From: jcg@teradata.com (Jonathan Gingerich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Hamas
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:16:12 GMT
Reply-To: jcg@tdat.teradata.com (Jonathan Gingerich)
Organization: Teradata Corp., El Segundo, CA

In article <1993Jan9.165228.29559@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>In article <1719@tdat.teradata.COM> jcg@tdat.teradata.com (Jonathan Gingerich) writes:
>>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.
>
>Hold on - I frankly don't understand where I'm giving grounds for
>offense.  But I think an unprejudiced view of the situation must take
>into account Jewish horror after the Holocaust.  Certainly the UN at the
>time did just that.

A. If you would either defend your "crass" rhetoric, or explain your views
   on the "fairness" of the partition we could get somewhere.  As it is you
   are posting an awful lot about everything but.

>>>>>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.
>
>To me it is worth raising because of the fact that if Jews had been
>permitted to enter mandatory Palestine as refugees during the war
>hundreds of thousands would have been saved from the gas chambers.  Some
>of those that died were my own aunts, uncles, and cousins - people whom
>I will never know.  I suggest you reread some of the deliberations in
>the UNGA that day with this in mind.

B. I took a look at Keegan to check some dates, and his concise description
   of the Holocaust is no less sobering for his brevity.  I will try
   to treat this subject with the gravity it deserves.

C. My meaning of course is that "I don't see why you consider the point
   even worth raising [in the context of the argument about the "fair"
   partition of the Mandate.]"  I understand why the point worth raising
   in general.

D. You have connected the point with your personal history, but not with
   your argument.

>>B. Nonetheless, you _are_ offering this point as a _rebuttal_ to Brendan's
>>   point.
>
>Yes, I am.  Please see above.

E. See what?

>>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"
>
>I don't think Brendan is being crass.  Nor do I think he rejects my
>point, based on his previous postings since he began posting on this
>net, over a year ago.  I think that he may well be taking a different
>tack on this point, which includes bringing up the Palestinian viewpoint
>at the time - and that's perfectly legitimate.  Similarly, my bringing
>up evidence as to why I believe that the Palestinian viewpoint is wrong
>and/or illegitimate should not be regarded as a veiled insult.

F. OK.  So in rebuttal you indignantly raised a point you believe Brendan
   accepts and ... stopped.  What impression do you think you are going to
   make?

G. The Palestinian viewpoint is pretty plain.  If they had their independence
   in 1917, they would have avoided being overwhelmed by immigration by closing
   their borders to it.
   Brendan does _not_ make this argument.

>>>> 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.
>
>Actually I've never encountered the usage before, so I'm not sure how
>the suffix and/or prefix would go.  You'd have to be a linguist to guess
>that, and I'm not that, only an aspiring astrophysicist who just happens
>to read and speak French.
>
>>>>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".
>
>Since it seems to me that B is intended to continue A, I will group the
>two points and address them together.  I suggest you see above,
>Jonathan.  Do you find it insulting or otherwise offensive when someone
>takes the devil's advocate position in an argument?  I don't.  Nor do I
>find it offensive when someone points out arguments in favor of a
>position I disagree with in a discussion.  I'm sincerely sorry if my
>arguments do cause people to take offense, and I'd like it if those
>instances were explained to me, so I could improve.

H. "the next sentence" was the next in the previous post.
I. I'm still not clear with whom or what I should be "even-handed".
J. I'm regularly a hell of a guy myself.

>>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.
>
>Here's where I cannot agree.  The Palestinians could have done
>significant things to help the situation of European Jews during the
>war, in my view.  Many boatloads of Jews were turned back.  I think that
>Palestinians could have changed this fact.  And al-Husseini was strongly
>allied with, and actively supported, Nazi Germany.  One of the reasons
>he had such power among the Palestinians - even though he was appointed
>by the Brits - was that his opposition was never *organized*.  Also, the
>Brits saw him as anything but an ally after about 1927.  He couldn't
>have relied on them to prop him up.

K. Yes, they could have done significant things.  But nations better 
   situated to do so did not.  They were not extraordinarily good nor bad.
L. You have had a long debate with Brendan about the nature of Husseini's
   character and however "strongly allied with" or "actively supporting"
   you have not shown he was a Nazi's Nazi.

>>>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.
>
>Yes, but remember that the partition of Israel took place 3 years later.
>That is why the comment is valid.

M. Well, make up your mind.  Are or are we not talking about 1948?

>>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.
>
>It is relevant, Jonathan, whether or not it is specific to Palestine or
>not.  The comment also applies to other countries which at the time did
>not open their borders - and there were many.  But mandatory Palestine
>is, and was, something special - for it's our homeland.  With all of
>Europe aflame in war, and America 4000 miles away, is it not natural
>that Jews tried to flee South?  To their ancestral home, for G-D's
>sake?

N. The borders of Palestine being the only obstacle between the Holocaust and
   safety is historical crap and you know it.

>>>>  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.
>
>Most of those also realized during the war how wrong they had been.
>Also, Germany and Italy were no less colonial powers than were France or
>Britain.  Also very few of those leaders of colonial powers attempted to
>spread Nazi influence through coups of other governments in the region
>(Husseini supported and perhaps masterminded an attempted pro-Nazi coup in 
>Iraq, and raised a pro-Nazi army in Bosnia)

O. While I know that political support for the Axis was certainly not unique
   to Palestinians among colonized peoples, I'm pretty fuzzy on who exactly.
   So I'm very impressed you know that "most" of them regreted it.
P. Germany?????  Even so what is your point?
Q. Sorry, just because the coup leaders were pro-Nazi does not entitle you
   to claim Husseini's motivate was to "spread Nazi influence".
R. "army" is technically incorrect.

>>B. Husseini was empowered by the British colonial administration.  (Remind
>>   you of anything?  like Hamas?)
>
>Yes.  But by the end of the first year of the 1926-1929 riots, they had
>regretted their decision already.  He certainly was not supported by
>them after about 1927.
>
>>C. Jews were immigrating in the '20 and'30's and the riots were a part
>>   of the struggle.
>
>His struggle, perhaps.  It wasn't, by a long shot, the struggle of the
>Palestinian people.
>
>>D. Jewish immigration and British colonial administration are difficult to
>>   separate. 
>
>Excuse me?!  I suggest you re-think this.  The Yishuv did not work very
>closely with the British colonial administration.  Indeed, they also
>worked against it, but attempted this in a far different way than did
>al-Husseini.
>
>> If Palestine had had its independence, they would have
>>   controlled their borders.
>
>They being the Palestinians, I assume.  Just clarification.
>
>>  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.  
>
>Jonathan, the riots of 1926-1929 had no other "trigger" than religious
>Jews attempting to freely practice their religion at the holiest site to
>Jews, the western wall.  Your point is incomprehensible in view of this.
>The violence was directed against Jews.  The main victims were Jews.
>British acts may have been used as pretexts but they were not the cause.
>
>>Are we to believe the Palestinians wanted colonial status?
>
>No.  It's not relevant, also.

S. I did present this argument poorly.  There was violence against
   British, and Zionist and indigenous Jews.  You appear to be making a
   sharp distinction between the former, which of course the Zionists later
   engaged in, as the response of a colonized people their colonizers, and
   to the latters as religious bigotry.  However they would also be the
   natural targets of a population which felt threatened by immigration.
   There is no need to "explain" the antipathy as something "from time
   immemorial."
T. I would suggest the French-Algerian conflict, the Mau-mau, or the
   conquest of Ethiopia as context.

>>E. I didn't say they would have inevidably been disenfranshised (i.e. 
>>   marginalized) only that it no doubt seemed so to them.
>
>For the large part, I would argue, because of the huge disinformation
>campaign which al-Husseini had undertaken.
>
>>F. I have an awfully hard time swallowing the idea that a "Jewish State"
>>   was not the inevidable product of Zionist ambitions.
>
>A Jewish state *is* the aim of Zionism.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Nor was
>their any confusion about that.  But what is so inherently wrong about
>the idea of a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland?  Jews are just as

U. Nothing.  If that's the self-determination of the sovereign people.

>much a people - a *NATION* - as are Cambodians, Georgians, ... (et
>cetera).  Nor is there anything in Zionism or the idea of a Jewish state
>which inherently marginalizes non-Jewish residents and citizens of that
>state.

V. Those that argument that a "Jewish State" must maintain a Jewish majority
   would seem to be disagreeing.

>>  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.
>
>Yigal, frankly, doesn't just "regularly bring up" such situations.  He
>exaggerates them.  Many such absurdities - such as the supreme court
>decision on Native American religious observances and peyote - happen in
>the US.  Far, far more such absurdities happen in Syria and other Arab
>countries.  He doesn't point them out *at all*.  That is hypocrisy.  I
>refuse to give significant credence to his arguments for that reason.
>He also regularly twists statements - not only of myself but of others
>- in order to support his points.  This is why I do not regard him as
>even remotely objective.  His arguments are very rarely backed up by
>facts.

W. Well which is it?  Does he "exaggerate" his facts, or simply not have them?
   I'm refering to specific incidents which are well established.  You
   have dismissed them out of hand.
X. I don't consider recieving social benefits on the basis of whether one is
   Jewish or not quite the equivalent of whether one may make religious use
   of peyote.

>>  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 remember, shall we, that the 1948 war was for Palestinians a war of
>>   survival and self-defense.
>
>No, it wasn't.  Al-Husseini's rhetoric may have made it seem so, but he
>had anything but survival and self-defense on his mind.  He fired the
>first shot, literally minutes after the partition resolution was passed.
>The entire Jewish marketplace in Jerusalem - not a military target, but
>a market square where both Jews and non-Jews did their business - was
>the target - and it was absolutely ravaged.  I should point out that
>apologists such as Michael Palumbo call the damage "minor looting."  It
>was anything but.  The entire marketplace was burnt to the ground.
>Several were killed.  Sort of gives you an idea of how ridiculous
>Palumbo's writings are.
>
>>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.
>
>And I do not agree with Brendan's point, as I have explained above.

Y. Where???  "I don't think that to accept the partition forced acceptance
   of the Zionist value system," is an assertion not an explanation.

>>   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.
>
>Because in this case the only desire was the most basic of human
>decency.

Z. The "right" of Jews to immigrate into Palestine = "the most basic human
   decency"???

>>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?
>
>I didn't take it as a personal affront, because I think that after a
>year of reading, and frequently disputing, Brendan's arguments, I know
>where he's coming from.  I was being sarcastic more than attempting to
>show personal insult.  Nevertheless, if Brendan (or anyone else) took
>offense from it, I apologize.  However, I don't think th"reductio ad
>absurdum" was either obvious or particularly convincing as an attempt to
>show that a stance I had taken didn't make sense.

AA. My offer still stands.  In the meantime consider everything I've said
    sarcasm.

Jon.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast