From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: LYING BY OMISSION!
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 05:06:33 GMT

In article 22081@usenet.ins.cwru.edu, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   That's all VERY interesting, Brendan.  But one cannot substitute
>personal attacks for responding to the points raised in this flame.

After the things you wrote about me, this is really worth a giggle.

>Analyzing a book, without having read it, is not a very good way to
>enhance one's intellectual image.  

At least I have one, Mark.  There don't seem to be many posters
who think you do.

>                                   Do you think that you might, along
>with the insults, at least TRY to respond to the points raised.  If
>you cannot remember them, I shall refresh your memory.

I have no obligation to respond to the childrens-picture-book sort
of "history" you have been posting.  However, this once I will
reply to your points.  Whether I will bother with you in the
future will depend on whether you can make a sensible response.

>1.  The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947.

I know this very well.  In fact, I have read the whole debate in
the official minutes.  What would you like to know about it?

>2.  The Arab partition was larger than the currently disputed areas.

This is true.

>3.  The Arab world rejected the partition.

This is true.

>4.  The armies of several Arab nations attacked the Jews, killing
>    about 6,000.

This is true, but it is only a fraction of the story.  For one 
thing, you ignore the fact that there was already serious fighting 
within Palestine and that most of it was taking place in the area 
designated as the Arab state.   As just one example, the Arab 
enclave at Jaffa was completely overrun by Jewish forces BEFORE
the end of the British mandate.  

Anyway, I answered this point before.  I will quote myself:
In 1946-7 the Palestinian Arabs (a word too general actually,
as very little hard data is available on what the average Palestinian
thought) took the attitude that the implementation of the UN partition 
scheme was tantamount to a declaration of war.  They proposed instead
a secular state in all of Palestine which would have (in theory; be
as sceptical as you like) given full rights to any Jews currently 
resident in Palestine.  In hindsight, of course, this was the worst
choice they could have made.  They preferred to pin their hopes on the 
military removal of Israel, but failed dismally.  Amongst the reasons 
they failed were the very perfunctory efforts made by the Arab states 
who were theoretically assisting them, and the attitude of the nominal 
commander Abdullah of Jordan, who secretly ordered his troops (the Arab 
Legion, the only highly proficient force on the Arab side) to refrain 
from attacking the area nominated by the UN for the Jewish State.  He
did this in accordance with agreements he had (or believed he had)
with the Jewish Agency.  This is the real reason Palestinians hated 
him--it had hardly anything to do with Jordan being Palestine.

>5.  The opening up of Jerusalem for all religions, ONLY AFTER Israel
>    reunited the city in 1967

What's your point?  Once before I challenged you to find a single
posting of mine where I defended an Arab state.  I repeat the
challenge.

>6.  The Arab world changing its mind about the territory, AFTER the
>    Jews developed the area.

Before 1948 the Palestinians hoped for a state in the whole of
Palestine.  Now many of them (at last) are acknowledging that
what they believe to be their right is an impossibility.  They
are willing to cut their losses and settle for less.  This is
the only sense in which they have changed their minds, and it 
has got bugger-all to do with Israeli development.

>And I have not misquoted you, as you erroneously claim.  I am simply
>accusing you of omitting from your discussion of the issue, facts 
>that show a very different picture than the one you are trying to
>create.  The above items are not opinions.  They are statements of
>fact.  If they are incorrect, then say so.  If they are correct then
>be man enough to take them into account in your discussions.  If you
>do not refute them or respond to them in your discussion, then it may
>be assumed that you have an agenda that cannot withstand the ravages
>of historical fact.  I do not claim that the Palestinians are not a
>victimized people.  I merly point out that the Arab world itself has
>been responsible for more Palestinian displacement and suffering than
>the State of Israel.  If you don't believe me, just look at one little
>piece of data.  Who do you think has killed omre Palestinians since
>the beginning of the intifada?  The Israelis or the Arabs themselves?

The Israelis.  About a factor of two, I think.  Deaths at Arab 
hands have only outnumbered them for the past year or so.  Everyone 
knows this except you, it seems.

Finally, this last paragraph shows why debating with you is likely
to be a waste of time.  You have no concept of logic whatever.

Brendan.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast