From: jcg@teradata.com (Jonathan Gingerich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Hamas
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:10:05 GMT
Reply-To: jcg@tdat.teradata.com (Jonathan Gingerich)
Organization: Teradata Corp., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Dec21.183822.9563@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>In article <1645@tdat.teradata.COM> jcg@tdat.teradata.com (Jonathan Gingerich) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.191539.25308@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>>In article <1gk9ntINNhi8@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>>>In article 13903@colorado.edu, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>>>>In article <1ghva1INN9k0@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>...
>>>>>account that within a decade, the situation would most probably have
>>>>>been reversed, due to large scale Jewish immigration  - not only new
>>>>>arrivals, but also those who finally could get in after not having been
>>>>>able to for years.  Think about it for a few minutes and you might
>>>>>change your mind.
>>>>
>>>>Of course I am aware of this argument.  It was the argument used as
>>>>justification for the unequal division at the time.  The problem
>>>>is, why were the Palestinian Arabs obliged to accept the Zionist
>>>>value system?  The purposeful gathering of Jews from other places
>>>>might have been a cornerstone of Zionist thinking (regarded as
>>>>"good" almost by definition) but I don't know why anyone else
>>>>must regard it so, a priori.
>>
>>Well, since Brendan is on vacation and I'm getting tired of the insinuations
>>you load your arguments with, Eric, I'll take up his banner for a moment.
>
>Excuse me, Jonathan, there are no insinuations meant here.  You're
>reading something into my arguments which patently are not there, nor
>were ever intended.  

A. I'm glad you don't mean it.
B. It is patent to me that you are giving grounds for offense.

>>>A priori, perhaps not.  But considering that both British policy during
>>>the war did just about everything to prevent Jews escaping the shoah to
>>>enter mandatory Palestine, and also that Arab policy was even more
>>>dead-set against such immigration (from what I know) it would be crass
>>>at the least not to expect that to be something that the Jewish
>>>population wanted very badly.
>>
>>Come on Eric, don't be coy.  Spit it out!  Is Brendan "crass", or maybe
>>(nudge, wink) he's (gasp) more than "crass"! 
>
>Please read what I said once again.  Nowhere am I trying to insinuate
>that Brendan himself is being crass.  I am attempting to argue from a
>purely historical point of view, stating only hypotheticals.

A. I have reread this many times and I no longer have any idea what you mean.
   In particular I don't see why you consider the point even worth raising.
B. Nonetheless, you _are_ offering this point as a _rebuttal_ to Brendan's
   point.
C. You are suggesting that it would be "crass at the least" to reject your
   point.
D. I see no reason why one should not easily infer that Brendan disagrees,
   therefore he rejects your point, therefore he is being "crass at the least"

>> Then again maybe he hasn't
>>_ever_ denied  that "the Jewish population wanted [it] very badly" -
>>especially given that the Zionists by definition wanted it very badly 
>>regardless of outside circumstances; and maybe you're just enmerding up
>>your silly argument.
>
>Hardly.  And why is the argument necessarily one that is being
>"enmerded" (and yes, I do get the insinuation which you're aiming back,
>in a much less subtle way - I speak French and know quite well what
>"merde" means).

A. "Merde" of course means "shit" although perhaps not as vulgar in usage.
B. Actually I was worried you could correct the prefix.

>>The rhetoric about Palestinians is just as insidious if not as personal.
>
>Once again, how?  You're hardly being even-handed yourself. Nothing
>personal was intended.  If you see that therein, you're reading into the
>message something that patently isn't there, nor was it ever intended.

A. Well, the next sentence is intended to suggest "how".
B. I'm unclear with whom or what I should be "even-handed".
C. That Palestinian opposition had dire consequences to European Jews because
   of Nazi crimes is irrelevant to the "fairness" of the partition and
   bringing it up is therefore insidious, particularly given that:

>>The Palestinians where hardly in the best position to either succor or
>>anticipate the impending genocide of Europe's Jews.
>
>Impending genocide?  Jonathan, we're talking about 1948 here.  The
>Holocaust had already happened, and the vast majority of the remainder 
>of Europe's Jews were refugees who had no wish to go back.  In addition, the 
>facts about the genocide were well known by early 1942, and still the borders 
>did not open, even when it's crystal clear that if they had opened, hundreds 
>of thousands of lives would have been saved.  Hardly a small figure
>especially when you remember that there are less than 20 million Jews
>world-wide, and that the Jewish population still has not returned to its
>pre-WWII levels.

A. As far as I am aware "policy during the war" was policy between 1939 and
   1945.
B. Obviously "the borders" which did not open were neither exclusively nor
   prominently those of Mandatory Palestine.  Again you raise a point which
   is not relevant to the argument nor particulary aplicable to Palestine.

>>  Their choice seemed to
>>be between accepting continued disenfranchiment or struggling against the
>>immigration.  
>
>Hardly.  They were following a leader who was working *actively* with
>the Nazis - Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini.  He had eliminated - by murder
>or sedition - nearly all his political enemies.  He had also incited
>numerous riots against the Jewish population during the early 1920s and
>into the 1930s (the rhetoric that they were riots against the British
>primarily is just plain not true).  Why can you be so sure that they
>would have been disenfranchised if they chose to work with Zionist
>leaders during the war, or perhaps earlier?

A. Many colonized people worked politically with the Axis in hopes of
   escaping the European empires.
B. Husseini was empowered by the British colonial administration.  (Remind
   you of anything?  like Hamas?)
C. Jews were immigrating in the '20 and'30's and the riots were a part
   of the struggle.
D. Jewish immigration and British colonial administration are difficult to
   separate.  If Palestine had had its independence, they would have
   controlled their borders.  Apparently throwing out the British is
   acceptable to you.  But since this would have effectively stopped Jewish
   immigration, you insist upon interpreting the violence as directed
   against Jews.  Are we to believe the Palestinians wanted colonial status?
E. I didn't say they would have inevidably been disenfranshised (i.e. 
   marginalized) only that it no doubt seemed so to them.
F. I have an awfully hard time swallowing the idea that a "Jewish State"
   was not the inevidable product of Zionist ambitions.  Certainly the
   civil rights absurdities that Yigal regularly brings up or, frankly,
   your own adamant argument that the partition is some reasonable sense
   was "fair" don't raise my faith.  Nor can I think of any historical
   parallels where a large migration did not assimilate, destroy, or
   balkanize the indiginous peoples.

>>Given what did happen, it's hard to argue they were incorrect.
>
>I take exactly the opposite point of view.  I think that, given what
>did happen, it's very hard to argue they were correct.  Let's remember,
>shall we, that the 1948 war was for Israel a war of survival and self-
>defense.

A. Let's remeber, shall we, that the 1948 war was for Palestinians a war of
   survival and self-defense.
B. They lost.

>>>I don't think that to accept the
>>>partition forced acceptance of the Zionist value system.
>>
>>Yes, you _do_.  You do unless you are walking away from the argument you
>>made above - that the partition was not disproportionate because we haven't
>>counted the Jews who wanted to immigrate.  Something the Arabs wanted very
>>badly not.
>
>Hogwash.  Jonathan, I don't like things being read into my messages
>which were never intended, let alone having them used to build up a
>straw man to knock down, as you did here.  I think you owe me an
>apology.

A. You claimed the partition was "fair" if you counted the immigrants the
   Zionists "wanted".  Brendan points out that this is only true if you accept
   Zionist desires as a basic goal, making the whole argument rather circular.
   I have no idea what you are now asserting, but I cannot see how you can
   both demand that what Zionists "wanted" be taken as goals and at the
   same time insist that you are not tilting the playing field.
B. I would be happy to apologize if I am missing something obvious.
C. Did I miss your apology to Bredan for taking his obvious reductio ad
   absurdum argument as a personal affront?

Jon.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast