HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Pollard & Neo-Nazis
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:18:45 GMT

I wonder if anyone here can provide a credible explanation of how
Jonathan Pollard's views differ significantly from those of
contemporary German neo-Nazis who are urging terrorist violence
against Turks and other "foreigners." Here is a passage from the
Robert Friedman review of Wolf Blitzer's Territory of Lies in the
New York Review of Books, fully cited previously:

     Given Pollard's extreme views, it is not surprising that he
     has been in touch with radical right-wing Jewish
     organizations in Israel and America. In a letter to Yisrael
     Medad, the American-born aide to Knesset member Geula Cohen
     of the ultra-right-wing Tehiya party, Pollard praises the
     Gush Emunim "patriots" who blew the legs off two pro-PLO
     West Bank mayors in 1980 car bombings. He only regretted
     that the Jewish terrorists did "half a job." Pollard also
     asks Medad to pass along his personal regards to several
     Gush terrorists still in prison.

Pollard praised the terrorist bombing attacks on two West Bank
mayors. His remark, that the Jewish terrorists did "half a job"
in only blowing off the legs of these innocent civilians, is
especially disgusting. Pollard is not likely to win the sympathy
of many people in the civilized world.

Is it not fair to say that Pollard is a supporter of Jewish
terrorism? Is there any one here who would care to argue that the
bombing attacks on the West Bank mayors were a form of legitimate
and honorable military activity?

Another question: how does Israel's determination to make Israel
an ethnically Jewish state differ from the determination of
right-wing extremists in Germany or France to make their nations
ethnically German or French?

Why is it illegitimate for Le Pen to talk about deporting Arabs
from France but legitimate for Netanyahu to talk about deporting
Arabs from Israel? If Israel applies various devices to drive
non-Jews out of Israel, how could it possibly complain if other
nations in the world applied various devices to drive Jews from
their midst?

Israel is gradually getting itself into an interesting bind from
which hopefully Yitzhak Rabin and his colleagues will be able to
extricate it.
---
  OLX 3.0 31-2557  Sort sources by authority.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.arabic
From: hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky)
Subject: Re: The Hadith about Muslims killing the Jews / Hamas vs. Sunnah
Organization: Somewhere East or Somewhere West
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:06:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.162523.17535@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mmdh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Mazen Mokhtar) writes:
|>   Hamas killed an Israeli soldier. A person whose job it is to further
|> murder and oppression.

Israel, unlike Hamas, is not in the businesss of murder and
oppression. Let's look at the facts. Hamas kidnapped a Jewish
policeman, bound him and executed him - for NO reason. And you
dare justify such attrocities in the name of freedom fighting.

|>   Hamas is a very successful resistance movement and Israel is unable to deal
|> with it, so it is asking Muslims to condemn it. They tried the same method
|> with the intifadah and they failed.
|> 
|> Mazen Mokhtar

So you call brutally executing a person with his hands bound a proper
and succesful resistance tactic. How pitiful that your sense of
morality and humanity has sunk so utterly low. You are a disgrace, not
only to your people and to your religion, but to people and to morality
in general.

Harry.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian boy
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 21:26:59 GMT

In article <1622@tdat.teradata.COM> jcg@tdat.teradata.com (Jonathan Gingerich) writes:

>Note that the Muslims cooperated with the police also - until they were 
>tear-gassed.

Do you think that the Israeli police throw tear gas at worshippers to
further freedom of religion interests?  The police were ATTACKED by a
rioting mob (unfortunately, something not so uncommon after some
Muslim sermons).  Do you call attacking the police "cooperation"?

>Untrue.  Quite a few rocks were thown over the walls landing in the empty
>square _but_ well after the events you quote from my posting.

The police had taken control by then; there was no one to continue
trhowing rocks.  The rocks which came down were thrown in a torrent
over Jewish worshippers.  Are you now suggesting that the Western Wall
was empty of Jews in the middle of a major Jewish holiday?  Isn't
there some statue of limitiations on historical revisionism that says
that you can't begin to invent history until most of the witnesses are
already dead and gone?  :-)

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
From: shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Dual citizenship, US-Israel. (was Re: Kahane's philosophy)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 21:37:01 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: galaxy.think.com

Just one further question:

How does the U.S. State Dept. regard the following scenraio:
A is a citizen of FOO.
A becomes a naturalized citizen of the US and swears his allegiance to the US.
FOO's laws state that FOO's citizens can not give up their citizenship.

One the one hand, he isn't a dual national, but on the other hand he is.
From: revans@euclid.ucsd.edu (Ron Evans)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Anti-Semitism
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:56:08 GMT

In article <1gi5hnINN9k0@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

>Furthermore the direct "encouragement" of specifically non-Jewish 
>residents to leave has happened at least twice: 1948 and 1967.  

	Strange, isn't it, how people react when their survival
	is threatened.

>My dictionary says that "lie" implies an intention to deceive, 
>not merely an untruth.  Since I am reasonably confident that
>Wayne believed what he said, he was not lying but merely mistaken.

	I checked two dictionaries.  Both gave a definition of
	"lie" as something which deceives, esp. (but
	not necessarily) with intent.


>>	4) The statement "Jews control the media" is anti-Semitic.
>>	5) The statement "Israel controls the media" is
>>	   anti-Semitic.

>Discuss the media with someone else; I'm going to bed.  


	Substitute any other stereotype about Jews;
	this exercise is not about the media but about the 
	willingness of some to let pass anti-Semitic remarks
	when "Israel" is substitued for "Jews".


>Incidentally,
>there has been almost no mention of the media, Winston, Faurisson,
>or Chomsky in this group since you were here before.  We didn't
>miss them.


	I didn't know this group now had a spokesman.


-- 
Ron Evans (revans@math.ucsd.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Deporting "Agitators"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:04:55 GMT

To: Ron Evans

>And let's keep in mind that the "law" under which Palestinians
>are living in the occupied territories has been described by
>Israelis themselves as "Nazilike." (These are the same laws that
>the British used to oppress Jews before the founding of Israel.)
>No person in his right mind and with self-respect would live
>under such laws without violently resisting them.

  RE> Does this mean that the Palestinians in the West Bank were
  RE> not in their right minds during the 17 years following the
  RE> Jordanian annexation of 1950?

As I recall the Palestinians did in fact engage in violent
resistance to Jordanian rule.

But let's look closely at the Defense Emergency Regulations under
which Palestinians have been forced to live during over two
decades of Israeli occupation (see the accompanying clip). Would
Jews meekly submit to such rules imposed by a foreign invader?
Should people who resist such laws be further ground down through
deportations, as Benjamin Netanyau proposes? Do you think such
Israeli policies are going to win the sympathy of the world?

(Wrt to your other message: if you are trying to suggest that my
messages overall are as personally abusive as Mark Ira Kaufman's,
you are really making quite a stretch, don't you think?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: : Homosexuality in Islam
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:34:24 GMT

In article <nabeel.724198000@oracle.sce.carleton.ca> nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Rosignolo) writes:
>In <42467@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> revans@euclid.ucsd.edu (Ron Evans) writes:

>" 	Irrelevant: stealing and killing are not victimless crimes.
>" 	Yes, a lesbian could fight her sexual urges, but why
>" 	should she have to?  Similarly, a white woman could fight  
>" 	her urge to marry a black man, but why should she have to?   
>"         Just because racists find miscegenation indecent?

>   The society is enough a victim. As long as you are a member of the society
>you have to be positive. If you want to live on your own, you can go in the
>desert or mountains and live however the hell you wish.

I'm confused.  Do you think that society is damaged by a lesbians
screwing other lesbians, or by white women marrying black men (or vice
versa)?

If so, how?  If not, could you please restate what you meant?


Thanks,
Adam



Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all because of elections.  How true that is.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: mickw@autodesk.com (Mick Washbrook)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Islam
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:56:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.192411.2436556@locus.com>, jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
> 
> This is stereo-typing.  All of the Arab world knows that the fearless 
> Islamic Brotherhood movement rose out of Egypt.   And the defeat of
> the Barlaif Line was also done by Egyptians.  So, don't go about
> saying too much bull.

I'd brush up on your military history if I were you. Some of the most
fearless warriors have been gay. Makes sense to me. After all, if you're
brave to ride into battle against thousands, you're also probably brave
enough to stand up against petty social conventions and touch another
guy's pee-pee. Is this act really so radical, so revolutionary?


--
Death to all fanatics!!

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
From: revans@euclid.ucsd.edu (Ron Evans)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Targetting civilians
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:42:17 GMT


	It has indeed been emphasized that Islam calls for the respect of
	innocent civilian lives.  This may explain why, as Scuds 
        rained down on Israel, TV cameras captured Palestinians
        jumping up and down on rooftops yelling, "This is a
        sacrilege!"
 
<4658@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:


>Saddam did not have the authority under
>Islamic law to declare jihad, and furthermore, Islam does not have
>anything to do with the Gulf War, Scuds, or Palestinians.  



	This helps emphasize my point, which is that
        people in Hamas (and those Palestinians on the
        rooftops) who claim to be Islamic are in fact hypocrites.
-- 
Ron Evans (revans@math.ucsd.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jle@lear.bos.locus.com (John Elghani)
Subject: Re: Targetting civilians
Organization: LC
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:17:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.222612.27736@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>In article <4658@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>
>>If you are suggesting that Saddam's call for 'holy war' (i.e. jihad)
>>applies here, you are wrong.  Saddam did not have the authority under
>>Islamic law to declare jihad, [...]
>
>How could Saddam be authorized to call a Jihad when we all know that
>it is the Ayatollah who does this?  Worse yet, the Ayatollah had
>called a Jihad against Saddam, so for Saddam to call a Jihad against
>the Aytollah would pit Muslims against Muslims in Holy War, but that 
>self-destructive position wouldn't be a first in Islam, I am afraid. 

The defense of a muslim to his right, self, or innocents is Jihad.

jle

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein)
Subject: Re: "Protocols of Zion" and Arab Antisemitism
Organization: NYSERNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:07:15 GMT

mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:

>Palestinians have been third class citizens in their OWN land for quite
>a few years, ...

If you think so, then I suggest you complain about their oppressor,
the Hashemite King of eastern Palestine.

You might also complain about terrorist chieftain Yassir Arafat, who's
forced the Arab negotiators to reject an offer from the Israeli
government that is staggering in its generosity.  The Israeli
government offered virtual total Arab control over about 60% of the
territories, joint administration over about 30%, with total Israeli
control over only about 8%.  (The 30% to be administered jointly is
virtually uninhabited.)

Once again, the Palestinian Arabs seem to be doing their best to miss
a golden opportunity.  They have no one to blame but themselves;
unfortunately, they will undoubtedly once again attribute the
consequences of their foolish actions to the Israelis.

-- 
Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Goof)
Subject: Re: News from the Israeli press
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:51:50 GMT

In article <1483500307@igc.apc.org> cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:
>
>From: Center for Policy Research <cpr>
>Subject: News from the Israeli press
>
>/* Written  4:57 am  Dec  9, 1992 by cpr@igc.apc.org in igc:talk.politics. */
>/* ---------- "News from the Israeli press" ---------- */
>News from Israel Commented by Elias Davidsson, CPR, Reykjavik,
>Iceland
>
>1. Mr. Chaim Herzog urges Jews to marry among themselves
>
>	 Jerusalem Post 21. Nov. 1992:
>President Chaim Herzog last week told 3000 delegates attending the
>Council of Jewish Federation-s annual General Assembly in New York
>that American Jews- greatest task today is that of Jewish
>education.  He added: "I implore you to stem the tide of
>assimilation, increase the Jewish awareness of your people".
>
>Comment: From the above remarks two lessons can be drawn:
>a. Mr. Herzog does not consider himself the President of all
>Israelis, but only of the Jews. It should be remembered that 18%
>of Israel's citizens are not Jews.
>b. Mr. Herzog is urging a kind of self-imposed apartheid on U.S.
>citizens, that they withdraw into a kind of Jewish ghetto, by not
>marrying with non-Jews.

	You have learned some pretty poor lessons.  If you ask practically
	and Jewish parent, they would prefer that their children marry
	a Jew as opposed to a non-Jew.  As president of Israel, Herzog
	is a important (for lack of a better word) Jew and perhaps
	his words will carry more weight.  This does not mean he is the
	President of only Jews.  He did not make this speach in Israel
	to all Israelis but to the Jewish Federation.  
		Only marrying fellow Jews in no way puts the Jews in
	a self-imposed apartheid.  Apartheid is the separation of 
	peoples.  (It's amazing how much this word is bandied around)
	My parents are both Jewish but we lived in a mostly Catholic
	neighboorhood.  We were in no way living in a ghetto.  True
	many Jews live in predominately Jewish neighboorhood, but these
	are no more ghettos than Bensonhurst is an Italian ghetto or
	Chinatown is a Chinese ghetto.


	geoff
-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

A .sig?  A .sig? We don't need no stinkin' .sigs!
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Deportation vs. Murder
Date: 19 Dec 1992 14:26:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   There has been much talk about the deportations in the context
of their political significance.  I wonder why terrorist activity
and murders on the part of Arab terrorists directed Israelis, are
not regarded as politically significant?  There seems to be a bit
of a double standard here.

   A man is kidnapped.  A short time later, his body is found out
on the side of some road, dumped like a bag of garbage.  The body
indicates that he was bound and repeatedly stabbed to death.  The
murder was carried out by an organization sworn to kill Jews.  It
is a terrorist organization with hundreds of members.  They swore
an oath to try to kill Israelis whenever and however they can.

   They are rounded up and booted out of the area.  They received
money and clothing, and then were shown the door.  This eviction,
this kicking out of terrorists is being procalimed as cruel.  But
there has been not one word of protest from a single humanitarian
or human rights group about kidnapping an innocent man, tying him
up, and repeatedly stabbing him to death.  Why does the world say
nothing about this act, but moans about the eviction of those who
have sworn themselves to perform such acts?

  Have you 'humanitarians' no standards?  Are you so biased as to
give tacit approval to such a torturous and sadistic murder?  Why
do you care more about the murderers than you do the victim?  Are
you indifferent to bloodshed if the blood being shed is Jewish?

   Jews are also human beings.  Many of you may not think so, but
we are.  Is it acceptable to kidnap someone, bind him, and murder
him by repeatedly stabbing him, if he is a Jew?  Mr. Toledano did
not ever kill anyone.  He was not a murderer.  But he was killed.
He was butchered like a piece of cattle.  And yet you who yell at
the world about the eviction of people sworn to commit such acts,
you say nothing about this man's death.

   The concept of human rights is one that should apply to people
universally.  Furthermore, if one considers deporting a person to
be worse than murdering a person, one has a distorted view of the
severity of these to actions.  Would YOU rather be given clothing
and money, and be kicked out.., or would you rather be kidnapped,
tied in rope from head to toe, and be knifed to death?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.arabic
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Goof)
Subject: Re: Babri aftermath (Re: Malcom X)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:22:22 GMT

In article <Bz9w7M.8HA@newsflash.concordia.ca> ilyess@ECE.Concordia.CA (Ilyess Bdira) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.184354.27953@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>I'd say that intolerance, irrational emotions, and hateful tribalism
>>are all symptoms of fanaticism.
>
>I kind of expected you to say that. A fanatic has been used lately 
>interchangeably with fundamentalist. However, fundamentalism in my opinion 
>does not  necesarily result in those symptoms. Tunisian fundamentalism, 
>for example, was a very tolerant, rational and relatively realistic brand,
>but it was fought mercilessly by one of America's freindly dictators.
>

	Funny I don't see the word "fundamentalism" or any of its offshoots
	in the line that Adam wrote.  The word he used is fanaticism. 
	Maybe he didn't write what you had expected.

	Geoff

>
>=============================================================
>Modified Murphy's first law of realistic probability:
>If it can happen, it will happen...
>Unless of course "it" is a good thing.
>::::::::::::::********************************:::::::::::::::
>Ilyess Ben Ali Bdira    Montreal Quebec  Canada
>E-mail ilyess@ECE.concordia.CA, benali@alcor.concordia.CA
>Phone Number and Address variable...
>::::::::::::::********************************:::::::::::::::


-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

A .sig?  A .sig? We don't need no stinkin' .sigs!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jle@lear.bos.locus.com (John Elghani)
Subject: Re: News from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Organization: LC
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:00:57 GMT

From soc.culture.arabic (fwd):

Upset about killing of a soldier, but no problem in killing a 7 year old child,
right? Read on...

In article <102739@netnews.upenn.edu> afm@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Santa Claus...) writes:
>I have just learned that 9 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army in 
>clashes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the expulsion of the 400 
>Palestinians. One of the victims is a 7-year old girl.
>This news is not confirmed as yet. If anyone has heard anything like that, 
>please post.
>
>	-afm


Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bh437292@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Basil Hamdan)
Subject: Re: Dual citizenship, US-Israel. (was Re: Kahane's philosophy)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:52:18 GMT
Reply-To: bh437292@lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Engineering College, Colorado State University

In article <1glj5tINNr1u@early-bird.think.com>, shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday) writes:
|> Just one further question:
|> 
|> How does the U.S. State Dept. regard the following scenraio:
|> A is a citizen of FOO.
|> A becomes a naturalized citizen of the US and swears his allegiance to the US.
|> FOO's laws state that FOO's citizens can not give up their citizenship.
|> 
|> One the one hand, he isn't a dual national, but on the other hand he is.


I think this is exactly how the US State Department handles it,
it just does not want to know about it, and won't do anytthing
unless you clearly indicate an intent to be a foreign citizen
as was the case in the Vance vs. Terrazas Supreme Court ruling.
I am in fact in this exact situation.  Lebanon's laws do not 
provide for someone to renounce his citizenship, even if he 
does it formally.  This policy is due to the fact that for a long
time most Lebanese expatriates were Christian, and the Lebanese
government wanted to maintain Christian majority (or illusion of)
in the face of a growing drain from its Christian population.
So now I am Lebanes and subject to all Lebanese laws if I go visit
even if I enter with my US passport (which is currently 
prohibited by the State Department).

Basil  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet