From: jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Apr10.082142.7808@muddcs.claremont.edu>
	<JIME.92Apr10103806@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr10.170451.3075@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:37:08

In article <1992Apr10.170451.3075@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   [Characterizing the rock-throwing youths in the intifada as solely
>    responsible for their own deaths at the hands of the Israeli soldiers]
>	    may be propaganda, it may even be one sided, but it is the
>   truth an it goes a long way in explaining a major portion of the
>   intifada.  This view would have to play a strong part of any
>   description that was not propaganda and was not one sided also.

No, it is merely propaganda designed to ease the consciences of the
occupationists.  (Are you one, by the way?)  There is plenty of blame
on both sides.

>   # Israel did _not_ acquire its land in the same way that that America
>   # acquired its land.  About 5% of the Israeli partition of the
>  # Palestinian Mandate had been legally bought by Zionists.
>
>	   This figure is extremely misleading if not outright false.  If you
>   take the amount of land bought as a percentage of the amount of land
>   that was private (land that could be sold), it is much, much higher.
>   As it is I think your 5% figure should be 7% anyway (but this is
>   irelevent).

Yes, you are right.  It should be between 7 and 8%, not 5%.  I erred.
This modified figure is not misleading at all, however.  Any
explanations you may wish to offer are merely spins on the simple
truth that the Zionists didn't buy much of what is now Israel.

>   # The other
>   # 95% was ceded to the nascent Israel by the UN and the UK, ...
>   # partly because the Zionist terrorists were killing and murdering
>   # Arabs, Brits, and a UN mediator.
>
>	   Not only was this not a reason, but for the most part it falls
>   flat on its face as a lie/untruth.

How so?  Do you mean to imply that the Zionist terrorism was
_completely_ ineffectual against the British?  Nonsense.

>   # The rest of Israel (about half) has
>   # been acquired by conquest (in wars mostly started by the Arabs).
>
>	   For this statement to be correct, you must agree then that those
>   lands are part of Israel.  At any rate, you seem to ignore that Israel
>   ceded the Sinai back to Egypt (and not for the first time I would like
>   to state).  Do you know what percentage of Israel was contained in the
>   Sinai?

0%.  The Sinai was never considered to be part of Israel by the world
community.  That was a trick question, funny huh.

>  ... the overwhelming majority
>   of the terrorism was (as it still is) commited by the Arabs against
>   the Jews.

Substantiate, please.

>   # And in my admittedly insufficient reading, Jerusalem was free for
>   # worship to all faiths under British rule.
>
>	   Jerusalem may have been, but certain places outside of Jerusalem
>   were not.

Backpedaling.  So Israel is _not_ the first power to administer
Jerusalem and allow freedom of religious expression.  What were these
"certain places"?
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3482 soc.misc:602 talk.politics.mideast:11034 talk.politics.misc:18565