HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raan@techunix.technion.ac.il (Ran Ever-Hadani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: What price for peace?
Date: 22 Jul 92 08:45:20 GMT
Organization: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology

In <1992Jul20.161118.9176@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss) writes:

#In article <1992Jul15.212208.4866@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> ejk@coral.JPL.NASA.gov (Elya Kapelyan) writes:

#>	Excuse me, but as far as I recall, the mayor of Haifa actually
#>_begged_ the Arab residents to stay.  (The only such case that was well
#>publicized.)

#Sure, my whole family left their land and homes in Haifa to go to
#Lebanon to live in miserable camps just for the fun of it. They told
#the mayor of Haifa: "No problem you can have our houses, or may be
#you can give them to the Jews. We are nice people".

Could you elaborate more on the story of your family?  It is a fact that
in the later stages of the 1948 war, Arabs have been expelled from
their homes by the Israeli army (the most notable examples for this
are Lydda and Ramla), but this was not the case in Haifa, taken on
a very early stage of the war; the decision to leave the city after 
it was conquered by the Haganah was made by the Arab leadership,
despite the Jewish locals pleading them to stay.  I suggest Benny
Morris' book on the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem as
a good source on this issue.

-- Ran
-- 
Withdrawal from the territories is in Israel's vital interest.  I will not 
feel any less at home in Shiloh or Bethlehem if I need a visa to go there.

                                   Moshe Dayan  (quoted from memory)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israel Cancels Building in the West Bank
From: Radu Eugen Edelstein <re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:18:14 -0400 
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Writing about Syria's actions in Lebanon, Brad writes:
from Lebanon alone. It has disarmed the Palestinians who have in the
past attacked Israel (as opposed to attacking Israeli troops in
Lebanon). Furthermore, it has brought a degree of control over the
militias in Lebanon which was not present there prior to the
implementation of the Ta'if Agreement.


I say:
That's a lot of false implications, packed together.
Syria was at odds with the Palestinians in Lebanon, before invading
Lebanon.  Did did a favor to themselves, not to the Israelis.
By killink 40,000, mostly civilians, in a nation of a few million,
ANYBODY can create "peace", but under its own terms.  You might
not care about the sufferings of the maronites, but that would
be hypocritical of you any time you would mention Sabra and
Chatilla.  The Syrians killed hundreds of times more civillians in
Lebanon.  They disarmed those militias that were against them and
supported the others to create a so-called Lebanese army.
While it's understandable that Syrians did what they did (any occupier
with the intention to controll the occupied country would do that,
without allowing any "Intifadas"), and that they should make claims
of being the saviours of Lebanon, it is strange for such an argument
to come from you, as someone who claims he cares for the Lebanese
themselves.

Rad
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Prote
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:58:26 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul30.161604.1460@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
=>
=>Remarkable, the demons you see behind every empty corner!
=>

I wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me! ;-)




-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: U.S. territories vs. Israel territories
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:03:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.015256.29117@anasaz> scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.143532.1796@oakhill.sps.mot.com> diaz@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Rafael Diaz) writes:
>>
>>  Could somebody explain why is it O.K not to have presidential 
>>  voting power in U.S. territories?
>
>Sure.  I'd be glad to.
>
>All that Puerto Rico requires to gain congressional and presidential
>voting power, is to petition for statehood.  In other words, the power
>to gain the vote is in their hands.  They have _chosen_ not to use
>it.

Not completely - it does require a 2/3 vote of the Congress to approve
it once they vote on it, from memory.  However, this has yet to be
denied a petitioning state.

>I'm surprised you didn't point out Washington, D.C.  As a federal
>district, Washington's citizens are similarly restricted in their
>federal voting priveledges.  Why?  Because they aren't a state.

Actually, DC has three electoral votes, but only a delegate in the House
and no representation at all in the Senate.  Not completely the same.

-- 
"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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Prote
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:17:59 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul29.203140.10669@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
=>[...]  Muppet man [...]

Not sharing Jake's expertise in juvenilia, I'm mildly curious as to
how I have earned this strange appellation. Care to enlighten us?

=>Phill Hallam-Baker


-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: WHAT HAS THE OTHER SIDE OFFERED?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 18:23:27 GMT


   There has been much talk about concessions Israel should make,
what concessions Israel should not make, what Israel has conceded
so far, what Israel has not yet conceded, and so on.
   While this is all very interesting, I would be curious to read
what the other side has offered.  Has the other side offered even
one thing?  Has the other side done anything besides make demands
of Israel?  If there is bargaining going on, shouldn't BOTH sides
offer something?  And if all the Palestinians can do is to demand
without offering anything in return, why should Israel be sitting
down with these people.  So far, all the talks have appeared such
that the Palestinians have offered NOTHING.  I would like to know
if I am wrong about this.  Does anyone have any knowledge of even
one cencession that the Palestinians have made?  Many of us would
like to know if this is true.  If any of you have KNOWLEDGE about
this, please post it.
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: ISRAEL JOINS THE CIVILIZED WORLD
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:03:50 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul30.222012.28662@discus.technion.ac.il> s1495926@techst02.technion.ac.il (Danny Kreindler) writes:
=>In article <24244@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes 
=>in reply to Jake:
=>:
=>>
=>>Ask your Mom to take you. Maybe if you promise not to squeal for ice-cream
=>>she'll take you this time. I'd recommend you go on your own, but you'll
=>>need to hide in her lap during the scary bits.
=>
=>Henderson, you are so full of bullshit- either say something productive or
=>get the hell of this net !

A couple of days ago I posted (for example) a reference to the LEHI/Nazi
Germany affair. I find it interesting that instead of picking up on that
posting and taking the opportunity to educate yourself you chose to
criticise me for responding to Livni's flame.

As for "getting off the net", I will do so if and when I choose. You may
take it as a fact that your opinion will not influence me in the slightest.


-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Arab Gestures
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:28:11 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1992Jul28.171746.23926@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:
>
>Or can anybody explain why it is always Israel that is called on to take
>confidence-building measures? 

Probably because it is the Israelis who are perceived, rightly or
wrongly, as being in the position of strength.



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss)
Subject: Usenet problem
Originator: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:59:17 GMT

Last week my usenet lost connection with the outside world. Did
anybody experience the same problem?
 

-- 
Nabil Idriss                           |       FOR EVERY ACTION AN OPPOSITE  
NCR - Midrange Products Division       |       AND EQUAL REACTION.
      Columbia, South Carolina         |      
email: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM |
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: ISRAEL JOINS THE CIVILIZED WORLD
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:00:16 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul22.173205.6722@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
=>
=>PS - Henderson, why are you posting to this newsgroup? I have been reading
=>it for over a year and, except for Barfie, you are the most obnoxious,
=>insulting, and un-productive poster here. Why don't you switch to alt.flame?

a) Danny, why are you posting this instead of e-mailing me? Is there some
reason why you think that the whole net should be treated to your personal
opinion as to why someone else should not express their opinion?
b) Have I flamed anyone who didn't flame me first?
c) Funny how anytime I refer to some incident, the Kaufmans and co. start
wailing about how I'm inventing things, and then when I get around to
posting a reference to it they disappear back under their stones. Since
it's impossible to establish any agreed body of facts, it's a bit
difficult to be, in your terms, "productive". 

-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Protest
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 10:23:32 GMT

martillo@stars.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo) writes:

>In article <bdm.712115586@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>>singer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:

>>>Arens Junior quotes a newspaper piece by somebody named Michaels which purports
>>>to quote a Jewish document presented to the Nazis in 1941 in which the
>>>expression "Israeli liberation movement" (sic) is used. Does anybody know
>>>whether the term "Israeli" was in use before 1948, and in fact as early as
>>>1941? Could this be another Protocols of the Elders of Zion?-- 

>Lehi was formed in 1940.  Lehi stands for lohamei herut yisra'el or

It wasn't called that until later.  Nyah, nyah, nyah!

>warriors for the liberation of Israel.  From mishnaic Hebrew onward
>yisra'el can refer to the collectivity of Jews and that is probably
>the sense here.

>>The correspondence was conducted in German.  The phrase you give could
>>easily be a translation or paraphrase of the name which Lehi then
>>called itself.  The authenticity of the correspondence has never
>>been seriously questioned.  By the way, Lehi also sought links with
>>the Italian fascists. 

>I am unsure what McKay is trying to prove here.  

Maybe that's because I wasn't trying to prove anything except
to state a couple of facts relevant to Ben's posting.  However,
as you are The Martillo, I understand that you are unable to
resist reading my mind from a great distance and calling me names
according to what you fantasize to be there.  What a joke you are.

>If he is trying to prove Lehi [... blah blah...]
>If he is trying to prove that Zionism [... blah blah...]

>If an attempt to get some Jews out of Nazi hands by making an offer in
>language tailored to Nazi tastes establishes a fundamental link
>between Zionism and Nazism, [... blah blah...]

Exquisite.  A second-order fantasy.  

>All these arguments are stupid [... blah blah...]

You made them all up yourself, so who is stupid?

>I also should add that the political spectrum and political attitudes
>were quite different during the 20s and 30s than today and that to
>gloss over the differences as McKay does is pure intellectual
>dishonesty.  

I left that sentence untouched so that the whole world can see how
clever you are to deduce so much from one sentence.

>Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:09:11 GMT

In article <37312@imag.imag.fr> oueichek@ngulu (Ibaa Oueichek) writes:
>analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>: 
>: 
>: Does anyone have access to the official French version of Resolution
>: 242?  It would be interesting to see how that part was expressed in
>: the usually very precise French. Or it may be, since French was "the
>: language of diplomacy" that the French have even more elegant ways of
>: waffling "the territories" than we do.
> 
>  I'll try to find the official version somewhere, all what i have handy is a
>magazine called historama (a very serious one) and the text mentionned is
>"retrait DES territoires occupes". Notice that this DES is a combinaison of
>two articles : DE + LES which leaves no doubt that the French version means
>THE territories, if i can find enough time i'll try to check it in a more
>"serious" source.
>  BTW, the term used frequently here by the media and by politicians is the
>same as above. 
>
>--
>Sham(u) ya tha (s)seif(u) lam yaghib(i) | Ibaa Oueichek. ouicheck@imag.imag.fr
>    Ya jamal(al) majd(i) fi(l) kutub(i) | LABORATOIRE 	BULL-IMAG
>Kablak(i) (t)tareekh(u) fi thulmaten    | Grenoble. 
>    Baadak(i) staula ala (sh)shuhub(i)  |
>					


The following was copied from a message which appeared earlier

------------------- Begin included message -----------------------------

I am only discussing a point of English grammar here.

I want croissants == Je veux des croissants == I want some croissants.

It does not mean

Je veux les croissants == I want the (specified) croissants.

Nor does it mean

Je veux tous les croissants == I want (all) the croissants.

English plurals can function comparable to partitives in French and other
languages -- a source of never ending agony for translators.

Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
------------------- End Included Message ---------------------------

This appears to define "retrait DES territoires occupes" as meaning
"some" (unspecified amount) territories.

Can we have confirmation from other French speakers please.

Hillel Markowitz        H_Markowitz@att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: nyh@fledgling.WPI.EDU (Nevo Y Hed)
Subject: Re: NUKE IRAQ
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:11:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.194306.23245@ncsu.edu> odkahn@eos.ncsu.edu (Opher D. Kahn) writes:

>I will first state that I would gladly see Saddam go.  BUT:
>
>Let's imagine a slightly different scenario.  Lets say the US did not
>have veto power in the UN security council, and all the other countries
>decided they want to eliminate the terrible threat of nuclear war by
>disarming the U.S.  Don't you think more than a few Americans would rise
>in protest if UN and perhaps Russion and Chinese representatives wanted
>to gain entry to federal buildings in D.C. and search for evidence of the
>U.S.'s weapons programs???  I know I would.  The fact that some majority
>or powerful portion of the U.N. decided they have the right to do with
>Iraq as they please does not have to satisfy the Iraqi people!

> Opher D. Kahn 


	Mr. Kahn forgets one thing.  Iraq lost a war it started.  The
disarming is part of the cease fire agreements.  If U.S. would have
lost  a war to China - China will disarm the Americans - like it or
not.

I think it's fair...

		-Nevo
-- 
Nevo Y.	 Hed              nyh@wpi.wpi.edu
++1-508-754-2491          CS student, Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
"I like my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth from time to time" G.Marx
From: brian@baja.Corp.Sun.COM (Brian Edge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: NUKE IRAQ
Date: 29 Jul 1992 18:03:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: brian@baja.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: baja.corp.sun.com

  Lets just be done with it and nuke'um.  The people of Iraq are
  protesting against the UN and US, they are atacking the UN teams,
  why should we feel sorry for them and not want to harm the people
  of Iraq?  I'm tried of the US pussy footing around with the 
  Iraq scum.  Maybe we should just let Israel take care of them since
  Bush can't seem to handle the job.
  
  Just say Nuke'em
  
  Brian

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jsaypol@dasher.uucp (Josh Saypol)
Subject: Re: propaganda
Reply-To: jsaypol@dasher.UUCP (Josh Saypol)
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:37:58 GMT

I would just like to apologize publically to Id Friedman (did I spell 
that right -- I didn't save his response) for reading too much
into his posting and coming back quasi-flaming.  I deserved the 
outrage he expressed in return.

I've tried to keep quiet on the net as much as possible because
my opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very strong
yet constantly evolving (an oxymoron many who follow the middle east
can probably relate to).  I'm sick to death of knee jerk defenders
of Israel and I'm sick to death of people looking at the history of
the conflict when we need to look at the future of it.  That's what
motivated me to blast someone posting an historical quote. 

This is a conflict where historical facts are subjective.

Anyway, my apologies for being harsh and I will try to go back to being
a listener and seething to myself and not to the net.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*********  *******   ******** *        * Josh Saypol
    *     *       * *         *        * Bell Communications Research
    *     *       *  *******  ********** jsaypol@dasher.cc.bellcore.com
*   *     *       *         * *        * (908) 699-3433
 ***       *******  ********  *        *
	 One Jew; 1.5 opinons; none belong to my employer.
"Why does it happen?  Because it happens" -- Neil Peart, Rush
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: U.S. territories vs. Israel territories
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:47:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


Nora's assertion that because some DC residents have asked for
statehood and failed to meet the legal process for gaining it, they
are occupied against their will, is an example of either severely
fallacious thinking or blatant propaganda.

Her basic fallacy is believing that any individual or group has some
"right" to a state status just by asking for it. By that logic,
six friends and I who asked for a state, and were in the majority
in a small area of another country, would be "occupied."

I can understand this being part of "Palestinian logic" but it
is from another planet as far as international law is concerned.

Notice the subtle trick of propaganda--by using the word "occupied"
Nora suggests that the legal denial of a statehood request represents
oppression by some "occupier" rather than the lack of any right
to statehood under such circumstances. It's another case of
the aggressor blaming the victim.

The last time I heard that logic, it was used by a rapist who
blamed his crimes on "society."

No, come to think of it I came across the same logic used by some
of the worst propagandists in the women's movement of a few years
ago, who asserted that women were oppressed, and that the nearest
moving object (their husbands) therefore had to be the oppressors.

It cost quite a few their marriages, and it was only about ten
years later that the mainstream women's movement saw the damage that
had been done and rejected this militant feminist propaganda.

-- 
David Sternlight        David Sternlight Inc.        email:analyst@netcom.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Men Are Like That
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:02:14 GMT


In article 21912@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca, milson@gauss.math.mcgill.ca (Rob Milson) writes:
>Continuing the discussion of Mutlu's quotes from "Men Are Like That"...
>[...]
>I don't know Mutlu...  Seems to me that taking a quote about a war in 1905,
>forgetting to mention the context, and then trying to pass it off as evidence
>about events 15 years down the road is _______.  Hmm...   Now what would be
>a good way to fill in that blank?

Hilarious.

Sorry to waste bandwidth, but I wanted to be the first
with the correct answer.

Brendan.
From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Zachary Baumel
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:01:00 GMT
	<3612@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: rdtst+@pitt.edu's message of 23 Jul 92 17:32:26 GMT

In article <3612@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> rdtst+@pitt.edu (Richard D. Thorne) writes:
>
> | Has it occurred to you that some people might consider Mr. Baumel a
> | prisoner of war, and not a hostage?
> | --
> | Yigal Arens   "He seems like an average type of man.  He's not, like, smart.
>
>Mr. Baumel should be treated as a POW, but he has not been.  His
>captors treat him like a hostage or worse.  The international
>community has an obligation to demand that he either be treated
>as a POW or regard him as a hostage. 

The international community can do whatever it wants, but ISRAEL sounds
a bit hypocritical in asking that Mr. Baumel be treated like a POW when
they accord no such courtesy to people THEY capture in Lebanon.
--
Yigal Arens   "He seems like an average type of man.  He's not, like, smart.
USC/ISI        I'm not trying to bag on him or anything, but he has the same
arens@isi.edu  mentality I have -- and I'm in the eighth grade."     Vanessa
               Martinez, after VP Quayle's visit to her school-LA Times 5/21
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: ihs9480@zeus.tamu.edu (SHEHADEH, IYAD HILMI)
Subject: test, test
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:42:00 GMT


This is a test. Please, don't rush to send me back replies. I haven't
harmed your propagands yet, Long live Hasan Bu Toma, Long live his wife,




Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast