HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:46:08 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <1992Sep30.171402.15999@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kshammou@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Khaled J Shammout) writes:

>Also, there are many Jews who work for the
>PLO (that is the Palestine Liberation Organization).  Yes they are Jews, but
>they are also Palestinians and are ARAB PALESTINIANS.

There are Jews who work for the PLO (unfortunately), but they are
not Arab (by whatever definition you wish to use) but [mainly] a group called
Neturei Karta (unless you now wish to include a group of immigrants
from Hungary as Arabs.  Make up your mind.

>
>Wa Salam
>----------------------
>Khaled Shammout

Be'ahavat Chinam

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg            |    ^     I forgive everybody.  Unconditionally.
Bitnet:                     | \-/-\-/   "Repent now!
rothberg@bimacs             |  X   X     Avoid the Yom Kippur rush!"
Internet:                   | /-\-/-\      -Nero (aka Harry Blacker)
rothberg@imacs.cs.biu.ac.il |    V      Gemar VeChatimah Tovah-Shanah Tovah
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:06:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.141543.1449@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.215117.13897@trl.oz.au> a.Faris@trl.oz.au  writes:
|> 
|> >My understanding, in Syria they are citizens and have equal civil rights,
|> >except they are not allowed to serve in the army. They are even allowed to
|> >have the Sabath on Saturday.
|> 
|> Such enlightenment!  Sabbath on Saturday.  As opposed to what?
|> Sabbath on Friday??
  
 What is your problem now?. Is this too much for your mind, at least they
 recognise their right for that day. The universities even go out of their
 way not to schedule exams on the Sabath.
 
 It appears to me that my original response was not consumed easily by Mr. Livni
 since no myths or propaganda can be generated out of it.
 
 A.Faris
Organization: TECHNION - Israel Institute of Technology.
Date: Thursday, 1 Oct 1992 22:58:05 IST
From: Uri Zakai <RPR1ZAK@TECHNION.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: ISRAEL DESTROYED IRAQ (Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net)
 <1992Sep25.211510.2443708@locus.com> <92273.060532RPR1ZAK@TECHNION.BITNET>
 <1992Sep30.183653.2505496@locus.com>

mr jle.

u ask  a few question in your letter - why did israel stop and avoided
getting into damascus - although nothing was stoping them ?
why did they do that- considering what they did in beirut 10 years later?
why didnt they take damascus,when they could ask for kav barlev for it ??????
and a few others (sorry but i have a problem to netget your letter )

first of all - none of these questions deals with the facts - what actually
happend at the yom-kippur war - that is fairly simple , just check the
history books ,        u can see that the idf was standing 40 km from
damascus at the time .

now to your questions
israel didnt want to get into damascus (although it could)because :

a)the syrians (as were the egyptian) were screaming to their helpers (soviet)
 to force israel into a cease fire - this action went into high gear on
  oct 19 when the idf was already 40 km from damascus (at the same time
israel was already controlling a large portion of land west of the suez
canal- thats in egypt )

b)israel didnt want to enter an arab capitol - what would we do in there
- u r talking of beirut as an example - but it proves the opposite -
israel allowed arafat and thousands of his warriors to leave -because
we knew the amount of casaulties we would suffer if we took the city.
israel did enter the southern neighborhoods - but preferd the agreement.

c)in both the 67 and 73 israel reached the 101 km from cairo - and
although there wasnt much to stop them , they stoped (from the reasons
i mentioned above)

and lastly - what was that question about kav-barlev ?
are u unaware of the egyptian condition at this war ? they didnt have
anything to offer at this stage - israel was already on egyptian land
and the only thing that saved the egyptian 3rd army from destruction
was the american demand .
so please clear this up : when u said that israel should have taken
damascus (if it could) and ask egypt to return kav-bar lev - what do u
think was egypt's condition towards the end of the war ?

i think u r as confused about egypt's condition as u were about syria's
i suggest u take your own advise and read a little more.

uri zakai
From: jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: The aftermath of Sabra and Shatila
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:40:02 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

I wonder if anyone would like to comment on the extent to which Israeli,
and wider Jewish, opinion have changed as a result of the Sabra-Shatila
affair. I've seen interviews with soldiers who say that this event caused
them to stop for the first time and question the morality of their actions,
and there seemed to be (short lived) public demonstrations against the
army's acquiescence in the massacre, but on the other hand we see that
the recommendations of the Kahane commission were not taken seriously, and
the commander on the spot, Amos Yaron, still maintains that a) all the killing
took place in the first couple of hours, b) only 20-30 people were killed,
and c) he didn't know that anything odd was happening, all three assertions
being demonstrably false. Where does the "man in the street" stand? (in the
street, obviously, but you know what I mean :)

-- 
=======Jeremy Henderson========jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk===============
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:21:39 GMT

bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:

>In a previous article, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) says:
>>>You seem to be making the argument that a forced transfer of a population
>>>invalidates the claim of those who were forced to leave if very few are
>>>allowed to remain.  
>>
>>No, I'm saying that it makes no difference whether there was a 
>>handful of Jews living in Palestine or none at all.  I've already
>>said elsewhere that I don't accept land claims based on possession
>>once upon a time.  
>>
>In that case, you obviously must accept land claims based on a total lack
>of possession at any time, such as the bogus claims of the Arabs.  (Sarcasm
>intended.)

Total lack of possession at any time, eh?  We have some 
white-supremisists down here who could make good use of someone with 
your insight and imagination.  Shall I pass your name onto them?

>>If you are an Israeli Jew in the year 4000 you will probably laugh
>>at the idea that the descendants of the Palestinian Arabs of 1948
>>have a right to return to the place they were kicked out of 2000
>>years before.

>That's a non-starter, since it's based on the incorrect assertion that
>Arabs were kicked out in 1948.

Ignorance is bliss, eh Alan?

>bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 20:43:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.060710.962@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>In article 7059@bony1.bony.com, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>A better challenge would be to find "firm historical evidence" that
>>TransJordan was ever anywhere except inside a region known as
>>Palestine.
>
>Ok, I will do that as soon as you prove New Zealand was never inside a
>region known as Australia.  

I don't believe that there is a territorial dispute between A & NZ at
the moment though there certainly appears to be some territorial
dispute between Israel and the Arab states.  You're just trying to
wriggle out of this challenge, that I have presented to you several
times already, never getting any kind of serious response.

>>Besides, even if the East Bank of Palestine had never been promised by
>>any of it's occupiers to the Jews, it could serve quite justly as a
>>homeland to the Palestinean Arabs who have always lived there.  After 
>
>What about those who only lived there because they were forced to?

Are you referring to the Hashemites of Arabia who were banished from
their land and then conquered the East Bank and renamed it Jordan and
have fought on-again-off-again battles with the Palestinean residents
ever since?

Or might you be confusing things with the Jews who were forced into
Israel from the Arab states?  

If you think that a major proportion of Jordanians are refugees from
"Israeli-Occupied Palestine", you will have to do a lot of convincing.

>>all, the East Bank (currently called the country of Jordan) is about
>>3/4 of what was known as Palestine in the past. 
>
>Since you have made this claim dozens of times but never even tried to
>present evidence for it, I think it must be a religious belief of yours.  
>I try to avoid arguments about religion.

It has nothing to do with religion.

While you have claimed that a Palestinean state rightly belongs
somewhere inside Israel instead of in Jordan, you have not responded
to any of my challenges to show that the land East of the Jordan was
in fact NOT called Palestine about 100 years ago, just like the land
West of the Jordan.

>>>The name "Transjordania" predates the 1920s by quite a while.
>>
>>The name "Israel" predates "Palestine" by a much longer while.
>
>That's true.  So what?  The cultural identity of a people is not dependent
>on what name they call themselves or their country.

This shows that the ludicrous claims of the "Palestinean" Arabs (and I
use the quotes deliberately, here) to being the ancient native
residents of the land and to predate the Jews are without foundation.

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Arab Jews are ARABS
From: eitan@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il (Shternbaum Eitan)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:06:50 GMT
Organization: Weizmann Institute of Science, Computation Center.
Originator: eitan@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il


If  jew who lives in an Arab region and/or comes from an Arab culture wants to
define himself as a jewish arab , that's fine. every person has the right for self
determination ...

It's not all right if someone else makes the descision for the person above.

I have meet several jews from Eastern/Aran origion. none of them viewed themselves
as Arabs. I had a friend who tried from the age of 15 to escape an Arab country
and was put into jail for that. most "Arab" jews didn't feel that they were a part of their soceity and were usually treated as 2nd rate citizens.
They have demonstrated those feelings by IMMIGRATING whenever they had the chance
(and i'm not talking about immigrating to Israel).

the
Jews who are palestinian or pro-palestinians are either

 neturey-karta -
   a group of hungrarian ultra-orthodox jews who oppose zionism and thus finding
   the PLO an alley

  extreme israeli leftists -
	Their roots come from the Left wing of MAPAM and from radicals in the
        Israeli Commnist Party. they were influenced by the New-Left of the 60's.
        among those groups you can find S.Y.CH (New-Israeli-Left) S.S.I
        (Israeli-Socialist-Left), L.K.M (Revolutionary-Communist-League)
	all those groups were communist-marxist oriented and thus anti-zionist.
	as the neturey-Karta they also find the PLO as alleys (especially
	the marxist groups. some of them were recruited by the the marxist fronts
        in PLO for terrorism and espionage (The group of Udi Adib in the 70's
        and the group of the "shining path" in the 80's.)
	among the leaders of those groups you can find Prof Michael Vershavski
	Leah Tsemel, Yigal Arens, Orna Merr, and others.



those 2 groups are considered by most Jews (israeli or not) as Umala(t) ...
From: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Date: 2 Oct 1992 23:25:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) says:

>
>I agree it isn't logical, which is why I didn't support it.
>However it also isn't logical to claim that all the public land
>passed to Jewish ownership after the mandate ended.  (I don't
>think you made this error, but others here did.)  One historical
>matter I never read up on was how lots of that public land ended
>up in the "private" hands of the JNF.  Do you know?
>
I believe that there is a distinction between land which was purchased by
the JNF with private funds, and public land which may be administered by
JNF in a manner similar to the way a quasi-public agency (like a transit
authority or urban renewal agency) may administer public property here.
-- 
bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Greater Syria (was Faris and Valentine)
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:02:25 GMT

bval@ilws61 (Valentine Bob) writes:
> Earlier posters (please keep attributions):
>
>:1. All the wars and conflicts that have taken place so far between Israel
>:is a land that once was called Greater Syria that was divided by the French
>:and British into the following countries:
>:  a. Syria
>:  b. Lebanon
>:  c. Palestine
>:  d. Jordan
>:  e. The mighty Iraq

>This is a good point and explains the "Palestine is Southern Syria" quote
>which I sarcastically turned around later in my response.

It is amusing to see the very different conclusions which certain
posters are drawing from "Jordan is Palestine" and "Palestine
is Syria".  Of course, this has nought to do with their agenda.

>I have a question here about Jordan and Palestine, since there was a 
>"TransJordan" at this time with somewhat different borders, correct.?

There was a Transjordan with undefined borders.  The borders became
concrete in the 1920s and that area became Jordan in the 1940s.

>:The balfour declaration for the establishment of Israel was around 1917 or so
>:that was before the Sykes-Picot act to divide Greater Syria into those five
>i:weak countries that could not fight the establishment of an Israeli state in
>:Palestine especially after they have been occupied by france and britain. The
>:people there were drained from all powers to even fight the Jewish immigrants.

The Sykes-Picot agreement preceded the Balfour Declaration by one
or two years, not the other way around.

>Bob

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Nabeel Ghuzlaan)
Subject: Re: Answer to Mr John
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:04:46 GMT

kshammou@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Khaled J Shammout) writes:

>     I have not heard anything like that.  If this is true, 
>then please give us the sources.  I would like to read more about it.

   It was published in Al-Moharrer weekly paper Mon 21 Sep 1992. I do 
not remember the whole thing, but I remember that investigations
started with those who had relatives in the "mashyu*kuh."

>However, despite what the Kuwaiti GOVERNMENT is doing to the 
>Palestinians, we should not generalize and
>include the Kwaiti people. 

   The only ones who are generalizing are the two bigoted Kuwaitis
on the net. We are civilized peopl, "^ainee."

>There are good Kuwaitis just as there are bad ones.

   You made a mistake here; always the bad is more than the good.

> We do not need any more divisions and tension among us (the >Arabs).  
>We already have plenty of that (I say this despite that all of >my 
>relatives, about 15 families, were kicked out of Kuwait along with 
>400,000 other Palestinians).

    The tension is there only between Arabs and bigoted Arabs who
are useless anyway, why include the hypocrites in our ranks?

>     Also, it is very easy for us, the Arabs, to sit down and blame our
>governments, and I know that I just did that in the above paragraph. 
>Yet, it is our, the Arab people, fault that we are what we are today.  
>We have to blame ourselves for letting such puppets to control us.  But >we also must not forget to practice what we say insha'allah.

   We blame both, "like people, like ruler," as the Prophet said.

**
   - wlee ^ala 'aamtee, luk ru"usni ya gada^.
   - wala ykoon lik fikir i*ktee, du"i ya mazzeekah.
   - la' da*keelkon, baddi sammi^kon halmawwaal bil'awwal: Gamoosah
       raa*hit ti'aabil gamoosah ...
**



Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:45:55 GMT

In article 1aimqiINN2hn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:
>
>In a previous article, arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) says:
>
>>I, and I'm sure others as well, would take statements like Mr. Stein's
>>far more seriously if he found a way to demonstrate that they were
>>something less than a mere repetition of propaganda aimed at denying
>>dispossessed Palestinians any rights in Israel/Palestine.
>>
>Is this a case of less is more?
>
>The so-called "dispossessed Palestinians" were neither dispossessed (they
>left of their own free will) nor Palestinians (that term was, at that time,
>used to refer to Jews and only more recently has been exprpriated by Arabs
>to further their propaganda battle).
>
>>How could Mr. Stein demonstrate this?  Well, for example, while
>>continuing (if he must) to insist that Arabs were not kicked out in
>>1948, he could grant those who could *prove* that they were kicked out
>>the right to return or be compensated.  Is that asking too much?
>
>Israel has continually tried to negotiate an agreement for the compensation
>of all refugees of the '48 War and its aftermath, 

Really?  I must have missed this one in my reading.  Why not prove
you know something by quoting a reference for this?

>                                                  both those Arab refugees
>who voluntarily left their homes and those equally numerous Jews who were
>forced out of their homes.

I wonder if you know anything at all about Jewish refugees from Arab
countries, or whether this is just another example of what Yigal called
"mantra like" repetition of propaganda.  

>The Arabs who voluntarily abandoned their homes in anticipation of
>returning over the bodies of their Jewish neighbors are no less victims
>simply because their action was voluntary.  

My, my, how magnanimous of you.  By the way, you forgot to respond to
the following sentence of Yigal's:

]So, for example, the losses of the 70,000 Palestinians from Lydda and
]Ramleh who were forcibly evicted by forces commanded by Yitzhak Rabin in
]1948 (as Rabin himself concedes), could be redressed.

Here we have 10% or more of the Palestinian refugees in a single incident.
They were forced out at gunpoint, or perhaps the Prime Minister of Israel
is a liar?

>And they could have been fairly
>compensated decades ago had the Arab states not refused to negotiate an
>agreement with Israel.
>
>At this point, if they don't get around to it soon, the problem will go
>away because all those who left their homes will be dead.

Interesting.  So much for claims that are even older, say 2000 years.

>bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu

Brendan.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:53:07 GMT

adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>In article <bdm.717417225@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>>adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>>In article <9209241645.AA00570@top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Khaled J Shammout <kshammou@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:

>>>>Palestine.  By 1948, The Jews owned no more than 7% of the land in
>>>>Palestine. Of course, this means that the Palestinians owned 93%.  Now
>>
>>>Of course, you had a copy of "How To Lie with Statistics" in your hand
>>>when you wrote that sentence.  ~70% of the land in Mandatory
>>
>>I don't believe any of these figures; they look suspiciously like
>>the figures that Ed Shnekendorf quoted from Myths and Facts, which
>>I proved do not appear in the source M&F gives.  From my rough
>>calculations based on the 1946 Survey of Palestine (British)
>[...]
>>declared abandoned).  If I am wrong, please give your source.

>My numbers may be off the mark, a possibility that I honestly don't
>have time to research right now, so I'll accept your numbers (under
>some protest).

>However, the claim that since the Jews only owned 7% Palestinians
>owned 93% is more bogus than my numbers.

I agree it isn't logical, which is why I didn't support it.
However it also isn't logical to claim that all the public land
passed to Jewish ownership after the mandate ended.  (I don't
think you made this error, but others here did.)  One historical
matter I never read up on was how lots of that public land ended
up in the "private" hands of the JNF.  Do you know?

>Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

Brendan.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:20618 soc.culture.arabic:3970
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Answer to Mr John
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:42:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Sep26.000057.21093@panther.mot.com> ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen) writes:
>
>  jle and friends will fabricate
>anything they possibly can if it involves damning Israel.  It has nothing to
>do with Kuwuat or Iraq.  If there was a terrible eathquake/storm that destroyed
>parts of the Arab world jle would come up with stories of a secret Israeli
>earthquake/hurricane machine.

You may believe, in your own mind, that the Gulf War had nothing to do
with Israel; and you may certainly support Mr. Anwar and friends who
also try to reduce the severity of the crimes against Iraqis and
Palestinian people by justifying U.S. intervention and protection of
its interests, including Israel, in the Middle East.  And you can
certainly condemn people like Mr. Elghani, who are tired of these
excuses and injustices, but it only leads to one conclusion.  And
that is, racism and bigotry.

Have a wonderful day and,
L'Shenna Tovah 

Anisa
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast