HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: BILL CLINTON ON ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:34:08 GMT

In article 5946@usenet.ins.cwru.edu, bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:
>
>In a previous article, nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss) says:
>>
>>International Law? This is a joke. If there is any law in the world
>>I will be living now with my parents in Haifa.
>
>If they hadn't decided, of their own free will, against the pleading of
>Jewish leaders, to leave, then you might.  But don't blame the Israelis.

How do you know why his parents left Haifa?

It is true that some Arabs left Haifa after a decision from their leaders,
and also true that some Jews (notably the Mayor) tried to induce them
to stay.  These facts (a fraction of the full story) explain why Zionist
propaganda always focusses intently on Haifa and ignores the rest of the
country.  What you have decided to omit from your description is that
many thousands of Arabs had already fled before anyone tried to get them 
to stay and that all the while the city was under concerted Jewish attack.
At the same time as some Jews were pleading with the residents to stay,
others were trying their best to drive them out.  The Irgun and Lehi,
who had committed a grotesque massacre a few weeks before, were waging
a campaign of terror with no hindrance from the Hagana.  Would you have
placed your family at their mercy in the circumstances? 

>At the time that virtually the entire Arab population of Haifa left, the
>British police (no friends of the Jews!) reported that "every effort is
>being made by the Jews to pursuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on
>with their normal lives, ... and to be assured that their lives and
>interests will be safe."  The Haganah even ordered that no Arab's
>possessions be touched, and warned that anyone who violated that order
>would be severely punished.

The "legal" destruction and/or seizure of Arab property began almost 
immediately.

>Your parents apparently voluntarily left Haifa, 

The fact is that most refugees anywhere leave "voluntarily".  That doesn't 
make them any the less refugees and it sure as hell does not remove their 
right of return.  This is especially true since (even according to
Zionist propaganda) most of the residents had every intention of 
returning.  Any suggestion that they _abandoned_ their property, in the
common English, or legal English, sense of the word is pure lie.

>and have no more right to
>return their than my grandparents had to return to the Russia they fled for
>their lives.

If your grandparents fled Russia for their lives, they have every right
to return there if they so wish.

>---Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu

Brendan.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Schmidling is simply wrong.
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 20:56:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.142807.12818@anasaz> scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.004546.25790@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>>
>>Fine, do 
>>you also feel that it was injurious to the US or would you have prefered
>>a continuation of the US policy of building up Saddam's military for a 
>>decade, and his nuclear capability as well?
>
>Sorry, but I'm not buying into this "ends justifies the means"
>argument.  Yes, I feel generally that it has proved to be a good 
>thing that the Israelis destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor; and no,
>I don't believe that there is justification for Israel's actions in 
>this area under international law.  I also don't have to believe 
>that it's okay for Pollard to spy on his country, just because that 
>spying has some ultimately beneficial results.

I'm not trying to say that it was OK for Pollard to spy on his own
country.  I HAVE been saying that he had his reasons and they clarify 
his intentions and actions. 

>>Wrong spin.  It demonstrates another instance of the Reagan/Bush team
>>making one deal in public and acting differently in private.
>
>So what?  Your characterization is not incompatible with mine.  
>Even if Reagan or Bush were completely untrustworthy liars (a
>not unimaginable circumstance, IMHO), Pollard was still guilty
>of spying.  You, and he, thought it was justified.  Even if it
>_was_ justified, it was illegal, and a court concurred.

Agreed, here, as well.  He broke the law, was caught and convicted and
was sentenced.  His sentence, however, was vastly out of proportion to
his crime and to the real and perceieved damage to US National
Security, i.e. the damage was minimal while the sentence was maximal.
The out-of-proportion sentence is what bugs me.

>>Pollard, with access to sensitive information, was years ahead 
>>of the US voting public in recognizing the double-dealing in 
>>the White House.
>
>Thanks, but I prefer not to automatically glorify those who take 
>it on themselves to break the laws of this country because they 
>happen to "know better" than the rest of us.

I'm not glorifying a spy.  I AM saying that the sentence should fit
the crime.  Compared to other spys who caused very much greater damage
to US interests and received much lighter sentences, Pollard got a bum
deal. 

-- 
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,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: BACK TO LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NONAGENDA
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:19:35 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug12160510@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.165048.21097@u.washington.edu> jars@milton.u.washington.edu (Juan Rodriguez-Sero) writes:
>>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug11131118@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:


>>   >You should learn proper attribution techniques.


>There is no reason for this confusion.  I went to the trouble of
>finding the correct article for you.  You should read the
>documentation for your news reader and see how you can access
>referenced articles.  I will help you get this one:


Hiding in rude wording, Jim offers his services to those of us 
who perhaps aren't up to his level of Unixism (which grants him 
a mental age of about 17 1/2.)  The net thanks you for retrieving
the posting for all of us to see again.

[reposted msg deleted... JL]

>As you can see, the original list was constructed by Jake Livni (the
>intellectual dishonesty was originally his), and its application to
>Israel's activities in Lebanon was made by Jeremy Henderson.

Correct.  I listed several among many widely known terrorist actions 
that the PLO has proudly taken credit over several decades of
terrorist activity and which continue until today.  You then call me
"dishonest" for not finding similar examples of such attrocities in
Lebanon.  Sorry, Jim, but the war that Israel struggled with in
Lebanon is much the same conflict that the Americans and French
struggled with in the same place.  Neither the Amercans, the French
nor the Israelis have resorted to the terrorism that the PLO has made 
almost exclusively theirs.

You have now spent a dozen or so postings arguing about who posted a
"list" while overlooking the basic failing in your silly premise;
Israel is not a terrorist state, no matter how many stupid postings
you submit, no matter how many idiotic stories you find in print, no
matter how much you try and redefine "terrorism" to suit your own
biases, no matter how much you ignore Israel's joining the community
of nations and behaving in exemplary fashion in difficult conditions
while the PLO adheres to a strict regimen of violence and deceipt.

By your numerous and ridiculous postings, you are crowning yourself
the new ARF of the net.

-- 
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,alt.war
From: rda834x@nella4.cc.monash.edu.au (J. Zufi)
Subject: Re: Nuclear War in the Middle East - Soviet Nuclear Weapons Stolen?
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:55:06 GMT

noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:

>Hello,

>I've been hearing rumors (the lowest form of information) that during the
>breakup of the Soviet Union, some of the Soviet tactical nuclear weapons were
>acquired surreptitiously by one or more Islamic countries, such as Iran, as
>well as some trained personnel to maintain and deploy these weapons.  In
>addition, I also heard (again just a rumor) that Israel believes that nuclear
>war between them and the Islamic country which acquired the weapons could
>occur in the near future.  Supposedly, Israel has about 100 nuclear weapons
>in their arsenal.

Point 1: I wouldn't worry about any rumours going around, because if the
	problem were real we wouldn't know about it.
Point 2: I doubt the leaders of the independant states of the old Soviet Union
	would just hand out tactical nukes. They know exactly what they are,
	what they can do, and the old formula that Islam+Nukes=problems.
Point 3: Nobody knows how many nukes Israel has, and I doubt anyone could
	make an estimate either. Israel's nukes are hidden is such a way that
	detection by any forgein government/intelligence agency is quite
	difficult (i.e.hidden form satellite, closed circle, etc..)
Point 4: Anyone interested in such a scenario, read The Sum of All Fears,
	a novel by Tom Clancy. Brilliant book.


-- 
[  Jonathan Zufi                  | rda834x@nellads.cc.monash.edu.au   
[  Robotics & Digital Technology  | zuf@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au          
[  Monash Univeristy, Caulfield	  | "Why?" Topic on English Literature exam. 
[  Melbourne, Australia		  | "Why not?" Student answer, received 99%
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: An nettiquette question...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:35:12 GMT


   Last year, I posted some reviews of classical CD's.  I own and
operate a compact disc business.  Since I have access to a rather
LARGE number of recordings, I felt that my knowledge of classical
recordings might be of use to the music lovers on the network.  I
NEVER mentioned what my business is, and I NEVER offered CD's for
sale on the network.  Every single CD I reviewed is available, or
can be ordered from, any decent record store in the world.  There
were several people that read the reviews, and knew what business
I was in.  They proceeded to tell me what I creep I was for doing
what I did.  I do not think, given the circumstances, that I have
done anything wrong.  I believe these critics to be a bit zealous
in their protection of the network's purity. I would like some of
your opinions on this matter.  Please E-mail me your opinions.  I
have raised this subject here in this group(and this group only!)
for two reasons.  The current flap over a certain book, and those
who can think being present in high concentration, are why I have
asked for feedback here.  Thanks.
-- 
"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."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: rdtst+@pitt.edu (Richard D Thorne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Lehi and nazies
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:32:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

| But it is more reasonable to assume that LEHIs written rationale had
| more to do with what they had in mind, than something being freshly
| invented by posters to usenet.
| --
| Yigal Arens   "He seems like an average type of man.  He's not, like, smart.
| 

	That assumes that the document tells the whole story.  Often that
  is not the case.  You would like us to only look at the issue as you see
  it and disregard the context in which the document was drafted.  Your
  approach is to edit out all conflicting material that contradicts your
  predictably biased presentation of Israel.

	Richard Thorne
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Muslims killed in Yeguslavia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:09:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1387@yetti.UUCP> aboelaze@cs.yorku.ca (Mokhtar Aboelaze) writes:
>
...
>But I don't think that any of what you said is an execuse for 
>shelling civilians in Serajevo, shelling hungary civilians who lined
>up to buy some breads during a ceasa fire, killing babies in a bus
>that was trying to get them out of Serajevo, or shelling
>mourners who gathered to bury the dead from the regular shelling of Serajevo.
...

    The mourners that were shelled in front of the TV cameras were
    attacked with RIFLE GRENADE LAUNCHERS.  I do not know the exact
    range of this type of weapons, but I doubt that the attack could 
    come from the Serb-controlled hills surrounding Sarajevo.  

    Some "friendly fire", perhaps???


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Lehi and nazies
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:23:03 GMT
	<24859@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug16.113052.17236@discus.technion.ac.il>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il's message of 16 Aug 92 11:30:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.113052.17236@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>
> In article <24859@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
> >In article <4663@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> rdtst+@pitt.edu (Richard D Thorne) writes:
> >=>| The allies did many things during WWII which I beleive were unnecessary
> >=>| and wrong. However the only scenario in which you can justify an alleged
> >=>| Jewish nationalist offering to make a pact with the NAZIs is if the
> >=>| British were worse.
> >=>|
> >=>| Phill Hallam-Baker
> >=>
> >=>    With the aid of hindsight it is clear that the Yishuv's
> >=>    decision to not fight the British during WWII was a wise one,
> >=>    but that only makes LEHI wrong not evil.
> >
> >Just remind us again where and when Krystallnacht took place. How perceptive
> >do you have to be to figure out in 1941 that the  Nazis were Baddies? How
> >much of a hypocrite do you have to be to defend LEHI?
>
> C'mon Mr. Henderson, the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto didn't beleive the
> stories from Treblinka, nobody in Palestine was aware to the atrocities
> in the treu extent till 1945. sure there were News but most of them
> were viwed as sensationalistic. I remember that a Jew woman told the
> Tel-Aviv puvlic who queued in front of a cinema: "How could you see 
> movies when your brothers are slaughtered" - they only waved her as a
> "Meshigine" - mad woman.

You seem to be cutting off the branch you're sitting on.

If it was so unclear in 1941 how bad the Nazis really were -- what
exactly was the rationale for LEHI's dealings with them?  It couldn't
have been to save the Jews from certain death, since you just explained
to us that nobody thought that was going to happen...  Some of your
friends here in tpm earlier justified contact with the Nazis as the only
way to save Jews from certain death...

With your intense desire to defend anything connected with Israel (or so
it seems) you're getting yourself into a logical bind here.

In fact, the Revisionist movement (which spawned LEHI and ETZEL) had a
strong fascist element in it.  Read material by Abba Ahimeir sometime.
Many in these groups really did feel an afinity with European fascists,
and I see no reason to doubt what the LEHI people themselves wrote in
their letter to the Nazis: they wanted to form in Palestine a Jewish
fascist state.
--
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
Subject: Re: Schmidling is simply wrong.
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:28:07 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1992Aug11.004546.25790@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>
>Fine, do 
>you also feel that it was injurious to the US or would you have prefered
>a continuation of the US policy of building up Saddam's military for a 
>decade, and his nuclear capability as well?

Sorry, but I'm not buying into this "ends justifies the means"
argument.  Yes, I feel generally that it has proved to be a good 
thing that the Israelis destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor; and no,
I don't believe that there is justification for Israel's actions in 
this area under international law.  I also don't have to believe 
that it's okay for Pollard to spy on his country, just because that 
spying has some ultimately beneficial results.

>Wrong spin.  It demonstrates another instance of the Reagan/Bush team
>making one deal in public and acting differently in private.

So what?  Your characterization is not incompatible with mine.  
Even if Reagan or Bush were completely untrustworthy liars (a
not unimaginable circumstance, IMHO), Pollard was still guilty
of spying.  You, and he, thought it was justified.  Even if it
_was_ justified, it was illegal, and a court concurred.

>Pollard, with access to sensitive information, was years ahead 
>of the US voting public in recognizing the double-dealing in 
>the White House.

Thanks, but I prefer not to automatically glorify those who take 
it on themselves to break the laws of this country because they 
happen to "know better" than the rest of us.

>Why isn't Ollie North sharing a cell with Pollard for life, as well?

What makes you think I don't believe Ollie North _ought_ to be
in prison? 



-- 
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.
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Bosnia, Concentration Camps, Dr.Arens
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:49:43 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug12.201208.28377@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
=>In article <24732@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
=>>In article <1992Aug10.135949.23498@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
=>>=>
=>>=>   Would Jeremy Henderson please explain why opposing the torture
=>>=>of innocent civilians represents hypocrisy on the part of Israel?
=>>=>I'm sure that the fairness and absence of bias that is a hallmark
=>>=>of Henderson's posts will prevail, and from his objectivity shall
=>>=>emerge a reasonable explanation that will make perfect sense.
=>>
=>>No problem, Mark. It is hypoocritical because that is exactly what
=>>Israel is doing today, as you would know if you'd been reading
=>>Yigal's latest posts. It is also hypocritical for Israel to criticize
=>>"ethnic cleansing" because that is exactly what happened post 1948 -
=>>terrorosing people out of their homes and later claiming that they
=>>abandonned them voluntarily.
=>>
=>
=>I think that comparing the situation in the Territories to what goes
=>on in Yugoslavia is another pearl from Jermy's keyborad. Israel's Amnesty
=>record is far from good but it afr better than all her neighbors.
=>most of the violations that occured is directly the Palestinain's fault.
=>comapring it to the rumors that prompted Israel's reaction is beneath 
=>all criticsm.

What I was commenting on was, actually, not Israel's behaviour in the
West Bank and Ghaza Strip, (of course if the shoe fits....) but the
events in the immediate aftermath of 1948 - the oft-referred to Deir
Yassin, etc.


-- 
-Jeremy Henderson            |  Anisotropic
 egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk	     |  Density tensor!  Truly
       			     |  a wonderous thing.
			     |			(Joe Green)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Israel: Chutzpah at the Negotiating Table
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<10315@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:20:45 GMT

In article <10315@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:

   Alan H. Stein writes
   + 
   + In a previous article, stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) says:
   + 
   + >nora gayle rivkis writes
   + >
   + >+ I would have them say they will not try to destroy Israel (they wouldn't
   + >+ succeed anyway) and then back that statement up with both unilateral ac-
   + >+ tions with respect to terrorism and ironclad treaties restricting mili-
   + >+ tary action.
   + >
   + >Yep, that's clear enough, and sufficient. The details may be problematic,
   + >tho. Would the "ironclad" treaties concerning military action be  
   applicable
   + >to Israel as well? Israel has the right to secure borders - but so does
   + >her neighbors.
   + >
   + Since Israel has never had any territorial claims against any of its
   + neighbors, that's a non-issue as far as Israel is concerned.  It would

   Non issue? Would you care to make the claim the Israel WILL NEVER have
   ambitions on her neighbor's land? Nice that you trust the Israeli
   government.

   Someone else proposed that some Arab states give up territory to Israel
   as gesture of good will. My intial thought was "no way". But on further
   reflection, I think this is a good thing. On one condition.

   That the indigenous population be given full citizenship in their new
   country, and that their rights be respected.

I would expect nothing less.  Israel did offer citizenship to the
residents of the areas it "annexed" since 1967 (ie. the Golan and East
Jerusalem), but the most of the residents (in a not unreasonable move,
IMHO) refused to accept it.
--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA