From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Hamas
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:52:28 GMT

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 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. Nonetheless, you _are_ offering this point as a _rebuttal_ to Brendan's
>   point.

Yes, I am.  Please see above.

>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.

>>> 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.

>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.

>>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.

>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?

>>>  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)

>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.

>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
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.

>  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.

>  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.

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.

>   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.

>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.


-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder