HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:57:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.235034.28376@dazixco.ingr.com>, naftaly@supergas.dazixco.ingr.com (Naftaly Stramer) writes:
|> 
|> Fist, Israel didn't annex the West Bank. Second, the Golan and the West Bank were
|> lost by the Arabs in a war they started in 1967. 
|> 

Thanks for the response I was wondering what had really taking place 25 years
ago. If Israel had not annexed the West Bank, why did Jerusalem become its
Capital?. You also forgot to state that it was a war Israel was praying to
happen.

A.Faris
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: Jonathan Pollard...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:42:50 GMT

bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:

>In article 1elri7INN896@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>>   Jonathan Pollard is a criminal.  He engaged in espionage, and
>>was convicted of this crime.  And though, as a Jew, I am glad he
>>did it, 

>I will save this for the next time you flame someone for suggesting
>that American Jews have dual allegiance.

There is a difference between working against the U.S. for the benefit of
Israel and protecting Israel by passing information which is crucial to her
and not hurtful to the U.S.  Pollard felt that this information, which related
to Iraq's chemical weapon program, was crucial to Israel - he simply acted his
consciounse as both a good American and a good Jew.

>>         he must be recognized as a criminal.  As it is noted, if
>>you can't do the time, don't do the crime.  But the time must be
>>somewhat proportional to the crime.  

>I agree, and from what I've heard his penalty was harsher than other
>people received for similar things.  That is not acceptable, but it's
>a problem not limited to politically sensitive matters, nor to the US.

Pollard is serving a life sentence in solitary confinement in Marion, Illinois,
the toughest federal prison in the U.S.  One of his jail mates happens to be
John Gotti, the famous Mafia boss who was convicted of murder - is this 
Pollard's equivalent?  Other spies for allied countries got minimal sentences -
is this what you call fairness?

>>                                     The wrath of Weinberger was
>>enough to bring the weight of the federal geovernment down on an
>>individual who would never knowingly harm his country.  

>What evidence is there that the sentence was not determined by the
>court but by the government?  None, I bet.

Actually, Wolf Blitzer who wrote the book "Territory of Lies" documented
a secret memo by Weinberger which was key in the court's sentencing
decision.

>>His fate was the same as that of a genuine traitor's.

>Lots of traitors believe they are acting in the best interests of
>their own country.  Even if Pollard believed that (which is not
>clear to me) he is still a traitor.

Fine, if he is a traitor then let him suffer the same punishment as other
traitors of his caliber. 

>Brendan.

Ed.
From: ifaz706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Noam Tractinsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Pollard and the Henderson Logic
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:34:07 GMT
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin


In article <1992Nov23.141302.20962@cs.brown.edu>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
> jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeremy Henderson) writes:
> >adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
> 
> >> His fate was worse than that of several genuine traiotrs, like the
> >> Walker family, who sold secrets to the Soviets for years.
> 
> > But not, of course, as bad as that meted out to Mordechai Vanunu (sp?), who
> > also acted according to his own conscience, and was illegally kidnapped and
> > imprisoned in inhumane conditions.
> 
> As far as anyone can measure this kind of thing, Vanuno is much more
> of a traitor than Pollard. He was given 17 years in prison, compared
> to Pollard's 25. Pollard is held in very bad conditions too.


	That's exactly what Henderson meant: 17 years in prison are
	harsher than only 25. The Henderson logic at its zenith.
                                                    

 
> And this is off the point. The comparison has to be made between
> Pollard and other spies who are held *in the US*. Obviously, he
> got more than others who have commited worser crimes. 
> 
> 
> -Danny Keren.



Noam
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:18:14 GMT

In article <113@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP>, ohayon@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP (Tsiel Ohayon) writes:
|> 
|> Do you have proof that Israel wanted that war badly? If Israel went to war in
|> 67 it did not need to wait for the Arabs to make a mistake. It would therefore
|> be at war every day!

Yes, the first shot was fired by Israel. Israel had ordered a pre-emptive
strike against Syria and Egypt strictly on the basis that their was troop
movement on those countries borders. Therefore, Israel fired the first shot
and invaded the Golan Heights and Sinai.

|>  
|> 
|> > wait for another war since the Arabs became smarter and avoided conflicts
|> > at all cost.
|> Are you implying that Arabs were stupid?

The Arabs are not stupid, they were some what hot headed. Israel tried many
times unsuccessfully to drag Syria into an all out conflict when it invaded
south Lebanon. Syria resisted and lost lots of troops and equipment just to
avoid a conflict. This prevented Israel from aquiring more land that it wanted
very badly.

A.Faris
From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:49:45 GMT

faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris) writes:

>In article <1992Nov13.235034.28376@dazixco.ingr.com>, naftaly@supergas.dazixco.ingr.com (Naftaly Stramer) writes:
>|> 
>|> Fist, Israel didn't annex the West Bank. Second, the Golan and the West Bank were
>|> lost by the Arabs in a war they started in 1967. 
>|> 

>Thanks for the response I was wondering what had really taking place 25 years
>ago. If Israel had not annexed the West Bank, why did Jerusalem become its
>Capital?. You also forgot to state that it was a war Israel was praying to
>happen.
 
Jerusalem didn't become Israel's capital - it always was Israel's capital. East
Jerusalem was annexed but the rest of the West Bank wasn't.  

>A.Faris

Ed.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein)
Subject: Re: Do they really want peace
Organization: NYSERNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:23:57 GMT

So much for the argument that at least Syria keeps the agreements it makes.
-- 
Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Kahan Commission
Date: 17 Nov 1992 08:33:56 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

In article <1992Nov16.141252.16632@ennews.eas.asu.edu> David Makowsky writes:
>In article <1e74s0INNhdn@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

># Sharon only had to establish that Time could not prove what they 
># claimed about him.  As to what was actually proven in court, the 
># important evidence was heard in secret so how do you know what it was?

>        It seems Brendan knows as little about the American legal system
>as he does about the Middle East.  If evidence in a civil case like
>this (in front of a jury) needed to be kept secret in would not have
>been heard at all.  And if Time actually needed the evidence, the
>judge would have directed a verdict in favor of Time.

I looked up the details.  The case hinged on something that Time claimed
was in the secret Appendix B of the Kahan report.  Israel refused to 
provide the Appendix [reasonable] whereas Time said it was essential to 
it's case [true].  A compromise was reached where Sharon's and Time's 
Israeli lawyers could read the Appendix in the presence of Justice Kahan.  
However, they were forbidden to disclose the contents to anyone, 
including their US legal counterparts or the US court.  In addition, 
three questions were put to Kahan.  Each question had the form "Does 
the Appendix state that ...?"  Kahan's answers were then conveyed 
to the court.

The result was that the jury found that the Appendix did not contain
what Time claimed it did.  In reply to Mark's insistence that Time
KNEW it was lying about the Appendix, it should be noted that the
jury found that it did not.  However, the jury did accuse Time of
negligence and carelessness.

Brendan.
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:54:00 GMT

In article <BxoLBA.Fwr@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:
|> 
|> I suppose Israel was just supposed to sit around and let the Syrians divert the
|> headwaters of the Jordan River so that they [the Israelis] could die of thirst.
|> 

No, but Israel has continued to blame Syria and all its neighbors for not
wanting peace and piss at all international laws. As for dying of thirst,
Israel had diverted about 80% of the jordan river away from the East bank.
Now the Jordanians are thirsty, is Israel a gem of a country?.

A.Faris
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Jonathan Pollard...
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:13:02 GMT

jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeremy Henderson) writes:
#adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

## His fate was worse than that of several genuine traiotrs, like the
## Walker family, who sold secrets to the Soviets for years.

# But not, of course, as bad as that meted out to Mordechai Vanunu (sp?), who
# also acted according to his own conscience, and was illegally kidnapped and
# imprisoned in inhumane conditions.

As far as anyone can measure this kind of thing, Vanuno is much more
of a traitor than Pollard. He was given 17 years in prison, compared
to Pollard's 25. Pollard is held in very bad conditions too.

And this is off the point. The comparison has to be made between
Pollard and other spies who are held *in the US*. Obviously, he
got more than others who have commited worser crimes. 


-Danny Keren.
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Rebel attack kills 5 Israeli soldiers, wounds 5 more
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:53:29 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Nov14.110917.1@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu> ifaz706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Noam Tractinsky) writes:
>
>	I was astonished to read this news. It is true that we have
>	trained and educated large groups of Israeli vampires in 
>	our special schools throughout the centuries. But I should
>	stress that we _absolutely_ prohibit our graduates from 
>	drinking little children's blood.

It is only until they receive proper training in the Mossad where
they learn the proper etiquettes of piercing the throats of their
victims and sucking in the most efficient and effective way, so
as not to leave a trace of blood behind.

>	As you probably know, yesterday (Friday the 13th) was especially 
>	busy day for myself and my crew, and we didn't have the time to
>	inquire about your complaints. Nevertheless, I can assure you 
>	that we will carefully study your complaints, and if found 
>	correct will revoke the vampiring liscence of all the offenders.

What will they have to live on then?  Blood donations?

>	To gather more information on the case I will be visiting you
>	soon. No need for special arrangements, please (although keeping
>	your neck clean might help).

Tell us, Noam ...  Do you use hypnotism or is it your natural charm,
charisma, and that wildly exotic cologne that makes one submit?

>	Vlad Dracula
>	Price of Wallachia

Bring the cape for the added thrill and use a little Vidal Sasoon gel
in your hair too ...

asinA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: ifaz706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:42:07 CST

In article <22914@venera.isi.edu>, arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
- In article <BxvzMy.FJ6@news.cso.uiuc.edu- eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:
-- Jerusalem was annexed but the rest of the West Bank wasn't.  
- 
- This is not quite accurate.  In 1968 Israel annexed East Jerusalem
- together with a significant portion of the surrounding West Bank,
- reaching almost to Bethlehem in the south and to Ramallah in the north.


	For the bewildered: Downtown Bethlehem is about 6 miles
	south of "Downtown" Jerusalem. Downtown Rammallah is about
	the same distance to the north. Jerusalem's population
	is about 500,000. Little wonder Jerusalem reaches "almost"
	to Bethlehem and Rammallah. All in all, the "significant 
	portion of the surrounding West Bank" that was annexed 
	amounts to several square miles.

        I wonder why Yigal Arens, even when he (sometimes) has a point,
	needs to ornament it with third rate propagandism.


- The Israelis insist on referring to this whole area now as "Jerusalem"
- so that they can continue to make their argument about "not dividing the
- city".  The great majority of the annexed area was never part of any
- Jerusalem municipality, either in Israel itself, or during Jordanian
- rule, or at any other time.
- 
- As if this were not enough, even the Rabin government now claims very
- substantial *additional* portions of the West Bank that surround what
- has already been annexed.  


	Now that we have defined a "significant" to be several 
	square miles, we might have a better grasp of what
	"substantial" stands for in Arens' phraseology.



They continue to settle Jews there in large
- numbers, and insist that they will never withdraw from those areas
- either.
- --
- Yigal Arens
- USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
- arens@isi.edu


Noam
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jonathan Pollard...
Date: 22 Nov 1992 05:28:33 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

In article 1elri7INN896@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>   Jonathan Pollard is a criminal.  He engaged in espionage, and
>was convicted of this crime.  And though, as a Jew, I am glad he
>did it, 

I will save this for the next time you flame someone for suggesting
that American Jews have dual allegiance.

>         he must be recognized as a criminal.  As it is noted, if
>you can't do the time, don't do the crime.  But the time must be
>somewhat proportional to the crime.  

I agree, and from what I've heard his penalty was harsher than other
people received for similar things.  That is not acceptable, but it's
a problem not limited to politically sensitive matters, nor to the US.

>                                     The wrath of Weinberger was
>enough to bring the weight of the federal geovernment down on an
>individual who would never knowingly harm his country.  

What evidence is there that the sentence was not determined by the
court but by the government?  None, I bet.

>His fate was the same as that of a genuine traitor's.

Lots of traitors believe they are acting in the best interests of
their own country.  Even if Pollard believed that (which is not
clear to me) he is still a traitor.

Brendan.
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:11:07 GMT
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia

In article <BxHDJC.Fq1@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:

|> 
|> That's a good one - I suppose you will also claim that Israel is settling
|> S. Lebanon.  I think Israel has enough Arabs to deal with - they don't need
|> all of those in S. Lebanon.
|> 
|> 
|> Ed Shnekendorf
|> 

That only because the Hizbollah fighters are proving to be very tough for
Israel to handle. Had the druze of Syria's Golan heights adopted the feirce fighting methods of Hizbollah, Israel may not have been able to annex it.

Infact Israeli expansion has been halted primarily due to the population
explosion that occured in the M.E. Israel has the military might to capture
more land, but cannot establish settlements without the expulsion of many
people which would lead to fights similar to south Lebanon.

A.Faris
From: shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jonathan Pollard...
Date: 23 Nov 1992 14:39:57 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: merlin.think.com

In article <1ep9n3INNsdi@agate.berkeley.edu>, dan@jonas.berkeley.edu (dan graves) writes:
|> 
|> The decision was not his to make.  If his conscience is clear because
|> he felt he did the right thing, this does nothing to change the fact
|> that he commited treason and compromised the security of the United 
|> States.  As to his punishment: in sensible countries, traitors
|> are executed.

Like the Rosenbergs?

|> dan
From: astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein)
Subject: Loan Guarantees Come Back to Haunt Us
Organization: NYSERNet, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:46:07 GMT

Bush's earlier rejection of loan guarantees for resettling Soviet
refugees in Israel apparently, and predictably, is now coming back to
haunt us and threatens to derail the peace talks.

Aside from the basic hypocracy of his linking humanitarian aid to the
political question of the status of the territories, he increased the
expectation on the part of the Arabs that if they stonewall long
enough, we will pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions.

So now, claiming a lack of progress and Israeli intransigence (their
term for an Israeli refusal to totally capitulate to all their
unreasonalbe demands without getting anything in return), they're
starting to demand American pressure on Israel, and setting deadlines.

Who wrote that song "Where have all the flowers gone?" that asks the
question "When will we ever learn?"
-- 
Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:02:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.233750.24894@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
|> 
|> Actually, it is Syria's strategy to ensure that Lebanon will be it's
|> battleground with Israel and with the PLO.  This is why attacks
|> against Israel are waged across the Lebanese border instead of the
|> Syrian border.  The Israelis can retaliate across either border.  The
|> Lebanese would probably prefer a Syrian withdrawal before an Israeli
|> one.  

Is this prophecy or propaganda?.

A.Faris
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:34:42 GMT

faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris) writes:

>In article <113@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP>, ohayon@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP (Tsiel Ohayon) writes:
>|> 
>|> Do you have proof that Israel wanted that war badly? If Israel went to war in
>|> 67 it did not need to wait for the Arabs to make a mistake. It would therefore
>|> be at war every day!

>Yes, the first shot was fired by Israel. Israel had ordered a pre-emptive
>strike against Syria and Egypt strictly on the basis that their was troop
>movement on those countries borders. Therefore, Israel fired the first shot
>and invaded the Golan Heights and Sinai.

Syria had been shelling Israel for months if not years from the Heights.  If
that isn't a cause for war, I don't know what is.

>|>  
>|> 
>|> > wait for another war since the Arabs became smarter and avoided conflicts
>|> > at all cost.
>|> Are you implying that Arabs were stupid?

>The Arabs are not stupid, they were some what hot headed. Israel tried many
>times unsuccessfully to drag Syria into an all out conflict when it invaded
>south Lebanon. Syria resisted and lost lots of troops and equipment just to
>avoid a conflict. This prevented Israel from aquiring more land that it wanted
>very badly.

Where is your evidence for this?  Israel specifically warned Syria to stay clear
of the conflict in Lebanon.

>A.Faris

Ed.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:27:03 GMT

In article <43843@imag.imag.fr>, oueichek@imag.fr (Ibaa Oueichek) writes:
|> Path: |> 
|> Edward A Shnekendorf (eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
|> : faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris) writes:
|> : 
||> : 
|> : I suppose Israel was just supposed to sit around and let the Syrians divert the
|> : headwaters of the Jordan River so that they [the Israelis] could die of thirst.
|>  Turky has already done that with the Ataturk dom on the Euphrates and another
|> one on the Kwaik river which (for thousands of years, but no more) irrigated
|> the biggest city of northern Syria : Aleppo. Turky turned a deaf ear to all
|> the objections formulated by Syria & Iraq about the diasterous consequences of
|> these dom on the agriculture & Energy in the two countries. Do you suggest that
|> we go and attack Turky, go as far as the Euphrates sources and occupy them ?.
|> : 

No Ibaa, only Israel has the mandate from God to do that and anything it
desires as long it can blame the other side and the UN on its side.

A.Faris
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:22203 soc.culture.german:8289
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Taif and Syrian withdrawal
Date: 23 Nov 1992 05:00:22 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

In article 10417@nysernet.org, astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein) writes:

>To add to the humor, they also have no apparent desire to resist the
>Arab terrorists who have destroyed their country and whos attacks on
>Israeli civilians are the only reason Israel ever came in to begin with.

Speaking of humour, nearly ten years after the Israeli principals 
publically acknowledged the real purpose behind the 1982 invasion,
some brave souls are still stoically holding on to the original
public pronouncements.  Unbelievable, but true.

I'm running short of time.  Practically any book on the 1982 war will
set you straight on why Israel did it.  Try Rabinovich, Schiff, etc..

>Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org

Brendan.



Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:22213 soc.culture.german:8300
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Women working in domestic positions
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:06:55 GMT

Currently I am working on a project involving women working in domestic
positions outside of their home countries.  I am mainly interested in
finding information about female workers who have been subject to sexual
expolation while working in these positions.

Any information you can give me about this subject (ie. stories, books,
pamphlets etc.) is most appreciated.

Please reply by e-mail

Thank you

Cynthia Sulaiman


Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast