nissans with Audis? Well, there
> certainly are many similarities. But how could one assign a
> percentage?
>
> The point I made, and I thought it was straightforward, is that the PA
> allows known terrorists to walk about freely and openly in those areas
> where the PA has jurisdiction to arrest them.

If you had made a point, you would have just unmade it in saying that PA was to Hamas and
Islamic Jihad, as Chevy is to Ford or Chrysler. A much closer comparsion would have been the
Knesset to the Stern Gang like Chevy to Ford.

> This is no big secret,
> and it speaks volumes about Arafat's attitude.

It is BS, and it shows where you are coming from.

> As for the
> percentages, I'll leave that to the mathematicians to work out. I
> have not the faintest clue how to begin to give you a number, nor what
> purpose it would serve even if I could.
> >
>
> > And as for the second half of your "so far removed... or., I'll
> > leave it at that".
> >
> > How about you quit trying to hint things about me, and actually
> > say what you are thinking instead of hiding behind pretend
> > reticence like this. If you've got something to say about
> > me, say it, don't hint it.
> >
> Very well, I'll say it, although it's not about any one person. To be
> frank, I've all but given up on getting some straightforward answers
> to straightforward questions.

I was not aware you had any real questions? What questions you've asked have presumed the
false. For instance, instead of questions on the Jenin Massacre itself, you want to ask the
group who changed their mind on the basis of the lack of evidence noted in a report put
together months after the massacre? You want to ask a question, ask who blew up the King
David hotel in Jerusalem? Ask who killed whom at Dir Yassin? Ask why the Palestinians fled
their homes in 1948, and in 1967? Ask why they have no right of return? You don't ask these
questions because a) you have no significant questions - your presence is merely to advance
someone's propaganda, and b) you have no sympathy for the victims - you don't even know who
they are!

> Instead of answers, I get "How dare
> you" types of retorts.

Yeah, how dare you! I get so fed up reading your thinly veiled hate, you've waken me up to
the need to get invovled to support these people. How dare you dump on them week after week,
and how dare you do it here!!

> How dare I mention that the Arab governments
> are nearly all dictatorships?

Do you count Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jodan, and other monarchies as dictatorships? Doesn't that
make the Netherlands, Great Britain, Sweden and other monarchies dictatorships?

> I mention it not as an insult, but as
> an obvious fact that clearly has a bearing on the political and
> spiritual issues surrounding the mid-East.

It is not an obvious fact at all. It is an anti-fact. If you categorized all monarchies as
dictatorships, then much of western Europe would be ruled by dictatorships.

> How dare I mention that
> Arab citizens in Israel enjoy rights and freedoms which are never
> granted to non-Arabs in Arab-controlled countries (with 2 or 3
> exceptions out of 22)?

To live in fear of being banished for exercising free speech in favor of their relatives? Are
you nuts?

> I mention this not to insult anyone, but to
> explore why it might be that many Israelis feel they would not be
> treated justly by the Palestinians, were Israel to capitulate.
>

I can understand how Isrealis are afraid to live under Palestinian rule; the Germans were
afraid to live under Soviet rule after invading their country and brutalizing its people.

> And I could continue on.
> But instead of answers, I'll just be told how rude I am to ask.

Outspoken ignorance and rudeness are two differnet things.

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 7, 2002, 9:49:14 AM9/7/02

Greetings;

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D793FB3...@ameritel.net>...
> Robert Arvay wrote:

(snip)

> > There are three things wrong with this: (1) if the evidence is not
> > easy to obtain, then the accusations should not be easy to make,
> > especially accusations of such a grave nature.
>
> The accusations were made when the mounds of bodies were being picked at by the birds. The
> IDF would not allow UN or Red Cross observers until after they had buried them, or otherwise
> disposed of them.

As far as I can see, you're taking it on faith, not evidence, that 500
people were massacred. And even if what you say about the mounds of
bodies is true, where are the bones? Had NO ONE in Jenin a small
camera? Could no one have surreptitiously made a photo? Remember,
these are people who would go to any ends to discredit the Israeli
story.

> > (2) The UN's report
> > did not state (as it could have were it true) that no firm conclusion
> > could be drawn based on limitations imposed by Israel upon the
> > investigation and
>
> The IDF forbid the observation by neutral parties at the time that the massacre occurred.

But the UN report could have, and would have, reported interference.
Even though the UN investigators were not allowed into the area right
away, the fact remains that once they were in, they were not
blindfolded and shackled. They had unfettered access to civilian
witnesses. If you are correct, and a crime of this magnitude could be
pulled off without the name of a single victim emerging, then the UN
investigators were so incompetent as to defy imagination.

> Your wolves shot and killed the retarded bell ringer!

This is so loaded with rancor I cannot reply.

(snip)

>
> > (3) despite what anyone says, there has been plenty
> > of time for the people of Jenin to draw up at least a partial list of
> > those who were killed (or are missing) in the so-called massacre.
>
> Post it here. They've been constantly harassed by the IDF. Has the western press had a
> chance to get a copy of this list?

There IS NO list. That's my point. Everybody in Jenin says 500 were
killed. But nobody seems able to name them. The UN could not find
out who they were. People in Jenin do not lead anonymous lives.
Virtually everybody knows everybody else, if not directly, through a
very short chain of common acquaintances. Compiling at least a
partial list, say 20%, even 10%, would be the easiest thing to
accomplish, if in fact that many people had died.

But while we're at it, let me touch upon one item which seems to have
gotten lost in the shuffle. The UN report did condemn the
Palestinians for deliberately placing munitions, armaments and
explosives (for bombs) among their own civilians. The express purpose
of this is obvious. Either the IDF avoids such areas, and allows the
armaments to be employed against them, or else, they attack the
armaments whereupon some civilian casualties are inevitable. Either
way, the terrorists win. If the armaments go untouched by IDF, the
terrorists can now kill Israeli civilians with them. If IDF attacks,
the terrorists get to post photos of the dead civilians and to say,
look, they enjoy killing the innocent!

But once again, I am offering that, once concrete evidence surfaces,
to eat crow if it develops that IDF wantonly massacred innocent
civilians.
I notice that none on the other side of this dare make such a promise.

(snip)

> A logical contradiction there, Robert: if we accept the Israeli version, then we have
> accepted the word of terrorists.

Except that I'm NOT accepting the word of the IDF. I'm expressing a
reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence. Your side, on the other
hand, seems to point to the ABSENCE of evidence as proof positive that
the massacre occurred. Where, then, is the error in logic?

(snip)

> > > it appears that the Americans have made a mistake
> > > and bombed a dangerous wedding party, really it
> > > *was* a dangerous wedding party.
> >
> > Not knowing all the facts here, I can't categorically state what

> > happened. (snip) Another complicating factor is that Afghan warlords

> > routinely try to call in American airstrikes on each other.
>
> Bingo! I'd hope that by know we would stop doing free 'hit' jobs for them them.

The Americans seem to have wised up in that regard. Your inference
seems to be that American pilots fly about looking to waste their
bombs on harmless civilians. Perhaps you honestly believe that, in
which case, we have no common ground for discussion.

> > All that
> > said, the record of "friendly fire incidents is in my opinion

> > appalling. (snip) I find the majority of them to be worthy of the utmost

> > and highest-level efforts to prevent in future.
>
> Good for you, Robert!

(snip)

> trying to scapegoat the Palestinians for the troubles, over and over again, even when you
> wriggle off on one thread, you just start another one in the same chord.

Yes, unfortunately, when I state unpleasant facts, they seem to draw
comments about my personal defects more so than replies to specifics.
But when I myself do not exercise the utmost caution in my comments,
everyone seems to denounce me for calling them Jew-haters, even though
I would never make such an accusation without clear and convincing
evidence (which I am pleased to say I do NOT have).
In short, while I am referred to by expletives and outright
accusations of bigotry, I'm not supposed to suggest that the merest
hint of imperfection might have crept into the motives of my accusers.

>
> > Recently,
> > more and more Arab spokesmen are in fact making statements critical of
> > terrorism, and perhaps they are responding to the "veiled" criticisms
> > of people who could not help notice their timid responses in the past.
>
> For the past nine years, Robert, Palestinian leaders have been pursuing peaceful coexistence.
> The news will be when Israel votes for a peace candidate, rather than a genocideal butcher.

Now if this is not indicative of a committed partisan approach, I
don't know what is. So then, what would be wrong with me being
equally partisan in the other direction?

> Yeah, right. You've convinced me to write my congressmen to pull the plug on our $upport for
> middle east terrorism.

We need more involved citizens :)

> > > There *are* people in Israel who see both sides - we just
> > > never hear from them - and the fact that Israel voted
> > > for Sharon was perhaps the worst thing that could have
> > > happened.

Sharon was democratically elected. He did not kill the other
candidates.
Arafat was also democratically elected. His competing candidates seem
to have all had tragic accidents.

> >
> > Actually, we do hear from dissident Israelis, far more so than from
> > dissident Palestinians--- perhaps because the Al Aqsa brigade
> > regularly thins their ranks.
>
> Perhaps the Al Aqsa brigade fills the ranks of the dissident Palestinians.

But they kill anyone whom they find in opposition to Arafat.

(snip)

> > > But, just as you say that the people of Israel live in the
> > > daily expectation of terrorist attacks on school

(snip)

> > > the Palestinians live with the daily terror of tanks,

(snip)

> >
> > I have acknowledged that, and my sympathies are equally for the
> > innocent victims on both sides.
>
> Well, Robert, your sympathies don't appear to be w/ the innocent victims, but with the IDF,

Sir, I've never denied sympathy for Israel. But neither have I
omitted to proclaim the human rights and dignity of Arabs and
Palestinians. My criticisms of their cultural flaws ("honor killings"
of women, for example) is not a personal attack on them, but an
attempt to identify certain contributing factors to the intractability
of peaceful solutions. There is no shortage of criticism of Israeli
culture (Zionism, blood sacrifice, etc). It would be nice if
unpleasant facts could be mentioned without the immediate red flag of
stereotyping (of the mentioner) being waved about.

> and those who wish to blame the problems on the victims. The statement looks like somthing
> you say some days after you've started another one of these 'blame the victims' threads, and a
> day or two before you start another 'blame the victims' thread. So, instead of _telling_ me
> you have sympathy for the victims, _show_ me, and leave them alone, for years, not hours.

The victims are the children on both sides. Both sides, sir. Putting
all the blame on the IDF, calling them Nazis and terrorists, is part
of the problem. Asking Israel to capitulate is simply not realistic,
given the reality of the murderous rampage which will be inflicted
upon them the very moment the Palestinians become capable of doing it.

The realistic solution is what I have long advocated. Re-direct the
money, being used by the PLO for terrorism and corruption, into
productive assets controlled by the Palestinian people, not to a few
powerful men. Encourage the Palestinians to establish a form of
government in which the chairman does not wield ALL of the power, but
rather, shares it with an independent legislator and court system.
With a few basic economic and political changes from tyranny to
freedom, the Palestinian people would become empowered to address
their legitimate grievances in ways that would achieve results.
Those who profess a love for the Palestinian people should be at the
very forefront of such a movement.
Those who use the Palestinians as their pawns, as proxies in the war
by certain governments who simply hate Jews (Iraq, Syria, etc), will
cringe at the notion of yet another free-market democracy in the
mid-East.

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 7, 2002, 1:39:40 PM9/7/02

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D7943B7...@ameritel.net>...

> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> > Greetings;
> >
> > "Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d77...@212.67.96.135>...
> > > Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message
> > > news:457ff776.0209...@posting.google.com...
> (snip)
> > > > >
> > > > Paul, your remarks are so distant from what I said, that I must
> > > > conclude either that I failed utterly to express myself, or else---
> > > > well, let's just leave it at that.
> > >
> > > You were asked whether you equated the PA with Hamas and
> > > Islamic Jihad.
> >
> > No, I was asked in terms of percentage, which lent an air of absurdity
> > to the question, which I had already answered before it was asked. Do
> > I equate Chevy with Ford? Or Nissans with Audis? Well, there
> > certainly are many similarities. But how could one assign a
> > percentage?
> >

No - I mean you were asked that *by PAT* not by me. And I thought
your answer was evasive, and nothing more than a ploy to
avoid admitting to a mistake.

I thought you ought to clarify in what sense you meant that
you "equated the PA to Hamas".

The absurdity was deliberate - because I *do* think your
equating of the PA with Hamas is an absurd statement.

> > The point I made, and I thought it was straightforward, is that the PA
> > allows known terrorists to walk about freely and openly in those areas
> > where the PA has jurisdiction to arrest them.
>
> If you had made a point, you would have just unmade it in saying that PA was to Hamas and
> Islamic Jihad, as Chevy is to Ford or Chrysler. A much closer comparsion would have been the
> Knesset to the Stern Gang like Chevy to Ford.
>
> > This is no big secret,
> > and it speaks volumes about Arafat's attitude.
>
> It is BS, and it shows where you are coming from.
>

Agree with Pat on this one.

> > As for the
> > percentages, I'll leave that to the mathematicians to work out. I
> > have not the faintest clue how to begin to give you a number, nor what
> > purpose it would serve even if I could.
> >

Well, I would be crying if that was *seriously* what I wanted
you to do. I thought you owed as a justification for
evading Pat's question with such an absurd statement
just thrown off there.

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 9, 2002, 12:02:16 PM9/9/02

Greetings;

paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.02090...@posting.google.com>...

> > > > Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message

(snip)
> > > > > >
> > > > > Paul, your remarks are so distant from what I said, that I must
> > > > > conclude either that I failed utterly to express myself,

Snip

> I thought you ought to clarify in what sense you meant that
> you "equated the PA to Hamas".
>

(snip)

>
> > > The point I made, and I thought it was straightforward, is that the PA
> > > allows known terrorists to walk about freely and openly in those areas
> > > where the PA has jurisdiction to arrest them.

(snip)

> > > This is no big secret,
> > > and it speaks volumes about Arafat's attitude.
> >
> > It is BS, and it shows where you are coming from.
> Agree with Pat on this one.
>

(snip)

Then we disagree as to the PLO's willingness to implement the
agreements it has made concerning the enforcement of anti-terrorism
measures. And the network news reports of known terrorists operating
freely in PLO jurisdiction is just wrong. Foolish of me to rely upon
them.

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 9, 2002, 11:35:25 PM9/9/02

Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message

news:457ff776.02090...@posting.google.com...

Look, Robert, even if true, this fact alone does not justify you
"equating the PA with Hamas". It is also true that bin Laden's
groups, and other Islamic groups operated freely in
London. Does that make Tony Blair into bin Laden's right hand
man? I think not!

And, the British government does not have to operate
against terrorists while London streets are being patrolled
by Israeli tanks, and Scotland Yard is being blown
up every other day by Israeli bombs, and the home
secretary, David Blunkett is in serious danger of
being assassinated by the occupying army.

And yet, *still* some terrorist activities are not stopped.

Also, yes, you are foolish to rely for your news only on
those sources that feed you the side of the story
you want to hear.

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 11, 2002, 4:46:34 PM9/11/02

Greetings;

"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3d7e...@212.67.96.135>...

> Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message

> (snip)
> > >

> > > > > The point I made, and I thought it was straightforward, is that the
> PA
> > > > > allows known terrorists to walk about freely and openly in those
> areas
> > > > > where the PA has jurisdiction to arrest them.
> (snip)
> > > > > This is no big secret,
> > > > > and it speaks volumes about Arafat's attitude.
> > > >

(snip)

>
> Look, Robert, even if true, this fact alone does not justify you
> "equating the PA with Hamas".

I was aked "to what extent." This is the extent.

> It is also true that bin Laden's
> groups, and other Islamic groups operated freely in
> London.

The difference is that the Israelis identified to the PLO authorities
the names, locations, and crimes of the terrorists, specifically
requested their arrest, and offered assistance in doing so. The PLO
did in fact arrest the terrorists--- and them promptly released them
back into the streets.

> Does that make Tony Blair into bin Laden's right hand
> man? I think not!
>
> And, the British government does not have to operate
> against terrorists while London streets are being patrolled
> by Israeli tanks, and Scotland Yard is being blown
> up every other day by Israeli bombs, and the home
> secretary, David Blunkett is in serious danger of
> being assassinated by the occupying army.

The events to which you are alluding were not in effect at the time
that Israel was asking for the arrest of the terrorists. The
opportunity for Israeli-PLO cooperation against terrorists was
rejected by the PLO.
The events you are using as analogies occurred only after a long and
deadly series of unrelenting sui/homi/cide attacks which were
deliberately targetting Israeli noncombatants. The Israeli response,
roundly condemned by the left, had the intended effect of stopping the
attacks.
Once again, the PLO has a golden opportunity to arrest the known
terrorists walking its streets, to give them real trials and if
convicted, genuine punishments.
Let's hope that this time, the PLO will discontinue its habit of
"never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Peace is within the grasp of the PLO.
Israel is the party with its back against the ocean, and with millions
of people determined to annihilate it.
Only when there is real peace can there be a hope for the Palestinians
to redress their grievances with Israel.

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 13, 2002, 11:21:11 PM9/13/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D793FB3...@ameritel.net>...
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > > There are three things wrong with this: (1) if the evidence is not
> > > easy to obtain, then the accusations should not be easy to make,
> > > especially accusations of such a grave nature.
> >
> > The accusations were made when the mounds of bodies were being picked at by the birds. The
> > IDF would not allow UN or Red Cross observers until after they had buried them, or otherwise
> > disposed of them.
>
> As far as I can see, you're taking it on faith, not evidence, that 500
> people were massacred. And even if what you say about the mounds of
> bodies is true, where are the bones? Had NO ONE in Jenin a small
> camera? Could no one have surreptitiously made a photo? Remember,
> these are people who would go to any ends to discredit the Israeli
> story.

These people were under curfew, then they were shelled in their homes,
and their broken homes were flattened with tanks and bull dozers. So,
you ask about their photography equipment. Check out this link:
http://www.jeninmassacre.org

> > > (2) The UN's report
> > > did not state (as it could have were it true) that no firm conclusion
> > > could be drawn based on limitations imposed by Israel upon the
> > > investigation and
> >
> > The IDF forbid the observation by neutral parties at the time that the massacre occurred.
>
> But the UN report could have, and would have, reported interference.
> Even though the UN investigators were not allowed into the area right
> away, the fact remains that once they were in, they were not
> blindfolded and shackled. They had unfettered access to civilian
> witnesses. If you are correct, and a crime of this magnitude could be
> pulled off without the name of a single victim emerging, then the UN
> investigators were so incompetent as to defy imagination.

When did UN investigators get into Jenin, the Jenin in occupied
Palestine?

> > Your wolves shot and killed the retarded bell ringer!
>
> This is so loaded with rancor I cannot reply.

Looks like a reply, an unsual reply in that you made _no_ attempt to
portray the victim as the perpetrator.

> >
> > > (3) despite what anyone says, there has been plenty
> > > of time for the people of Jenin to draw up at least a partial list of
> > > those who were killed (or are missing) in the so-called massacre.
> >
> > Post it here. They've been constantly harassed by the IDF. Has the western press had a
> > chance to get a copy of this list?
>
> There IS NO list. That's my point.

Of course there is a list of victims! _Your_point_ makes it clear you
had _no_intention_ of even considering the possibility! There may not
be 500 names of Palestinians killed in Jenin, but the IDF was there for
days and they did bulldoze the scene of their crime.

> Everybody in Jenin says 500 were
> killed.

Some have lower estimates. Some report that most of the residents of
Jenin anticipated the treachery of the Israelis, and violated the
curfew, getting themselves safely out of their homes when the Israeli
tanks rolled into the neighborhood. Some did remain to bravely defend
Jenin from the terrorist attack. These were buried in the ruins of
Jenin, and some may have been trucked off to Israel for disposal.

> But nobody seems able to name them.

No no no; _you_ do not name them because you find the notion of another
Israeli massacre of Palestinians to upset the dog you have in the
fight. Too bad.

> The UN could not find
> out who they were.

The Israelis kept the UN out; remember?

> People in Jenin do not lead anonymous lives.
> Virtually everybody knows everybody else, if not directly, through a
> very short chain of common acquaintances.

You seem to know so much about Jenin. Tell us, how old was the keeper
of the fruit and vegetable store near the big masjid? How many
children, their names?

> Compiling at least a
> partial list, say 20%, even 10%, would be the easiest thing to
> accomplish, if in fact that many people had died.

Maybe it was just a hundred, maybe fifty. How many Americans were
killed in the Boston Massacre? How many Americans were killed in the
Ludlow Massacre? The point is that the IDF attacked Palestinians just
living in their homes, and then bull-dozed the place.

> But while we're at it, let me touch upon one item which seems to have
> gotten lost in the shuffle. The UN report did condemn the
> Palestinians for deliberately placing munitions, armaments and
> explosives (for bombs) among their own civilians. The express purpose
> of this is obvious. Either the IDF avoids such areas, and allows the
> armaments to be employed against them, or else, they attack the
> armaments whereupon some civilian casualties are inevitable.

Are you one of those anti-gun liberals? Don't the Palestinians have a
right to defend themselves? Does the UN go through an Israeli village,
after some Palestinian terrorists attack them, and count how many
weapons are in the neighborhood, how much ammunition, and then blame the
Israelis for the attack, as you would try to do! This is outrageous!
You deny them the basic right to even defend themselves from their
murderers!

> Either
> way, the terrorists win. If the armaments go untouched by IDF, the
> terrorists can now kill Israeli civilians with them. If IDF attacks,
> the terrorists get to post photos of the dead civilians and to say,
> look, they enjoy killing the innocent!

The IDF uses unarmed non-suspect Palestinian Arabs to try to capture
Palestinians that it suspects are actively resisting Israeli occupation,
and you take their word that Palestinians had weapons and ammunition?
In Jenin, it is clear that all Palestinians should carry automatic
weapons to defend themselves from genocide!

> But once again, I am offering that, once concrete evidence surfaces,
> to eat crow if it develops that IDF wantonly massacred innocent
> civilians.

Please substantiate. Will you really eat a crow when I show you
evidence that the IDF killed dozens of Palestinians? What do you mean
when you say you will "eat crow"? It seems like a barabaric way to
acknowledge another Israeli atrocity, to kill and eat a bird.

> I notice that none on the other side of this dare make such a promise.

1) It does not look meaningful (I don't picture you eating a crow in a
way that I derive any satisfaction). 2) though you may be unaware that
the IDF did massacre civilians, such that it might seem like a 'wager'
to you on what you might do were evidence discovered, from my
perspective - knowing such evidence exists - it doesn't seem really
'honest'.

> (snip)
>
> > A logical contradiction there, Robert: if we accept the Israeli version, then we have
> > accepted the word of terrorists.
>
> Except that I'm NOT accepting the word of the IDF. I'm expressing a
> reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence.

Oh!!!! I misunderstood you! I thought you were saying there was no
massacre _because_ there is no list of victims (that you have read),
there is no massacre because there were no photographs of mounds of
bodies (that you have seen).

> Your side, on the other
> hand, seems to point to the ABSENCE of evidence as proof positive that
> the massacre occurred. Where, then, is the error in logic?

Perhaps I was unclear. This is not like a 'Rodney King' incident -
don't expect some guy who was just checking out his vdeo camera to ahve
cpatured the massacre. Folks were either shooting or getting shot at,
or running with all their earthly valuables that they could carry.

>
> (snip)
> > > > it appears that the Americans have made a mistake
> > > > and bombed a dangerous wedding party, really it
> > > > *was* a dangerous wedding party.
> > >
> > > Not knowing all the facts here, I can't categorically state what
> > > happened. (snip) Another complicating factor is that Afghan warlords
> > > routinely try to call in American airstrikes on each other.
> >
> > Bingo! I'd hope that by know we would stop doing free 'hit' jobs for them them.
>
> The Americans seem to have wised up in that regard. Your inference
> seems to be that American pilots fly about looking to waste their
> bombs on harmless civilians.

Wrongo, an odious accusation on your part. My _inference_ (the
wedding party remark was _yours_) is that _you_ were pointing out that
Afghans report the activities of other ethnic groups and rival warlords
as Taliban activity. _I_ was agreeing to you, and _you_ have suggested
that I am somehow saying that American pilots are as murderous as their
Israeli counterparts seem to be. With a few recent notable exceptions
from the Illinois Air Guard, that is _not_ the case at all! So much for
me agreeing w/ you on anything!

> Perhaps you honestly believe that, in
> which case, we have no common ground for discussion.
>
> > > All that
> > > said, the record of "friendly fire incidents is in my opinion
> > > appalling. (snip) I find the majority of them to be worthy of the utmost
> > > and highest-level efforts to prevent in future.
> >
> > Good for you, Robert!
>
> (snip)
> > trying to scapegoat the Palestinians for the troubles, over and over again, even when you
> > wriggle off on one thread, you just start another one in the same chord.
>
> Yes, unfortunately, when I state unpleasant facts, they seem to draw
> comments about my personal defects more so than replies to specifics.

What unpleasant facts? You are a great one for utterly unfounded
accusations though, but baseless libel is not at all the same as
unpleasant facts.

> But when I myself do not exercise the utmost caution in my comments,
> everyone seems to denounce me for calling them Jew-haters, even though
> I would never make such an accusation without clear and convincing
> evidence (which I am pleased to say I do NOT have).

Whatever?

> In short, while I am referred to by expletives and outright
> accusations of bigotry, I'm not supposed to suggest that the merest
> hint of imperfection might have crept into the motives of my accusers.

Whatever, you defender of genocidal butchers? I'm sure you _mean_ well,
for what it's worth.

>
> Now if this is not indicative of a committed partisan approach, I
> don't know what is. So then, what would be wrong with me being
> equally partisan in the other direction?
>

Wrong again! When you start off way off base, and folks point out
extreme counter-balanceing examples, that does not logically justify
more of the same on your part.

>
> Sharon was democratically elected. He did not kill the other
> candidates.

Hitler was democratically elected, then he killed his enemies.

> Arafat was also democratically elected. His competing candidates seem
> to have all had tragic accidents.

In the 1996 election Arafat had one challenger, Samiha Khalil. Read a
little bit about Arafat's challenger before suggesting that she was
brutally assassinated by Arafat's al Fatah thugs. She certainly had had
several tragic accidents afflict her family, all before she challenged
Arafat.

http://www.arabamerican.net/pipermail/arab-american/Week-of-Mon-19990222/001554.html
http://www.womandiwan.com/profile_english/woman_profile_e_pal_p1.html

I really wonder what kind of anti-family people would keep a mother and
grandmother away from a family during a crisis? She was never even
tried!

Speaking of political violence, how is Yitzak Rabin doing?

> > >
> > > Actually, we do hear from dissident Israelis, far more so than from
> > > dissident Palestinians--- perhaps because the Al Aqsa brigade
> > > regularly thins their ranks.
> >
> > Perhaps the Al Aqsa brigade fills the ranks of the dissident Palestinians.
>
> But they kill anyone whom they find in opposition to Arafat.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > But, just as you say that the people of Israel live in the
> > > > daily expectation of terrorist attacks on school
> (snip)
> > > > the Palestinians live with the daily terror of tanks,
> (snip)
> > >
> > > I have acknowledged that, and my sympathies are equally for the
> > > innocent victims on both sides.
> >
> > Well, Robert, your sympathies don't appear to be w/ the innocent victims, but with the IDF,
>
> Sir, I've never denied sympathy for Israel. But neither have I
> omitted to proclaim the human rights and dignity of Arabs and
> Palestinians.

Occasionaly I do see such vague generalizations from you; I'm reminded
of folks saying, 'some of my best freinds are black, they just don't
come to visit often', or 'some of my best freinds are black, they take
out the garbage twice a week'. You suggest that you'd eat crows over
dozens of their bodies, and then, you claim that you proclaim their
dignity. Either you are being sarcastic, or you really don't know what
dignity is. I can not tell!

> My criticisms of their cultural flaws ("honor killings"
> of women, for example) is not a personal attack on them, but an
> attempt to identify certain contributing factors to the intractability
> of peaceful solutions. There is no shortage of criticism of Israeli
> culture (Zionism, blood sacrifice, etc). It would be nice if
> unpleasant facts could be mentioned without the immediate red flag of
> stereotyping (of the mentioner) being waved about.
>
> > and those who wish to blame the problems on the victims. The statement looks like somthing
> > you say some days after you've started another one of these 'blame the victims' threads, and a
> > day or two before you start another 'blame the victims' thread. So, instead of _telling_ me
> > you have sympathy for the victims, _show_ me, and leave them alone, for years, not hours.
>
> The victims are the children on both sides. Both sides, sir. Putting
> all the blame on the IDF, calling them Nazis and terrorists, is part
> of the problem. Asking Israel to capitulate is simply not realistic,
> given the reality of the murderous rampage which will be inflicted
> upon them the very moment the Palestinians become capable of doing it.

Of course there are problems on both sides! You need not subject the
readers of this group to a recurring stream of one side of the coin!
When you persist in telling part of the problem, please don't get so
huffy when others point out other facets!!!!!

> The realistic solution is what I have long advocated. Re-direct the
> money, being used by the PLO for terrorism and corruption, into
> productive assets controlled by the Palestinian people, not to a few
> powerful men.

Even better, redirect the billions that the US sends for defense, which
the Israelis have diverted for genocide!

> Encourage the Palestinians to establish a form of
> government in which the chairman does not wield ALL of the power, but
> rather, shares it with an independent legislator and court system.

Encourage the Israeli media to tell multiple sides of the story, to be a
media for both Jews and Arabs.

> With a few basic economic and political changes from tyranny to
> freedom, the Palestinian people would become empowered to address
> their legitimate grievances in ways that would achieve results.

With a rounder picture, Israelis could make more informed election
choices, rather than voting a straight "ethnic cleansing" ticket.

> Those who profess a love for the Palestinian people should be at the
> very forefront of such a movement.

Those who profess a love for Isreal should lead the way, as you have, in
energizing American voters to put the screws on genocide funding.

> Those who use the Palestinians as their pawns, as proxies in the war
> by certain governments who simply hate Jews (Iraq, Syria, etc), will
> cringe at the notion of yet another free-market democracy in the
> mid-East.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The spirit of Auschwitz

Holocaust Day, 9 April, is also the day on which Palestinians mark the
memory of the Deir Yassin massacre. Omar Barghouti* contemplates a
grotesque coincidence that will not be consigned to the past

"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both
peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal of being
an independent people with the Arabs in this small country. The only
solution is a Palestine, at least Western Palestine [west of the Jordan
River] without Arabs ... And there is no other way than to transfer the
Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them;
not one village, not one tribe, should be left. Only after this transfer
will the country be able to absorb the millions of our own brethren.
There is no other way out."

This is not one of the many infamous statements made by the now deceased
Rehavam Ze'evi or by Meir Kahane. It is a 1940 declaration by Yosef
Weitz, one of the Zionist officers responsible for Jewish colonisation
and member of the Jewish Agency's first "Transfer Committee."

Fifty-four years later, an Israeli soldier, participating in the army's
brutalities in Jenin refugee camp, told The Guardian: "The problem is
that there is not enough room in this small country for two peoples. It
is a trial of strength that we are winning. They would like to throw us
into the sea. We may have to do the same to them." The irony is that
virtually all the refugees in the Jenin camp were first "transferred"
from the coastal region of Haifa in 1948, to make room for the influx of
Jewish victims of the Holocaust. And now, they are facing death,
destruction and possibly another forced displacement. The victims of the
Holocaust are victimising the byproduct victims of the Holocaust yet
another time.

On 9 April, Palestinians everywhere commemorated the 54th anniversary of
the Deir Yassin massacre, when Zionist terror groups murdered 254
innocent Palestinian Arabs in cold blood -- as documented by several
historians, including some of the "new historians" in Israel. In an
authoritative account of the massacre, the British interrogating officer
at the time, Assistant Inspector-General Richard Catling, confirmed
that: "Many young school girls were raped and later slaughtered. Many
infants were also butchered and killed."

Deir Yassin was meant to set an example, a particularly shocking
precedent, to terrorise the Palestinians off their lands and into exile.
It was no accident, no aberration, no extreme vengeance. It was simply a
calculated act of terror in a well-thought-out plan to depopulate
Palestine, and create in the resulting space a Jewish homeland for the
victims of the Nazi genocide. Those victims also commemorated their
history on 9 April, which was "Holocaust Day."

This coincidence stirs up a bitter irony. The victims of one of
history's worst crimes against humanity are increasingly resorting to
some of the same tools of racist hatred and collective punishment to
complete the job that the founders of Zionism had envisioned: a "pure"
Jewish state.

Last month, during a visit by a delegation from the International
Parliament of Writers, the famous Portuguese Nobel Prize winner Jose
Saramago said he dreaded the "spirit of Auschwitz" in Ramallah and the
rest of the occupied Palestinian territories. Many Israeli intellectuals
hypocritically condemned the remark, some implicitly accusing Saramago
of anti-Semitism. Ironically, just this past January, Israel's Ha'aretz
reported that "one of the Israeli officers in the [occupied]
territories" found it justified to "internalise the lessons of earlier
battles -- even, however shocking it may sound, how the German army
fought in the Warsaw ghetto."

Indeed, several Israeli policies evoke a strong analogy with the Nazis,
despite the unquestionable disparity in the magnitude of criminality
between the two cases. Some of the wicked practices of the Nazis in
concentration camps were even imported, wholesale and unabashedly, by
Israeli army officers. During the last army incursion into Palestinian
towns and refugee camps towards the end of February of this year, the
Washington Post reported: "The [Israeli] army's mass round-ups of
Palestinian refugees has been a public relations disaster for Israel, as
images have been broadcast and printed around the world of blindfolded
captives, including teenage boys and graying middle-aged-men, held at
gun point. Some Israelis were also incensed that [Israeli] troops were
writing [identification] numbers on some of the prisoners' arms and
foreheads."

One of those who expressed "outrage" over this practice was the
right-wing Israeli lawmaker Tommy Lapid, who declared in the Knesset:
"As a refugee from the Holocaust I find such an act insufferable."

In the current Israeli offensive against the Palestinians under
occupation, the Israeli army has, in an effort to implement Sharon's
promise of "battering them into submission," systematically committed
several serious violations of international humanitarian law and of the
Fourth Geneva Convention. These violations amount to war crimes, as
described by UN agencies, Israeli human rights organisations and by
Israel's best friend in the region, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent
Ecevit.

Some of the better-documented examples have included the "shaving" of
dwellings on top of their occupants in the Jenin refugee camp -- in
other words, the indiscriminate shelling of that crowded camp's humble
homes from tanks and helicopters, non-stop, for seven days, "using the
elderly as human shields" in front of the tanks. The Israeli army
persistently prevented ambulances from reaching the injured, and even
shot at several ambulances which dared to try -- as has been documented
by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Hundreds of innocent civilians, including scores of children, have been
confirmed killed or injured as a result of the army's arbitrary clearing
of the homes and the tiny alleys to allow its tanks to advance into the
Jenin camp. The Times of London carried an eyewitness account from a
survivor of the carnage there. He confirmed that "Children screamed for
water and some were forced to drink sewage." He also said that "the most
terrible thing was seeing Israeli soldiers take eight men and line them
up and kill them." Those eight names were later revealed by a
Palestinian source on Al-Jazeera television on 10 April 2002.

The commander of the Israeli forces in Jenin justified the tragic
civilian losses and suffering by saying: "But people who raise children
willing to commit suicide, who choose this path, they are expected to
pay the price."

To top it all off, the latest newcomer to the already extremist Israeli
government will be no other than Brigadier General (res.) Effi Eitam,
currently the head of the National Religious Party, who thinks of the
Arab citizens of Israel in the following terms: "The Israeli Arabs are
in large measure the ticking bomb beneath the whole democratic Israeli
order inside the [pre-June 1967] Green Line. Even today, in the Galilee
and the Negev, a de facto autonomy of theirs is being created, which
could in practice turn Israel into the bubble of Metropolitan Tel Aviv.
Therefore, I say that the State of Israel today faces an existential
threat that is characterised by being an elusive threat, and elusive
threats by their nature resemble cancer. Cancer is a type of illness in
which most of the people who die from it die because they were diagnosed
too late. By the time you grasp the size of the threat, it is already
too late to deal with it."

Commenting on this, the veteran Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar wrote in
Ha'aretz that "the fact that the Nazis were especially fond of this
[cancer] metaphor is probably not lost on the General."

This clear trend towards the extreme right in Israel hardly provokes any
popular challenge, thanks mainly to the unprecedented complicity of the
Israeli media. Although most of the media in Israel have never boasted a
very bright record in being critical of government policies towards the
Palestinians, they have sunk to new lows of collusion in covering, or
rather covering up, the current Israeli "campaign of terror," as The
Guardian has termed it.

"A journey through the [Israeli] TV and radio channels and the pages of
the newspapers," writes Aviv Lavie in Ha'aretz, "exposes a huge and
embarrassing gap between what is reported to [Israelis] and what is
seen, heard, and read in the world, not only in the commentaries and
analytical pieces, but also in the reporting of the dry facts."

"Israel looks like an isolated media island, with most of the reporters
drafted into the cause of convincing themselves and the reader that the
government and army are perfectly justified in whatever they do," he
adds.

This fact, coupled with the enthusiastic approval, or dubious silence,
of the absolute majority of Israeli Jews, makes the fear of creeping
fascism in Israeli society, as expressed by several Israeli Knesset
members, seem a bit optimistic. In fact, fascism is already there.

Several Israeli commentators and politicians have recently warned that
unless the Palestinians accept the fact that they cannot gain anything
through the use of force, they might witness an encore of the Nakba [the
1948 Palestinian catastrophe]. Given the prevailing attitudes and
convictions among Israelis, and the alarming level of impunity, which
Israel takes for granted, one cannot take this threat lightly.
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/584/op10.htm

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 16, 2002, 8:03:45 PM9/16/02

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D82AB27...@ameritel.net>...

> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> > Greetings;
> >
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D793FB3...@ameritel.net>...
> > > Robert Arvay wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > > There are three things wrong with this: (1) if the evidence is not
> > > > easy to obtain, then the accusations should not be easy to make,
> > > > especially accusations of such a grave nature.
> > >

(snip)

> Check out this link:
> http://www.jeninmassacre.org

The links photo and report sections say it is under construction until
May.
I see nothing there but wild and unfounded accusations.
>
(snip)

>
> When did UN investigators get into Jenin, the Jenin in occupied
> Palestine?
>

You're continually regarding the absence of any evidence as proof of a
crime.

> > > Your wolves shot and killed the retarded bell ringer!
> >
> > This is so loaded with rancor I cannot reply.
>
> Looks like a reply, an unsual reply in that you made _no_ attempt to
> portray the victim as the perpetrator.

If the IDF deliberately and wilfully decided to kill an innocent man,
and it was neither an accident nor a "fog of war" incident, then you
are absolutely correct in saying that it was murder. At the very
least it was a horrible accident, perhaps a culpable accident of
negligence. But I know a fellow who was in a shooting war and
admitted that he came within microseconds of shooting his best friend.
I've never been in the situation of having people shoot at me. Have
you? What does it feel like? Did it affect your thinking?
>
> > >
(snip)

>
> > Everybody in Jenin says 500 were
> > killed.
>
> Some have lower estimates. Some report that most of the residents of
> Jenin anticipated the treachery of the Israelis, and violated the
> curfew, getting themselves safely out of their homes when the Israeli
> tanks rolled into the neighborhood. Some did remain to bravely defend
> Jenin from the terrorist attack. These were buried in the ruins of
> Jenin, and some may have been trucked off to Israel for disposal.

This sounds more like cheerleading than objective reporting.

>
> > But nobody seems able to name them.
>
> No no no; _you_ do not name them because you find the notion of another
> Israeli massacre of Palestinians to upset the dog you have in the
> fight. Too bad.

I don't name them, Pat, because I do not know their names, nor how
many (if any) nor the conditions under which they died (if they did).
And for the life of me, I don't understand your acrimony over this
when there are no objective facts at hand. You may distrust me, but I
assure you that with objective facts in hand, I would have no
inclination to cover up or excuse any crime by any party.
>
(snip)

>
> > Compiling at least a
> > partial list, say 20%, even 10%, would be the easiest thing to
> > accomplish, if in fact that many people had died.
>
> Maybe it was just a hundred, maybe fifty. How many Americans were
> killed in the Boston Massacre? How many Americans were killed in the
> Ludlow Massacre? The point is that the IDF attacked Palestinians just
> living in their homes, and then bull-dozed the place.

If this were the inclination of the IDF, why would they stop at 500 or
even 5,000? They clearly have the power to do that. Is it possible
that intelligence had located bomb factories?

>
> > But while we're at it, let me touch upon one item which seems to have
> > gotten lost in the shuffle. The UN report did condemn the
> > Palestinians for deliberately placing munitions, armaments and
> > explosives (for bombs) among their own civilians. The express purpose
> > of this is obvious. Either the IDF avoids such areas, and allows the
> > armaments to be employed against them, or else, they attack the
> > armaments whereupon some civilian casualties are inevitable.
>
> Are you one of those anti-gun liberals? Don't the Palestinians have a
> right to defend themselves? Does the UN go through an Israeli village,
> after some Palestinian terrorists attack them, and count how many
> weapons are in the neighborhood, how much ammunition, and then blame the
> Israelis for the attack, as you would try to do! This is outrageous!
> You deny them the basic right to even defend themselves from their
> murderers!

Of course the Palestinians have a right to self-defense. But if the
reports are true, the IDF was uncovering weapons caches for use in
terrorist attacks--- bombs and the sort. But if you wish to define
Palestinian self-defense as any act of violence against Israelis, then
you're simply saying that every Palestinian is a combatant. Which, I
am sure, is not your intent.

> > Either
> > way, the terrorists win. If the armaments go untouched by IDF, the
> > terrorists can now kill Israeli civilians with them. If IDF attacks,
> > the terrorists get to post photos of the dead civilians and to say,
> > look, they enjoy killing the innocent!
>
> The IDF uses unarmed non-suspect Palestinian Arabs to try to capture
> Palestinians that it suspects are actively resisting Israeli occupation,
> and you take their word that Palestinians had weapons and ammunition?
> In Jenin, it is clear that all Palestinians should carry automatic
> weapons to defend themselves from genocide!

Pat, I've repeatedly affirmed that I'm not taking ANYONE's word. You
are. I'm asking for evidence. You're pointing to the absence of
evidence as proof.

>
> > But once again, I am offering that, once concrete evidence surfaces,
> > to eat crow if it develops that IDF wantonly massacred innocent
> > civilians.
>
> Please substantiate. Will you really eat a crow when I show you
> evidence that the IDF killed dozens of Palestinians? What do you mean
> when you say you will "eat crow"? It seems like a barabaric way to
> acknowledge another Israeli atrocity, to kill and eat a bird.

Okay, then, I'll kiss a crow.
Honestly, would you be willing to apologize to those whom you accuse
if facts develop which prove those accusations false?
>
(snip)

> > > A logical contradiction there, Robert: if we accept the Israeli version, then we have
> > > accepted the word of terrorists.
> >
> > Except that I'm NOT accepting the word of the IDF. I'm expressing a
> > reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence.
>
> Oh!!!! I misunderstood you! I thought you were saying there was no
> massacre _because_ there is no list of victims (that you have read),
> there is no massacre because there were no photographs of mounds of
> bodies (that you have seen).
>
> > Your side, on the other
> > hand, seems to point to the ABSENCE of evidence as proof positive that
> > the massacre occurred. Where, then, is the error in logic?
>
> Perhaps I was unclear. This is not like a 'Rodney King' incident -
> don't expect some guy who was just checking out his vdeo camera to ahve
> cpatured the massacre. Folks were either shooting or getting shot at,
> or running with all their earthly valuables that they could carry.

> > (snip)
> >

> > Yes, unfortunately, when I state unpleasant facts, they seem to draw
> > comments about my personal defects more so than replies to specifics.
>
> What unpleasant facts? You are a great one for utterly unfounded
> accusations though, but baseless libel is not at all the same as
> unpleasant facts.

I have not accused anyone of massacre absent evidence.
>
(snip)

>
> > In short, while I am referred to by expletives and outright
> > accusations of bigotry, I'm not supposed to suggest that the merest
> > hint of imperfection might have crept into the motives of my accusers.
>
> Whatever, you defender of genocidal butchers? I'm sure you _mean_ well,
> for what it's worth.

Why, thank you, sir.
> >
(snip)

> >
> > Sharon was democratically elected. He did not kill the other
> > candidates.
>
> Hitler was democratically elected, then he killed his enemies.
>
> > Arafat was also democratically elected. His competing candidates seem
> > to have all had tragic accidents.
>
> In the 1996 election Arafat had one challenger, Samiha Khalil. Read a
> little bit about Arafat's challenger before suggesting that she was
> brutally assassinated by Arafat's al Fatah thugs. She certainly had had
> several tragic accidents afflict her family, all before she challenged
> Arafat.
>

(I've been suddenly called away, and will resume this lengthy reply
tomorrow. God bless all.)

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 17, 2002, 7:49:33 AM9/17/02

Robert Arvay <Rober...@Msn.Com> wrote in message

news:457ff776.0209...@posting.google.com...

> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:<3D82AB27...@ameritel.net>...
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
> >
>
>
> > > > Your wolves shot and killed the retarded bell ringer!
> > >
> > > This is so loaded with rancor I cannot reply.
> >
> > Looks like a reply, an unsual reply in that you made _no_ attempt to
> > portray the victim as the perpetrator.
>
> If the IDF deliberately and wilfully decided to kill an innocent man,
> and it was neither an accident nor a "fog of war" incident, then you
> are absolutely correct in saying that it was murder. At the very
> least it was a horrible accident, perhaps a culpable accident of
> negligence. But I know a fellow who was in a shooting war and
> admitted that he came within microseconds of shooting his best friend.
> I've never been in the situation of having people shoot at me. Have
> you? What does it feel like? Did it affect your thinking?
>

Sorry, are we talking about the same thing here? Pat was
talking about the siege of the Church of the Nativity in
Bethlehem, what were you talking about?

This *wasn't* like two armies meeting in a field, where
lots of confusing shooting was going on. This was
where one army surrounded a church in the middle
of civilian life, and sat there with guns for 2 or three
weeks not letting anybody out.

The problem was more likely how to prevent boredom
from making you fall asleep than accidentally shooting
your best friend.

This "fog of war" stuff is a total blind.

Oh, and Pat didn't say "murder". He said "your wolves
shot and killed the retarded bell-ringer."

I trust you don't dispute the fact that the bell-ringer
was killed.

I suppose in your eyes it would have been okay if the
IDF had killed a couple of priests too.

>
> > > >
> (snip)
> >
> > > Everybody in Jenin says 500 were
> > > killed.
> >
> > Some have lower estimates. Some report that most of the residents of
> > Jenin anticipated the treachery of the Israelis, and violated the
> > curfew, getting themselves safely out of their homes when the Israeli
> > tanks rolled into the neighborhood. Some did remain to bravely defend
> > Jenin from the terrorist attack. These were buried in the ruins of
> > Jenin, and some may have been trucked off to Israel for disposal.
>
> This sounds more like cheerleading than objective reporting.
>

It sounds like Pat knows more about Jenin that you do.

>
> > > But nobody seems able to name them.
> >
> > No no no; _you_ do not name them because you find the notion of another
> > Israeli massacre of Palestinians to upset the dog you have in the
> > fight. Too bad.
>
> I don't name them, Pat, because I do not know their names, nor how
> many (if any) nor the conditions under which they died (if they did).
> And for the life of me, I don't understand your acrimony over this
> when there are no objective facts at hand. You may distrust me, but I
> assure you that with objective facts in hand, I would have no
> inclination to cover up or excuse any crime by any party.
>

Bugger off! Your intent to cover up *any* crime committed by
the IDF in persuit of those you call terrorists has been clear
and obvious from the start.

>
> (snip)
> >
> > > Compiling at least a
> > > partial list, say 20%, even 10%, would be the easiest thing to
> > > accomplish, if in fact that many people had died.
> >
> > Maybe it was just a hundred, maybe fifty. How many Americans were
> > killed in the Boston Massacre? How many Americans were killed in the
> > Ludlow Massacre? The point is that the IDF attacked Palestinians just
> > living in their homes, and then bull-dozed the place.
>
> If this were the inclination of the IDF, why would they stop at 500 or
> even 5,000? They clearly have the power to do that. Is it possible
> that intelligence had located bomb factories?
>

So, now *you're* suggesting that the absense of evidence is
proof? Well, we'll never know since the IDF bulldozed all
the evidence away. Perhaps they were hiding something?
Is that possible?

> >
> > > But while we're at it, let me touch upon one item which seems to have
> > > gotten lost in the shuffle. The UN report did condemn the
> > > Palestinians for deliberately placing munitions, armaments and
> > > explosives (for bombs) among their own civilians. The express purpose
> > > of this is obvious. Either the IDF avoids such areas, and allows the
> > > armaments to be employed against them, or else, they attack the
> > > armaments whereupon some civilian casualties are inevitable.
> >
> > Are you one of those anti-gun liberals? Don't the Palestinians have a
> > right to defend themselves? Does the UN go through an Israeli village,
> > after some Palestinian terrorists attack them, and count how many
> > weapons are in the neighborhood, how much ammunition, and then blame the
> > Israelis for the attack, as you would try to do! This is outrageous!
> > You deny them the basic right to even defend themselves from their
> > murderers!
>
> Of course the Palestinians have a right to self-defense. But if the
> reports are true, the IDF was uncovering weapons caches for use in
> terrorist attacks--- bombs and the sort. But if you wish to define
> Palestinian self-defense as any act of violence against Israelis, then
> you're simply saying that every Palestinian is a combatant. Which, I
> am sure, is not your intent.
>

Which reports are those? The one's written by the very people
that wouldn't let the objective UN observers in? The spin that
they used to justify murder?

> > > Either
> > > way, the terrorists win. If the armaments go untouched by IDF, the
> > > terrorists can now kill Israeli civilians with them. If IDF attacks,
> > > the terrorists get to post photos of the dead civilians and to say,
> > > look, they enjoy killing the innocent!
> >
> > The IDF uses unarmed non-suspect Palestinian Arabs to try to capture
> > Palestinians that it suspects are actively resisting Israeli occupation,
> > and you take their word that Palestinians had weapons and ammunition?
> > In Jenin, it is clear that all Palestinians should carry automatic
> > weapons to defend themselves from genocide!
>
> Pat, I've repeatedly affirmed that I'm not taking ANYONE's word. You
> are. I'm asking for evidence. You're pointing to the absence of
> evidence as proof.
>

You're not asking for evidence when you say "perhaps intelligence
had located bomb factories". You're willing to take the word
of the perpetrators of this violence against civilians. You're
not willing to take the word of the victims.

I call that a one-eyed stance.

> >
> > > But once again, I am offering that, once concrete evidence surfaces,
> > > to eat crow if it develops that IDF wantonly massacred innocent
> > > civilians.
> >
> > Please substantiate. Will you really eat a crow when I show you
> > evidence that the IDF killed dozens of Palestinians? What do you mean
> > when you say you will "eat crow"? It seems like a barabaric way to
> > acknowledge another Israeli atrocity, to kill and eat a bird.
>
> Okay, then, I'll kiss a crow.
> Honestly, would you be willing to apologize to those whom you accuse
> if facts develop which prove those accusations false?
>

It's not gonna happen. The perpetrators of this crime are
in control of who gets to see any evidence. The evidence will
remain buried for a long time.

>
> (snip)
>
> > > > A logical contradiction there, Robert: if we accept the Israeli
version, then we have
> > > > accepted the word of terrorists.
> > >
> > > Except that I'm NOT accepting the word of the IDF. I'm expressing a
> > > reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence.
> >
> > Oh!!!! I misunderstood you! I thought you were saying there was no
> > massacre _because_ there is no list of victims (that you have read),
> > there is no massacre because there were no photographs of mounds of
> > bodies (that you have seen).
> >
> > > Your side, on the other
> > > hand, seems to point to the ABSENCE of evidence as proof positive that
> > > the massacre occurred. Where, then, is the error in logic?
> >
> > Perhaps I was unclear. This is not like a 'Rodney King' incident -
> > don't expect some guy who was just checking out his vdeo camera to ahve
> > cpatured the massacre. Folks were either shooting or getting shot at,
> > or running with all their earthly valuables that they could carry.
>
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > Yes, unfortunately, when I state unpleasant facts, they seem to draw
> > > comments about my personal defects more so than replies to specifics.
> >
> > What unpleasant facts? You are a great one for utterly unfounded
> > accusations though, but baseless libel is not at all the same as
> > unpleasant facts.
>
> I have not accused anyone of massacre absent evidence.
>

No, you have simply ignored the evidence you want to ignore,
and always believed Israeli spin.

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 17, 2002, 8:25:35 AM9/17/02

Greetings;

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D82AB27...@ameritel.net>...

(snip part one)

> Speaking of political violence, how is Yitzak Rabin doing?

Who had him killed?

> > (snip)

> > > Well, Robert, your sympathies don't appear to be w/ the innocent victims, but with the IDF,
> >
> > Sir, I've never denied sympathy for Israel. But neither have I
> > omitted to proclaim the human rights and dignity of Arabs and
> > Palestinians.
>
> Occasionaly I do see such vague generalizations from you; I'm reminded
> of folks saying, 'some of my best freinds are black, they just don't
> come to visit often', or 'some of my best freinds are black, they take
> out the garbage twice a week'. You suggest that you'd eat crows over
> dozens of their bodies, and then, you claim that you proclaim their
> dignity. Either you are being sarcastic, or you really don't know what
> dignity is. I can not tell!

Are you honestly not familiar with the idiomatic expression of eating
crow? (Not eating A crow, or eating crows.) It's similar to the
"I'll eat my hat, I'll be a monkey's uncle," etc. It expresses
incredulity.

>
> > My criticisms of their cultural flaws ("honor killings"
> > of women, for example) is not a personal attack on them, but an
> > attempt to identify certain contributing factors to the intractability
> > of peaceful solutions. There is no shortage of criticism of Israeli
> > culture (Zionism, blood sacrifice, etc). It would be nice if
> > unpleasant facts could be mentioned without the immediate red flag of
> > stereotyping (of the mentioner) being waved about.
> >
> > > and those who wish to blame the problems on the victims. The statement looks like somthing
> > > you say some days after you've started another one of these 'blame the victims' threads, and a
> > > day or two before you start another 'blame the victims' thread. So, instead of _telling_ me
> > > you have sympathy for the victims, _show_ me, and leave them alone, for years, not hours.
> >
> > The victims are the children on both sides. Both sides, sir. Putting
> > all the blame on the IDF, calling them Nazis and terrorists, is part
> > of the problem. Asking Israel to capitulate is simply not realistic,
> > given the reality of the murderous rampage which will be inflicted
> > upon them the very moment the Palestinians become capable of doing it.
>
> Of course there are problems on both sides! You need not subject the
> readers of this group to a recurring stream of one side of the coin!
> When you persist in telling part of the problem, please don't get so
> huffy when others point out other facets!!!!!

I don't recall huffing.

>
> > The realistic solution is what I have long advocated. Re-direct the
> > money, being used by the PLO for terrorism and corruption, into
> > productive assets controlled by the Palestinian people, not to a few
> > powerful men.
>
> Even better, redirect the billions that the US sends for defense, which
> the Israelis have diverted for genocide!

Genocide?

>
> > Encourage the Palestinians to establish a form of
> > government in which the chairman does not wield ALL of the power, but
> > rather, shares it with an independent legislator and court system.
>
> Encourage the Israeli media to tell multiple sides of the story, to be a
> media for both Jews and Arabs.

It is much more even-handed than al Jazeera.

>
> > With a few basic economic and political changes from tyranny to
> > freedom, the Palestinian people would become empowered to address
> > their legitimate grievances in ways that would achieve results.
>
> With a rounder picture, Israelis could make more informed election
> choices, rather than voting a straight "ethnic cleansing" ticket.

The diversity of political opinion in Israel is rather astonishing
considering their circumstance.

>
> > Those who profess a love for the Palestinian people should be at the
> > very forefront of such a movement.
>
> Those who profess a love for Isreal should lead the way, as you have, in
> energizing American voters to put the screws on genocide funding.

You cheapen the word "genocide." I understand that your passion is
deep, but words must be respected for their true meaning.

>
> > Those who use the Palestinians as their pawns, as proxies in the war
> > by certain governments who simply hate Jews (Iraq, Syria, etc), will
> > cringe at the notion of yet another free-market democracy in the
> > mid-East.
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The spirit of Auschwitz
>
> Holocaust Day, 9 April, is also the day on which Palestinians mark the
> memory of the Deir Yassin massacre. Omar Barghouti* contemplates a
> grotesque coincidence that will not be consigned to the past

In remarking on the following, I must repeat this:

My position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has NOT been a
pro-Israeli-only advocacy. I have observed the strong anti-Israel
bias of the press and of academia, which demonizes legitimate acts of
self-defense, while at the same time making excuses for acts of
terror. And I've commented on this from the other perspective.
Some of this press bias is a sincere desire to be inoffensive. But
when one is confronted with the spectre of such horrific acts, one
must be truthful, even if the truth offends some people.
I have tried to address the matter in a sober, thoughtful manner. But
it is so fraught with emotional content that every word is a mine in a
minefield.
Why? Why is there not this level of anger regarding the China-Tibet
problem, or the India-Pakistan conflict? Why is there no similar
outrage regarding the Timorese or the Sudanese? Why do we not express
similar emotions regarding Taiwan or the two Koreas? Certainly the
world has no shortage of conflicts. Why is the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict the center of world attention?
I believe there is prophetic significance here. The Bible speaks of a
future conflict involving Jerusalem and Babylon--- that is Iraq----
and a 200 million-man army from the kings of the east (China is now
capable of raising such an army--- and its one-child policy is
producing a disproportionately male society).
The apocalyptic predictions are becoming more plausible every day.
There is a field in Israel called Megiddo--- in modern terms,
Armageddon.

>
> "Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both
> peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal of being
> an independent people with the Arabs in this small country. The only
> solution is a Palestine, at least Western Palestine [west of the Jordan
> River] without Arabs ... And there is no other way than to transfer the
> Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them;
> not one village, not one tribe, should be left. Only after this transfer
> will the country be able to absorb the millions of our own brethren.
> There is no other way out."
>

(snip)

>
> Several Israeli commentators and politicians have recently warned that
> unless the Palestinians accept the fact that they cannot gain anything
> through the use of force, they might witness an encore of the Nakba [the
> 1948 Palestinian catastrophe]. Given the prevailing attitudes and
> convictions among Israelis, and the alarming level of impunity, which
> Israel takes for granted, one cannot take this threat lightly.
> http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/584/op10.htm

So what do you recommend? Annihilation of the Jews in Israel? If so,
why not just say that? Yasser Arafat has.

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 17, 2002, 9:01:11 AM9/17/02

Rober...@Msn.Com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<457ff776.0209...@posting.google.com>...

> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D82AB27...@ameritel.net>...
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings;
> > >
> > > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D793FB3...@ameritel.net>...
> > > > Robert Arvay wrote:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > > There are three things wrong with this: (1) if the evidence is not
> > > > > easy to obtain, then the accusations should not be easy to make,
> > > > > especially accusations of such a grave nature.
> > > >
> (snip)
>
> > Check out this link:
> > http://www.jeninmassacre.org
>
> The links photo and report sections say it is under construction until
> May.
> I see nothing there but wild and unfounded accusations.

Try following some of the news links you appear to have ignored.

For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,687654,00.html

'"The Israelis gave this order," said Majdi Awad, a doctor. "They
said: 'Everyone must come out of the houses with their hands in the
air. Anyone we find in the houses after that, we will kill'."

Those that left, children included, were forced to walk out of the
camp with their hands up and Israeli guns trained on them. At a
checkpoint a few blocks from the fighting, the soldiers handcuffed and
blindfolded the Palestinian men, and took them away for interrogation.

Mr Masoud said the slightest defiance or hesitation in obeying the
orders of Israeli soldiers was met with severe retaliation.

"They wanted an excuse to kill us. If you did not keep your hands in
the air, or did not hear their orders they just shot you. I saw three
men shot dead, just like that. They had surrendered but they were
still killed." '

and from the same article:

'Accounts of the man bulldozed into his house because he did not
understand the order to evacuate, or the deaf man who did not hear it,
have swiftly taken on cult status among the Palestinians.

But not everyone chose to leave. Besides the fighters still holed up
in the encircled buildings, the Palestinians say many men and women
remained because they supported the "martyrs" or they did not want to
leave their homes.

As the fighting resumed, the Israeli bulldozers and tanks were put to
use. The Palestinians say the machines systematically destroyed homes
as their enemy launched the final assault on the fighters holed up in
the heart of the camp.

"There were only 50 or 60 fighters in there," said Khalid Saba, a
resident whose home overlooks the area where the worst fighting
occurred. "Why did they have to destroy so many houses? It was to
punish us for supporting the fighters, for willing them to win.

"There was a lot of fighting. It was very intense. The Israelis put
snipers behind our walls and when they wanted to find out where the
Palestinian snipers were, they made my son stand in front of the
window thinking they would shoot at him. Fortunately they didn't, so
the Israelis arrested him." '

'The Palestinians say that several hundred homes were destroyed or
severely damaged, and that dozens, possibly hundreds, of women and
children were still inside the buildings when they were flattened by
Israeli bulldozers.

"I think between 100 and 200 people are buried in the rubble," said
Hama Abu Heija, of the Palestinian medical relief committees. Later he
helped pull out one of 11 people found alive in the rubble in Jenin.

Before the killing ended, 23 Israeli soldiers had also died, a
testament to the strength of the resistance. Thirteen of them were
killed in an ambush after they were lured down a side street and
confronted by a suicide bomber or a donkey laden with explosives,
depending on who is giving the account. '

> >
> (snip)
> >
> > When did UN investigators get into Jenin, the Jenin in occupied
> > Palestine?
> >
> You're continually regarding the absence of any evidence as proof of a
> crime.
>

You are ignoring the eye-witness reports of people who were
there. There is no "absense of evidence" just your insistence
on blaming the victims and calling them all liars.

Note that I have only quoted from *one* article in the links
section to news reports from Jenin. There are something like
30-40 links there in fact.

Paul

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 17, 2002, 9:07:44 AM9/17/02

Rober...@Msn.Com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<457ff776.0209...@posting.google.com>...

Here's another of those "wild and unfounded accusations", which
gives the lie to your repeated assertions that "there is no
list of names"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=284436

'"I saw it all with my own eyes," said the man. "I saw people bleeding
to death in the streets. I saw a 10-year-old child lying dead. There
was a big hole in his side and his arm had been blown away.

"I saw them burying the bodies. They started work on the grave a few
days ago. I recognised some of the bodies in it. I can give you the
names."

And he reeled them off: "Mohammed Hamed, Nidal Nubam and Mustafa
Shnewa". He said the mass grave he saw was in a neighbourhood called
Harat Al-Hawashiya. "They dug a big hole in the ground. I saw them
filling it in today. They had a big bulldozer pushing dirt in on top
of it." '

Now, I, for one, am sick and tired of you coming here pushing
your pro-Israel agenda, and using your denial of the tragedy these
people have suffered as an excuse to "demand" some kind of retraction
from those of us here who have a heart to feel for these Palestinians,
and their fight for self-determination and the right to live
free lives, unfettered by Israeli army action.

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 17, 2002, 9:08:38 PM9/17/02

Greetings;

paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.02091...@posting.google.com>...
(snip)

>
> Here's another of those "wild and unfounded accusations", which
> gives the lie to your repeated assertions that "there is no
> list of names"

(Somewhat disingenuous--- I've said no list has been made public, and
have said that it would not be too difficult to produce one. But read
on...)

>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=284436
>
> '"I saw it all with my own eyes," said the man. "I saw people bleeding
> to death in the streets. I saw a 10-year-old child lying dead. There
> was a big hole in his side and his arm had been blown away.
>
> "I saw them burying the bodies. They started work on the grave a few
> days ago. I recognised some of the bodies in it. I can give you the
> names."
>
> And he reeled them off: "Mohammed Hamed, Nidal Nubam and Mustafa
> Shnewa". He said the mass grave he saw was in a neighbourhood called
> Harat Al-Hawashiya. "They dug a big hole in the ground. I saw them
> filling it in today. They had a big bulldozer pushing dirt in on top
> of it." '

Furthermore, there is this quote in the article you linked:

"Tracing all the dead is likely to be a long and complex task. UNWRA,
the United Nations relief agency for refugees, keeps a computer list
of the residents of the densely populated camp. When its officials are
finally allowed access to the camp, this will be used to identify the
number of missing – either in detention, hiding or dead."

I say excellent! NOW we have a hard source of verifiable, objective
information.
And now that the officials have finally been allowed access to the
camp (some weeks ago by now), we should be well on the way to
"identify the number of missing – either in detention, hiding or
dead." Then we shall need no longer speak in fuzzy numbers, such as
500--- or perhaps 50--- as has been the case. We WILL have a list,
and that will indeed tell the story--- who died and how many.
It is the one objective item I found in the story. (It mentions tanks
circling the journalists menacingly. I'm trying to picture tanks NOT
looking menacing.)
The rest of the story was filled with colored words designed to elicit
a particular response, rather than to inform.
But the computerized list will finally provide the needed proof--- one
way or the other.
Good job, Paul.

> Now, I, for one, am sick and tired of you coming here pushing
> your pro-Israel agenda, and using your denial of the tragedy these
> people have suffered as an excuse to "demand" some kind of retraction
> from those of us here who have a heart to feel for these Palestinians,
> and their fight for self-determination and the right to live
> free lives, unfettered by Israeli army action.
>

My agenda has not been pro-Israel, but pro-Truth and pro-Justice for
both sides. I have levelled no accusations apart from evidence
against either side. I have made no denials except to merely ASK FOR
EVIDENCE, and up until that time, to exercise the presumption of
innocence until proved guilty. Any unkind remarks I've made have been
factual, and not ad hominem regarding Palestinians and Israelis alike,
but informational.
But I speak in vain. My refusal to rush to judgment has been used
against me as proof of partisanship. So be it.
But now that we may anticipate the soon-to-be-released computer
analysis of names and numbers, I shall patiently await the moment in
which I must say that the Israelis committed a crime against
humanity--- at which time sir, you shall find me ardently advocating
bringing to justice all and any who perpetrated the atrocity.
If the analysis proves otherwise... well, I'll let you speak for
yourself as to what your reaction shall be.

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 17, 2002, 11:10:48 PM9/17/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

Thanks, when I go to the link, I only get a 404.

>
> (snip)
> >
> > When did UN investigators get into Jenin, the Jenin in occupied
> > Palestine?
> >
> You're continually regarding the absence of any evidence as proof of a
> crime.

Robert, you had written earlier, "Even though the UN investigators were not allowed into the area right

away, the fact remains that once they were in, they were not blindfolded and shackled. They had unfettered

access to civilian witnesses." Above I asked when this happened. I was not aware that UN investigators
had gotten in to Jenin, so I asked you. Your reply is not a reponse, just a dodge. If you'd like to say
that you know they got in before (pick a date) some time, just say so. If you'd like to say that you had
no idea what you were going on about when you wrote that the UN Inpectors were on site in Jenin, go ahead,
but at this point, I'm not saying there is _no_evidence_, I am asking about the evidence that _you_ are
already referring to!

>
>
> > > > Your wolves shot and killed the retarded bell ringer!
> > >
> > > This is so loaded with rancor I cannot reply.
> >
> > Looks like a reply, an unsual reply in that you made _no_ attempt to
> > portray the victim as the perpetrator.
>
> If the IDF deliberately and wilfully decided to kill an innocent man,
> and it was neither an accident nor a "fog of war" incident, then you
> are absolutely correct in saying that it was murder. At the very
> least it was a horrible accident, perhaps a culpable accident of
> negligence.

When the IDF bombed an apartment building in the Gaza strip, killing over a dozen Palestinians, to include
one key figure in Hamas, Arik Sharon described it as a big success. There is no fog to it, they want the
Palestinians dead or out of Palestine.

> But I know a fellow who was in a shooting war and
> admitted that he came within microseconds of shooting his best friend.
> I've never been in the situation of having people shoot at me. Have
> you? What does it feel like? Did it affect your thinking?
>

When folks have attacked a church, don't you think the suggestion that they might have shot a friend, is a
wee bit ironic here????

>
> (snip)
> >
> > > Everybody in Jenin says 500 were
> > > killed.
> >
> > Some have lower estimates. Some report that most of the residents of
> > Jenin anticipated the treachery of the Israelis, and violated the
> > curfew, getting themselves safely out of their homes when the Israeli
> > tanks rolled into the neighborhood. Some did remain to bravely defend
> > Jenin from the terrorist attack. These were buried in the ruins of
> > Jenin, and some may have been trucked off to Israel for disposal.
>
> This sounds more like cheerleading than objective reporting.

How do you figure? Are you denying that the Israelis put the entire west bank under curfew last April? Are
you denying that armored vehicles shelled Jenin and flattened many of the buildings? What are you talking
about?????

>
> >
> > > But nobody seems able to name them.
> >
> > No no no; _you_ do not name them because you find the notion of another
> > Israeli massacre of Palestinians to upset the dog you have in the
> > fight. Too bad.
>
> I don't name them, Pat, because I do not know their names, nor how
> many (if any) nor the conditions under which they died (if they did).

Of course you don't know their names!!!!!! They are dead and you are eating crows!!! Why should you care
about _their_ names!!!!

>
> And for the life of me, I don't understand your acrimony over this
> when there are no objective facts at hand.

Now what are you going on about?!?!?!? You started some thread here about the Jenin massacre!!!!! Now you
blurt out that _you_ don't understand!!!!!! If you don't know what you are talking about, .... well, talk
about something else!

> You may distrust me, but I
> assure you that with objective facts in hand, I would have no
> inclination to cover up or excuse any crime by any party.

No, that is precisely your intent. You just tried to suggest there was no massacre at Jenin! You can't
fool me! I saw you!!!!!!

>
> >
> (snip)

So, you assert that the people in Jenin are _not_ anonymous, that therefore there must be lots of evidence
had a massacre occurred, and then, you conclude that since you never bothered looking for such evidence,
there was no massacre, and furthermore, you want to lecture me about pointing to an absence as the
evidence!!!!! If the folks in Jenin were not so anonymous to you, you could have named one of them!

>
> >
> > > Compiling at least a
> > > partial list, say 20%, even 10%, would be the easiest thing to
> > > accomplish, if in fact that many people had died.
> >
> > Maybe it was just a hundred, maybe fifty. How many Americans were
> > killed in the Boston Massacre? How many Americans were killed in the
> > Ludlow Massacre? The point is that the IDF attacked Palestinians just
> > living in their homes, and then bull-dozed the place.
>
> If this were the inclination of the IDF, why would they stop at 500 or
> even 5,000?

They will stop when the Palestinians are dead or gone.

> They clearly have the power to do that.

They don't have the power to expel all the Palestinians and killing them all will arouse the US to their
true intentions. They want to scare off the Palestinians.

> Is it possible
> that intelligence had located bomb factories?
>

Do tell? Have the Palestinians any ability to defend themselves? Will you use it as justification for
their extermination at the hands of the terrorists? Is the existence of Palestinians weapons relevant, or
irrelevant, then?

>
> >
> > > But while we're at it, let me touch upon one item which seems to have
> > > gotten lost in the shuffle. The UN report did condemn the
> > > Palestinians for deliberately placing munitions, armaments and
> > > explosives (for bombs) among their own civilians. The express purpose
> > > of this is obvious. Either the IDF avoids such areas, and allows the
> > > armaments to be employed against them, or else, they attack the
> > > armaments whereupon some civilian casualties are inevitable.
> >
> > Are you one of those anti-gun liberals? Don't the Palestinians have a
> > right to defend themselves? Does the UN go through an Israeli village,
> > after some Palestinian terrorists attack them, and count how many
> > weapons are in the neighborhood, how much ammunition, and then blame the
> > Israelis for the attack, as you would try to do! This is outrageous!
> > You deny them the basic right to even defend themselves from their
> > murderers!
>
> Of course the Palestinians have a right to self-defense.

Thank you, Robert!!!!!

> But if the
> reports are true, the IDF was uncovering weapons caches for use in
> terrorist attacks--- bombs and the sort.

Explosives are handy things for laying mines, and the last time I checked, with the basic land mine, you
have to be in the neighorhood to set the mine field up. A mine field would work great in slowing down IDF
armored columns on thier periodic rads of the west bank and gaza. Do please let me know when the
Palestinians have the F-16s, tanks, and Cobra gunships like the IDF uses in killing dozens of Palestinians
with as much care as swatting a mosquito.

> But if you wish to define
> Palestinian self-defense as any act of violence against Israelis, then
> you're simply saying that every Palestinian is a combatant. Which, I
> am sure, is not your intent.
>

So long as the Israelis are invading Palestine, duh.

>
> > > Either
> > > way, the terrorists win. If the armaments go untouched by IDF, the
> > > terrorists can now kill Israeli civilians with them. If IDF attacks,
> > > the terrorists get to post photos of the dead civilians and to say,
> > > look, they enjoy killing the innocent!
> >
> > The IDF uses unarmed non-suspect Palestinian Arabs to try to capture
> > Palestinians that it suspects are actively resisting Israeli occupation,
> > and you take their word that Palestinians had weapons and ammunition?
> > In Jenin, it is clear that all Palestinians should carry automatic
> > weapons to defend themselves from genocide!
>
> Pat, I've repeatedly affirmed that I'm not taking ANYONE's word. You
> are.

When did UN inspectors enter Jenin?

> I'm asking for evidence.

No you are not. You've _never_ asked about Deir Yassin (FWIW, fatalities likely were exaggerated). I know
you have _no_ interest whatsoever in evidence. You are trying to paint genocide as justifiable - evidence
is your adversary.

> You're pointing to the absence of
> evidence as proof.
>

Please provide examples of me proving my point with a vacuum?

_You_ were the one saying drawing conclusions from your asserted lack of a list of victims; that is to say
it is _you_ 'pointing to the absence' as evidence! But this does not mean there is no list of victims.

_You_ were the one saying that a lack of photos meant there was a lack of casualties; ; that is to say it
is _you_ 'pointing to the absence' as evidence! But this does not mean there are no photos of the crime
scene.

This is your answer? You disgust me. Now I'm afraid to present evidence, lest you get West Nile virus fro
the crow you didn't even cook, but kissed (yuck! wait 'til your wife finds about about that!).

>
> Honestly, would you be willing to apologize to those whom you accuse
> if facts develop which prove those accusations false?
> >

What are you talking about?

??? (Dear Readers, I did not see Robert asking for evidence of a massacre, just doubting there was any.
HAve any of you ever seen him asking for evidence of a massacre?)

I await with baited breath.

Brian Walker

unread,

Sep 18, 2002, 12:03:03 AM9/18/02

Let me join you Pat!

Pat Kohli wrote:

>
> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Your wolves shot and killed the retarded bell ringer!
>>>>
>>>>This is so loaded with rancor I cannot reply.
>>>
>>>Looks like a reply, an unsual reply in that you made _no_ attempt to
>>>portray the victim as the perpetrator.
>>
>>If the IDF deliberately and wilfully decided to kill an innocent man,
>>and it was neither an accident nor a "fog of war" incident, then you
>>are absolutely correct in saying that it was murder. At the very
>>least it was a horrible accident, perhaps a culpable accident of
>>negligence.
>
>
> When the IDF bombed an apartment building in the Gaza strip, killing over a dozen Palestinians, to include
> one key figure in Hamas, Arik Sharon described it as a big success. There is no fog to it, they want the
> Palestinians dead or out of Palestine.

Sharon stands accused of mass murder in Schatila and Sabra - I believe
the total dead exceed the count of the WTC. That seems a clear call to
action by the USA. That was no accident and it was far from being
negligence. The bell ringer murder is but one more example

>
>
>>But I know a fellow who was in a shooting war and
>>admitted that he came within microseconds of shooting his best friend.
>> I've never been in the situation of having people shoot at me. Have
>>you? What does it feel like? Did it affect your thinking?
>>
>
>
> When folks have attacked a church, don't you think the suggestion that they might have shot a friend, is a
> wee bit ironic here????

Well, bullets were not whizzing over my head, but I have been a target.
The mindset of all targets was mostly to live life more energetically
and keep on going. It made the people more determined not to give up. I
think Robert was making a different point though - the "honest mistake"
whoops I would not have shot you if I had recognized you in time type of
point, which is really pointless.

>
>
>>You may distrust me, but I
>>assure you that with objective facts in hand, I would have no
>>inclination to cover up or excuse any crime by any party.
>
>
> No, that is precisely your intent. You just tried to suggest there was no massacre at Jenin! You can't
> fool me! I saw you!!!!!!

We all did too. Robert, please would you inject some Christianity here
and accept that the Palestinians are an oppressed and poor people who
have legitimate demands which are being denied by the oppressor, while I
can acccept that attacks on civilians is always wrong.

>>
>>Of course the Palestinians have a right to self-defense.
>
>
> Thank you, Robert!!!!!

Robert - can you now tell me what form of self-defence is acceptable to you?

> ??? (Dear Readers, I did not see Robert asking for evidence of a massacre, just doubting there was any.
> HAve any of you ever seen him asking for evidence of a massacre?)

Nope

All the best

Brian

--
Brian F. Walker
Registered Linux User 270078
Debian GNU/Linux

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 18, 2002, 12:42:55 AM9/18/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D82AB27...@ameritel.net>...
>
> (snip part one)
>
> > Speaking of political violence, how is Yitzak Rabin doing?
>
> Who had him killed?

Yigal Amir, a law student, was convicted. Some have suggested the involvement of others, that Avishai
Raviv, an agent of th eIsraeli government, pressed Amir to do it. I do not know the extent of his
involvment.

"Police have brought no charges against right-wing rabbis, for example, despite allegations that
Amir received clerical blessings for his act. "Nothing has changed," laments legal commentator Moshe
Negbi. "Still there is no readiness to confront Jewish fundamentalist extremism." After the latest
Palestinian suicide bombings, protesters chanted, "Yigal Amir! Yigal Amir!" and "Peres is next!"
Security officials take the threat seriously. When traveling in Israel, Rabin, like previous Prime
Ministers, was given a minimal and casual guard. Indeed, a government inquiry released last week cited
profound lapses in the security around Rabin, both generally and on the night he died. Peres is now
safeguarded in much the same way as the U.S. President. For the first time, traffic is stopped to allow
passage of the Prime Minister's motorcade; when on foot, he is surrounded by a tight cordon of
bodyguards."
http://www.time.com/time/international/1996/960408/israel.html

It was neither the first case of Zionists using violence to resolve political questions, and it won't be
the last.

In 1924, Prof. Ya'acov Yisrael DeHaan, a brilliant Dutch jurist who acted as a de facto 'foreign
minister' for the old yishuv of Jerusalem, was killed on the eve of his departure for England for
discussions with British Mandatory authorities.

Prior to the assassination, the Zionist press had accused DeHaan of being a national traitor and the
Va'ad Haleumi posted denunciations of his proposed visit to London as an act of treason. Al Hamishmar
lamented, 'We do not yet possess the power of an independent nation to judge traitors, but if we did, we
would be obligated to impose the strictest punishment upon him.'

Yehuda Slutzky, the official historian of the Hagana, identified the assassin as Avraham Tehomi,
acting on orders of the Hagana high command. To the end, Tehomi remained unrepetant. In a television
interview with Shlomo Nakdimon, co-author with Shaul Mazlish of DeHaan: The First Political Murder in
Eretz Yisrael, Tehomi insisted that DeHaan had to be eliminated. He added that no Hagana action took
place in Jerusalem at that time without the express order of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, later Israel's second
president.

After the assassination, the Histadrut journal Ha'olam foreshadowed Yigal Amir by justifying the
murder with copious citations of halachic authorities.

Nor was assassination a forbidden tool in intra- Zionist disputes.

David Ben-Gurion records in his diary threats on his life by one of the leaders of Hashomer Hatza'ir,
and two Hashomer members shot and wounded Yosef Leshinsky, an activist in the anti-Turkish Nili
organization.

The best-known instance of Jews killing Jews in internal Zionist struggles is, of course, the sinking
of the Altalena. Long after the ship had sunk, Palmah forces kept up their fire on those in the water in
the hopes of killing Menachem Begin. Sixteen Jews died as a result.

In his memoirs, the Palmah commander recalled his feelings at that time: 'Jews shooting Jews - over a
prolonged period. Jews injured and killed by the bullets of other Jews. But my heart is at peace with
the decision of Ben-Gurion.'

Moshe Beilinson, one of the few Zionist leaders to condemn the DeHaan assassination, wrote at the
time, 'Blood always draws in its wake more blood. Blood is always avenged. If we start once on this
path, we can not know where it may lead.'
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/75/

>
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > Well, Robert, your sympathies don't appear to be w/ the innocent victims, but with the IDF,
> > >
> > > Sir, I've never denied sympathy for Israel. But neither have I
> > > omitted to proclaim the human rights and dignity of Arabs and
> > > Palestinians.
> >
> > Occasionaly I do see such vague generalizations from you; I'm reminded
> > of folks saying, 'some of my best freinds are black, they just don't
> > come to visit often', or 'some of my best freinds are black, they take
> > out the garbage twice a week'. You suggest that you'd eat crows over
> > dozens of their bodies, and then, you claim that you proclaim their
> > dignity. Either you are being sarcastic, or you really don't know what
> > dignity is. I can not tell!
>
> Are you honestly not familiar with the idiomatic expression of eating
> crow? (Not eating A crow, or eating crows.) It's similar to the
> "I'll eat my hat, I'll be a monkey's uncle," etc. It expresses
> incredulity.

Ahh, so you admit to having no interest in the facts of the matter, but idioms. Our tax dollars are
being used to push these people from their homes, upon pain of death, and you're working the idioms.
Get a clue what is at stake here - it is bigger than idioms. It is far bigger than, 'I have black
friends - they don't come around much'. Don't tell me you have not failed to proclaim rights and
dignity of people, just do it, and stop demonizing them! This whole thread was started with some title
suggesting that Muslim Arabs don't think like we do. That is just plain and simple demonization.
Despite this patent evidence of your bias, you'd like to say, "Up with people!". Up with people,
Robert, all kinds of people, even you. Up with people!

>
> > > My criticisms of their cultural flaws ("honor killings"
> > > of women, for example) is not a personal attack on them, but an
> > > attempt to identify certain contributing factors to the intractability
> > > of peaceful solutions. There is no shortage of criticism of Israeli
> > > culture (Zionism, blood sacrifice, etc). It would be nice if
> > > unpleasant facts could be mentioned without the immediate red flag of
> > > stereotyping (of the mentioner) being waved about.

I would hope the primary ciriticism of Israeli culture is always racism, and that is only pointed out
when you accuse their victims of racism.

>
> > > > and those who wish to blame the problems on the victims. The statement looks like somthing
> > > > you say some days after you've started another one of these 'blame the victims' threads, and a
> > > > day or two before you start another 'blame the victims' thread. So, instead of _telling_ me
> > > > you have sympathy for the victims, _show_ me, and leave them alone, for years, not hours.
> > >
> > > The victims are the children on both sides. Both sides, sir. Putting
> > > all the blame on the IDF, calling them Nazis and terrorists, is part
> > > of the problem. Asking Israel to capitulate is simply not realistic,
> > > given the reality of the murderous rampage which will be inflicted
> > > upon them the very moment the Palestinians become capable of doing it.
> >
> > Of course there are problems on both sides! You need not subject the
> > readers of this group to a recurring stream of one side of the coin!
> > When you persist in telling part of the problem, please don't get so
> > huffy when others point out other facets!!!!!
>
> I don't recall huffing.

A refresher, "In short, while I am referred to by expletives and outright accusations of bigotry, I'm

not supposed to suggest that the merest hint of imperfection might have crept into the motives of my

accusers." I could be wrong. I really don't know what you are going on about there, and so I took it
as huffing. You see, I don't recall saying recently that you are a &*^% pathetic anti-semite, or some
such expletive filled accusation of bigotry, yet you seem to bounce it off of me, and it looks to me to
be air, since I hadn't called you a %$#@ anti-semite in the first place that I recall, but please
correct me. No need to hint at my imperfections, you can point them out, or, I'd be happy to concede to
being a bit nasty when I think someone's been rather frivolous over mass murder.

>
> >
> > > The realistic solution is what I have long advocated. Re-direct the
> > > money, being used by the PLO for terrorism and corruption, into
> > > productive assets controlled by the Palestinian people, not to a few
> > > powerful men.
> >
> > Even better, redirect the billions that the US sends for defense, which
> > the Israelis have diverted for genocide!
>
> Genocide?

Right, by freezing the genocide funds, problems might just dry up w/o further action on our part!

>
> >
> > > Encourage the Palestinians to establish a form of
> > > government in which the chairman does not wield ALL of the power, but
> > > rather, shares it with an independent legislator and court system.
> >
> > Encourage the Israeli media to tell multiple sides of the story, to be a
> > media for both Jews and Arabs.
>
> It is much more even-handed than al Jazeera.

So, let's take the anniversary of Deir Yassin last April; recalling that Israeli TV is for all Israelis,
Jewish, Muslim, and Christian, do described how Israeli TV covered it.

>
> > > With a few basic economic and political changes from tyranny to
> > > freedom, the Palestinian people would become empowered to address
> > > their legitimate grievances in ways that would achieve results.
> >
> > With a rounder picture, Israelis could make more informed election
> > choices, rather than voting a straight "ethnic cleansing" ticket.
>
> The diversity of political opinion in Israel is rather astonishing
> considering their circumstance.

Have you any idea what happens to Knesset members who do not toe the line on Israeli seizure of the west
bank?

>
> >
> > > Those who profess a love for the Palestinian people should be at the
> > > very forefront of such a movement.
> >
> > Those who profess a love for Isreal should lead the way, as you have, in
> > energizing American voters to put the screws on genocide funding.
>
> You cheapen the word "genocide." I understand that your passion is
> deep, but words must be respected for their true meaning.

There is a record of massacre. The conclusion for such evidence is a trend to eliminate a group of
people.

Deir Yssin April 1948
Kibya October 1953
Kafr Qasim October 1956
Sabra and Shatila September 1982
Hebron February 1994
Qana, Nabateya and Mansouri April 1996
Jenin April 2002

>
> >
> > > Those who use the Palestinians as their pawns, as proxies in the war
> > > by certain governments who simply hate Jews (Iraq, Syria, etc), will
> > > cringe at the notion of yet another free-market democracy in the
> > > mid-East.
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > The spirit of Auschwitz
> >
> > Holocaust Day, 9 April, is also the day on which Palestinians mark the
> > memory of the Deir Yassin massacre. Omar Barghouti* contemplates a
> > grotesque coincidence that will not be consigned to the past
>
> In remarking on the following, I must repeat this:
>
> My position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has NOT been a
> pro-Israeli-only advocacy.

Of course it has! Shall I contrast how many pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinians threads that you have started
here, with the anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian threads you have started? Do you think all of your readers
are droolling maroons? Of course your advocacy has been _one_sided_! You only back off when confronted
with overwhelming evidence that you'd like to avoid for a few hours, and then you are off on another
one, only to come back weeks later and _demand_ that everyone else say _how_ wrong they were about
Jenin.

You were wrong, Robert Arvay, utterly, obnoxiously, vocally wrong!

Terje Larsen, a UN envoy, did go to Jenin. He described it as “horrific beyond belief” and he said that
the camp smells of death and looks like it was hit by a great earthquake. That is the fact of the
matter - death is on that camp.

> I have observed the strong anti-Israel
> bias of the press and of academia, which demonizes legitimate acts of
> self-defense, while at the same time making excuses for acts of
> terror.

BS! The media is very strongly behind Israel!

> And I've commented on this from the other perspective.
> Some of this press bias is a sincere desire to be inoffensive.

Well Robert, so long as you avoid the facts yourself, you are in absolutely no postion whatsoever to
objectively accuse the media of an anti-Israeli bias!

> But
> when one is confronted with the spectre of such horrific acts, one
> must be truthful, even if the truth offends some people.
> I have tried to address the matter in a sober, thoughtful manner. But
> it is so fraught with emotional content that every word is a mine in a
> minefield.

I think you light up the ordinance by continuosly pounding the drum for the aggressors.

>
> Why? Why is there not this level of anger regarding the China-Tibet
> problem, or the India-Pakistan conflict? Why is there no similar
> outrage regarding the Timorese or the Sudanese?

You haven't been posting about the evils of the Christians in East Timor, or the evils of the Christians
in southern Sudan! I can't believe you ask these questions!!!!!

> Why do we not express
> similar emotions regarding Taiwan or the two Koreas? Certainly the
> world has no shortage of conflicts. Why is the Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict the center of world attention?

Robert, you've drawn attention to the IP conflict. My center of attention is normally my job, my
children's education, and waht is for dinner. If you want to know why the conflict has your interest,
you are asking the wrong person.

>
> I believe there is prophetic significance here. The Bible speaks of a
> future conflict involving Jerusalem and Babylon--- that is Iraq----
> and a 200 million-man army from the kings of the east (China is now
> capable of raising such an army--- and its one-child policy is
> producing a disproportionately male society).

I don't recall a 200 million man army being mentioned. The kings of the east do cross the Tigris or
Euphrates, but that is a re-enactment of the Persian kings liberating the Jews and ending the Babylonian
Captivity. This event was 'post'shadowed with the Magi coming to Christmas, and then again with the
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l Baha crossing the river at the festival of Rizwon.

>
> The apocalyptic predictions are becoming more plausible every day.
> There is a field in Israel called Megiddo--- in modern terms,
> Armageddon.
>

Oh, my. "The leaves of the trees are for the healing of nations."

Did you notice that 1) He will be born again? Rev. 12:5

and 2) when He manfests Himself, no one else knew His name? Rev 19:12

>
> >
> > "Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both
> > peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal of being
> > an independent people with the Arabs in this small country. The only
> > solution is a Palestine, at least Western Palestine [west of the Jordan
> > River] without Arabs ... And there is no other way than to transfer the
> > Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them;
> > not one village, not one tribe, should be left. Only after this transfer
> > will the country be able to absorb the millions of our own brethren.
> > There is no other way out."
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > Several Israeli commentators and politicians have recently warned that
> > unless the Palestinians accept the fact that they cannot gain anything
> > through the use of force, they might witness an encore of the Nakba [the
> > 1948 Palestinian catastrophe]. Given the prevailing attitudes and
> > convictions among Israelis, and the alarming level of impunity, which
> > Israel takes for granted, one cannot take this threat lightly.
> > http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/584/op10.htm
>
> So what do you recommend?

I already recommended we stop funding their genocide! I thought you read that!!!!

> Annihilation of the Jews in Israel?

No, you *&^^%$ anti-semite (you wanted that one, so it doesn't count!!!)

> If so,
> why not just say that?

I don't want that! I already made my recommendation. You've not only pooh poohed it on site, now you've
forgotten it and made up more nonsense!!!

> Yasser Arafat has.

No, again. Arafat recognizes Israel's right to exist. This has already been pointed out to you. You
are simply avoiding discussion.

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 18, 2002, 1:30:13 AM9/18/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> (snip)
>

> My agenda has not been pro-Israel, but pro-Truth and pro-Justice for
> both sides. I have levelled no accusations apart from evidence
> against either side. I have made no denials except to merely ASK FOR
> EVIDENCE, and up until that time, to exercise the presumption of
> innocence until proved guilty.

What evidence did you ask for it, and when did you ask?

Weren't you the fellow that argued there was no massacre (because no such event happened) because you asserted there
was no list?

> What will you say if the facts turn out not to be as you say? Will
> your apologies be as loud as your false accusations? Will they be as
> profuse as the seriousness of those charges?
> But somehow the story died down, didn't it? When no such list could
> be compiled--- because no such event happened--- those who were so
> EAGER to bring a false and reckless indictment based only on THE WORD
> OF TERRORIST ACCUSERS--- well, they suddenly remembered they had other
> matters to attend.

and again,

> However, since that time, journalists have been inside Jenin, produced
> reels of film footage of destroyed buildings, and collected the
> statements of numerous Palestinian witnesses. And guess what?
> No coverup. No names of the supposed victims. No 500 dead. Not even
> 100. No evidence of any massacre at all.
> Oh yeah, one more thing. No apology from the accusers.

and again,

> Names, please. Names of those massacred. Why can't a press that
> eagerly reported the massacre come up with 100--- okay, make it 50---
> names out of 500?
> Because there was no massacre.

You have never been pro-truth. You stuck your head in the sand regarding this massacre, and then argued that since
you would not look for any evidence, there was no massacre, as you do with the examples above where you say there is
not even a partial list, and thus, no massacre. Yet, you accuse others of using absence as evidence. Then you claim
you've been asking for evidence!!!!!

Check out the news articles from April!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937387.stm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/s535310.htm

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 18, 2002, 7:02:07 AM9/18/02

Rober...@Msn.Com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<457ff776.02091...@posting.google.com>...

> Greetings;
>
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> (snip)
> >
> > Here's another of those "wild and unfounded accusations", which
> > gives the lie to your repeated assertions that "there is no
> > list of names"
>
> (Somewhat disingenuous--- I've said no list has been made public, and
> have said that it would not be too difficult to produce one. But read
> on...)

So, it's okay to disregard eyewitness reports from the time in
articles in reputable London based national daily newspapers,
then? A bloke reeling off the names of the victims he knows
personally, while different people are telling different names
to other journalists isn't making the truth public?

Or are all these folks liars, put up to the job by the terrorists,
while only the IDF soldiers who perpetrated these killings have
faces honest enough for you to trust?

> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=284436
> >
> > '"I saw it all with my own eyes," said the man. "I saw people bleeding
> > to death in the streets. I saw a 10-year-old child lying dead. There
> > was a big hole in his side and his arm had been blown away.
> >
> > "I saw them burying the bodies. They started work on the grave a few
> > days ago. I recognised some of the bodies in it. I can give you the
> > names."
> >
> > And he reeled them off: "Mohammed Hamed, Nidal Nubam and Mustafa
> > Shnewa". He said the mass grave he saw was in a neighbourhood called
> > Harat Al-Hawashiya. "They dug a big hole in the ground. I saw them
> > filling it in today. They had a big bulldozer pushing dirt in on top
> > of it." '
>
>
> Furthermore, there is this quote in the article you linked:
>
> "Tracing all the dead is likely to be a long and complex task. UNWRA,
> the United Nations relief agency for refugees, keeps a computer list
> of the residents of the densely populated camp. When its officials are
> finally allowed access to the camp, this will be used to identify the
> number of missing – either in detention, hiding or dead."
>
> I say excellent! NOW we have a hard source of verifiable, objective
> information.
> And now that the officials have finally been allowed access to the
> camp (some weeks ago by now),

Really? Why has it taken so long to let them in? Are the IDF
sure that they've destroyed enough of the evidence now?

we should be well on the way to
> "identify the number of missing – either in detention, hiding or
> dead." Then we shall need no longer speak in fuzzy numbers, such as
> 500--- or perhaps 50--- as has been the case. We WILL have a list,
> and that will indeed tell the story--- who died and how many.
> It is the one objective item I found in the story. (It mentions tanks
> circling the journalists menacingly. I'm trying to picture tanks NOT
> looking menacing.)
> The rest of the story was filled with colored words designed to elicit
> a particular response, rather than to inform.
> But the computerized list will finally provide the needed proof--- one
> way or the other.
> Good job, Paul.
>

Oh, for goodness sake Robert! Of *course* the language was coloured,
these people had just had their homes destroyed, for God's sake!#

And, your quoting of articles from the Jewish World Review, and
your other favourite sources - those articles are *never* just
one man's opinion, and never employ coloured or biased
language at all, do they?

It's called good journalism, Robert, you've got to try to
create a word picture of what it is that you're seeing.

You still haven't explained your willingness to discount *all*
the reports and interviews with eye-witnesses and people
who lived in the Jenin camp to my satisfaction.

Seems to me, the only people whose word you'd take would be
those soldiers in the tanks, who of course have no stake
whatsoever in covering up what they might have done to
civilians in that camp.

>
> > Now, I, for one, am sick and tired of you coming here pushing
> > your pro-Israel agenda, and using your denial of the tragedy these
> > people have suffered as an excuse to "demand" some kind of retraction
> > from those of us here who have a heart to feel for these Palestinians,
> > and their fight for self-determination and the right to live
> > free lives, unfettered by Israeli army action.
> >
> My agenda has not been pro-Israel, but pro-Truth and pro-Justice for
> both sides.

BullSHIT!

> I have levelled no accusations apart from evidence
> against either side. I have made no denials except to merely ASK FOR
> EVIDENCE, and up until that time, to exercise the presumption of
> innocence until proved guilty. Any unkind remarks I've made have been
> factual, and not ad hominem regarding Palestinians and Israelis alike,
> but informational.
> But I speak in vain. My refusal to rush to judgment has been used
> against me as proof of partisanship.

Yeah - you don't rush to judgement - only you only take the
word of one side, and dismiss the victims, all of them, as
a bunch of liars.

So be it.
> But now that we may anticipate the soon-to-be-released computer
> analysis of names and numbers, I shall patiently await the moment in
> which I must say that the Israelis committed a crime against
> humanity--- at which time sir, you shall find me ardently advocating
> bringing to justice all and any who perpetrated the atrocity.

I doubt it!

> If the analysis proves otherwise... well, I'll let you speak for
> yourself as to what your reaction shall be.

To be honest, I don't attach the same importance to off-topic
discussions in a Baha'i newsgroup that you obviously do. I don't
have any fixation with you or I "eating crow" over this, and
if the UN ever does get a chance to confirm the truth attestest
to by those articles written at the time, I shan't be coming
over here posting and reposting my demands that you come and
make an apology for your behaviour.

What you or I say or do makes little difference to the victims
of the IDF in Jenin, now does it?

Paul

Robert Arvay

unread,

Sep 18, 2002, 8:19:35 AM9/18/02

Greetings;

Pat, I think the level of acrimony here is getting too high.

Please examine the quotes which you took from my past posts--- even
taken out of context, they retain their initial meaning. When the
Jenin massacre was first alleged on this NG, my first inclination was
to believe that it had in fact happened. I could not imagine that so
serious an accusation could possibly be made without clear and
convincing evidence. But as I examined news stories concerning the
incident, I began to wonder why no one was publishing this evidence.
Finally, re-examining the reports, I noticed that great weight was
given to the accusers, and very little to those who denied them--- but
none of this clear and convincing evidence was being reported. Only
the allegations made the news. That seemed odd. Based on past
instances of massacres, (which although very difficult to prove were
in fact proved), I realized that the Jenin event was confined to a
particularly enclosed area, where the anonymity of victims could not
shield the perpetrators, and where the proof would be relatively
straightforward. (Even in the difficult cases, victims had been
burned and buried in remote locations. But that was not enough to
conceal the crimes and the identities of the perpetrators.)
Therefore, the most basic element of evidence would be a list of the
dead and missing, especially those whom one could not pass off as dead
of old age.
Now, based on a recent report, there is in fact a computerized list of
Jenin residents kept by international observers--- precisely the kind
of tool I've been expecting to see employed. This is a startling
(belated) development, but let's have it. Let the truth come out.
Please.

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3D880F65...@ameritel.net>...

> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> > Greetings;
> >
> > paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > (snip)
> >
> > My agenda has not been pro-Israel, but pro-Truth and pro-Justice for
> > both sides. I have levelled no accusations apart from evidence
> > against either side. I have made no denials except to merely ASK FOR
> > EVIDENCE, and up until that time, to exercise the presumption of
> > innocence until proved guilty.
>
> What evidence did you ask for it, and when did you ask?

(See above. Also, see below--- you answer your own question by
quoting the instances in which I did ask. It seems you've read a more
sinister implication than what I wrote.)

>
> Weren't you the fellow that argued there was no massacre (because no such
> event happened) because you asserted there was no list?

I posited that we could not believe such allegations absent
evidence--- such as a list of victim's names. But now there is such a
list, or at least the tool to compile one. Let's see if it supports
the accusations.

Well, Pat, as I said, I think the level of acrimony has risen to the
point where it's preventing a discussion of issues, and has become a
discussion of my flawed character.
In that regard, I have no defense, since I am a sinner saved by no
merit of my own, but by the suffering, death and resurrection of God's
only Son. If it took that much to redeem me, then clearly my defects
are beyond comprehension.

May God bless you, as He has blessed me!

Pat Kohli

unread,

Sep 18, 2002, 8:16:01 PM9/18/02

Robert Arvay wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> Pat, I think the level of acrimony here is getting too high.
>
> Please examine the quotes which you took from my past posts--- even
> taken out of context, they retain their initial meaning. When the
> Jenin massacre was first alleged on this NG, my first inclination was
> to believe that it had in fact happened.

I did not read that from your initial remarks on Jenin. I read,

> I could not imagine that so
> serious an accusation could possibly be made without clear and
> convincing evidence.

I tend to think that folks are less likely to lie about something that can be plainly substantiated. That is my basic
orientation. The fact is, that some people can and do lie about such things. This phenomena is called "the big lie".
Israelis like to believe their soldiers are telling the truth - 'how could they lie about such a thing?' Yet, there are
two very different accounts of the extended stay in Jenin. The fact that the IDF kept additional UN investigators out of
Jenin, even after they agreed to let them in, tends to look like 'the big blink' to those of us who are parents and have
heard 'the big lie' from little liars. It is one sad thing when one's children try this, but when grown adults, an elected
government try this, it looks like Monica-Gate. Unlike Monica-Gate, it is not a dress getting ruined but thousands of
people getting killed wounded, and dispersed from their homes.

There are eye-witness accounts of atrocities, the observations of the UN special envoy, photographs of the wreckage, and
the simple fact that the Israeli government accepted, and then rejected UN investigation. They lied about Jenin, they know
they lied about Jenin, they know we (every gentile in the world except you) know they lied about Jenin, and they'd like
their public to forget this thing as it tarnishes their self-image of somehow being better than their victims.

> But as I examined news stories concerning the
> incident, I began to wonder why no one was publishing this evidence.

Note Paul's recent reply. If you read the opinion columns from the Zionist papers, consider that you might be reading a
more biased account. If I stuck to www.ummah.org, I'd expect to read the IDF described as genocidal butchers before they
even crossed in to the west bank. Read the BBC. Read mainstream Australian news.

>
> Finally, re-examining the reports, I noticed that great weight was
> given to the accusers, and very little to those who denied them--- but
> none of this clear and convincing evidence was being reported.

Through innuendo, you've accused Yassar Arafat of assasinating Palestinians who challenge him in elections. The evidence
is that that is _not_ the case at all.

You've repeatedly accused Palestinians of lying about the massacre by repeatedly insisting that despite the claims of the
witnesses, there "was no massacre".

You've asserted that the UN report was based on the work of UN investigators on the ground in Jenin. I've questioned that
and you've never tried to answer.

You've asserted there was no list of victims, when the evidence of a list is right there on the internet - you've just
never looked.

You've harped and harped about how absence is not evidence, yet the story time and time again is that the evidence of
atrocities has been there and you've simple pretended it was not.

So, if you are impatient with folks making great and unsubstantiated accusations, consider how you readers feel,
particularly when you are the one pointing out the problem with 'argument by accusation'. Don't you dare to presume to
sermonize about what evidence was and was not being reported!

> Only
> the allegations made the news. That seemed odd. Based on past
> instances of massacres, (which although very difficult to prove were
> in fact proved), I realized that the Jenin event was confined to a
> particularly enclosed area, where the anonymity of victims could not
> shield the perpetrators, and where the proof would be relatively
> straightforward. (Even in the difficult cases, victims had been
> burned and buried in remote locations.

Well emphatically _NO_. Since survivors might have been hauled off to confinement (w/o trial), and since the Israelis had
just as much opportunity to truck out dozens of bodies for cremation elsewhere - no one was monitoring their activities,
one can not logically conclude that all the missing must be dead and buried in the rubble. Therefore, one can not
logically conclude that every murder can be proven on sight. Furthermore, the likely scale of the butchery - dozens -
allows for the likelihood that all innocent witnesses to some of the murders may be dead, even though there was not enough
of a massacre such that we could expect all the witnesses to all of the murders to be dead.

> But that was not enough to
> conceal the crimes and the identities of the perpetrators.)
> Therefore, the most basic element of evidence would be a list of the
> dead and missing, especially those whom one could not pass off as dead
> of old age.
> Now, based on a recent report, there is in fact a computerized list of
> Jenin residents kept by international observers--- precisely the kind
> of tool I've been expecting to see employed. This is a startling
> (belated) development, but let's have it.

How does this 'startle' while you also claim you've expected it to be employed? What might seem 'startling' to the readers
is the way you've jumped up and down that there was no massacre simply because some political puppet somewhere - preaching
to a zionist audience, suggested (w/ confidence) that since his readers had seen no list of victims, no massacre occurred.
Sadly such shenanigans can be expected in a genocidal atmosphere.

Consider a Nazi newspaper in the late 1930s or early 1940s. You know w/o question they do not bother to dignify Jews with
obituaries. In such an environment which is predisposed to acknowledge the humanity of those it regards as its enemies, it
is easy to dismiss any rumours of their victimization, "surely accounts of this so-called holocaust is a delusion - these
Jews and Gypsies have the rare opportunity to work like Germans and now they see it as a threat to their fundamental
identity - if they really were suffering, obviously we would have heard about it."

> Let the truth come out.
> Please.

Amen!

>
> > > paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > My agenda has not been pro-Israel, but pro-Truth and pro-Justice for
> > > both sides. I have levelled no accusations apart from evidence
> > > against either side. I have made no denials except to merely ASK FOR
> > > EVIDENCE, and up until that time, to exercise the presumption of
> > > innocence until proved guilty.
> >
> > What evidence did you ask for it, and when did you ask?
>
> (See above. Also, see below--- you answer your own question by
> quoting the instances in which I did ask. It seems you've read a more
> sinister implication than what I wrote.)

Robert, when you jump up and say, "where is the list - there is no list because there was no massacre", I don't get to
process that as a real question. In real life face to face, when you asked about the list and I tried to answer your
question, you would ahve told me to shut up while you make your point, your question being a rhetorical question - not a
question at all. Had you really asked for evidence, you would draw no conclusion regarding such evidence until it was
presented. In your cases below it is all to clear

>
> >
> > Weren't you the fellow that argued there was no massacre (because no such
> > event happened) because you asserted there was no list?
>
> I posited that we could not believe such allegations absent
> evidence--- such as a list of victim's names. But now there is such a
> list, or at least the tool to compile one. Let's see if it supports
> the accusations.
> >
> > > What will you say if the facts turn out not to be as you say? Will
> > > your apologies be as loud as your false accusations? Will they be as
> > > profuse as the seriousness of those charges?
> > > But somehow the story died down, didn't it? When no such list could
> > > be compiled--- because no such event happened--- those who were so
> > > EAGER to bring a false and reckless indictment based only on THE WORD
> > > OF TERRORIST ACCUSERS--- well, they suddenly remembered they had other
> > > matters to attend.
> >

Oh my, didn't bother to ask for evidence of a massacre; you asked for me and your other readers to apologize loudly since
the story 'died down', since, as you say, "no such event happened", and now, you've discovered other matters to attend to
for a few hours, until your next attack on the victims of zionism.

>
> > and again,
> >
> > > However, since that time, journalists have been inside Jenin, produced
> > > reels of film footage of destroyed buildings, and collected the
> > > statements of numerous Palestinian witnesses. And guess what?
> > > No coverup. No names of the supposed victims. No 500 dead. Not even
> > > 100. No evidence of any massacre at all.
> > > Oh yeah, one more thing. No apology from the accusers.

Again, we see the assertion there is no evidence of a massacre, and an observation that there are no apologies from the
person(s??) who's been making the baseless accusations.

>
> > and again,
> >
> > > Names, please. Names of those massacred. Why can't a press that
> > > eagerly reported the massacre come up with 100--- okay, make it 50---
> > > names out of 500?
> > > Because there was no massacre.
> >

See, here for a second it _did_ look like you were asking for evidence, and then I could read it was a rhetorical device
for you to reiterate your conclusion that "there was no massacre". Thus, it was _not_ a request for evidence of a
massacre.

>
> > You have never been pro-truth. You stuck your head in the sand regarding this massacre, and then argued that since
> > you would not look for any evidence, there was no massacre, as you do with the examples above where you say there is
> > not even a partial list, and thus, no massacre. Yet, you accuse others of using absence as evidence. Then you claim
> > you've been asking for evidence!!!!!
> >
> > Check out the news articles from April!
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937387.stm
> > http://www.abc.net.au/am/s535310.htm
>
> Well, Pat, as I said, I think the level of acrimony has risen to the
> point where it's preventing a discussion of issues, and has become a
> discussion of my flawed character.

Well, Robert, please consider some of the 'values' stuff you've been preaching about accusations w/o evidence, and consider
that you can not positvely teach values which you personally reject. You still teach them, don't get me wrong, but in a
boogeyman role. If you are uncomfortable being a boogeyman for discernment, you need to put up BS alarms on the propaganda
you read and listen to, and when you realize that you are plugged in to some unreliable editorial political fast-talk, have
the sense to question _everything_ they've told you that can not be objectively substantiated, and get new, more reliable
source of factual information. Ignore the political editoriallizing - you can think for yourself when you have the
releavnt facts in hand.

>
> In that regard, I have no defense, since I am a sinner saved by no
> merit of my own, but by the suffering, death and resurrection of God's
> only Son. If it took that much to redeem me, then clearly my defects
> are beyond comprehension.

Use that skull-stuffing that God gave you, Robert! Remember the Bereans; Paul pointed out their virtue in not swallowing
every story that came down the track. Show some discernment, Robert; it is a gift of the Spirit.

Paul Hammond

unread,

Sep 18, 2002, 8:15:44 PM9/18/02

Brian Walker <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message news:<3D87FAF7...@net-yan.com>...

My recollection is that he came here, explaining that there had
been no massacre, and the UN report proved that, and demanding
that those of us who had believed the Jenin Massacre post
our apologies to him for saying that he was wrong before.

Perhaps I ought to follow my own advice, and google his
actual words up here so we can see what his opening salvos
were?

ISTR that I first got into this bout by disputing the
interpretation that he had put on the report (exoneration
of the IDF of any crime) and explaining that *my*
interpretation of the UN Report was different (no conclusion
due to impossibility of collecting evidence because of
Israeli obstruction).

Maybe if Robert was Scottish he'd have a better grasp on
the difference between "not guilty" and "not proven"?

Paul

0 new messages