From: adam@flicker.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: Adam's Disingenuousness (was Re: ADC Condemns Bigotry and Bias Displayed at Israeli Benefit)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:39:10 GMT

In article <Bt7HCy.Myu.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.172636.949@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.200018.16347@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>>>     Mokhiber said, "We sent letter to CBS demanding a public apology
>>>from each of these individuals and an investigation as to whether their
>>>respective positions should be terminated.
>>
>>Why? The comments were not made on the air.  The comments were not
>>made at a publicized forum.  They were made at an exclusive
>>fund-raiser.  Perhaps these people should apologize to those at the
>>fund-rasier.
>>
>>The suggestion of termination for attending, and speaking at a
>>pro-Israel event stinks of blacklisting.  "Are you now, or have you
>>ever been, a member of the Zionist Party^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
>>pro-Israel camp?

>Adam, you are being incredibly disingenuous here.  If Peter Jennings 
>went to an ADC convention and was on record (ie. there are transcripts)
>as saying "You can't believe a word a Jew says" or "Jerusalem belongs to 
>the Arabs", you can be damn sure that the ADL et al. would be calling 
>for heads to roll at ABC news.  (However, I, as part of the "Arab threat
>on our campuses",  wouldn't put the ADL above blacklisting.)

But it was not Jennings, or Rather who is elledged to have made that
statement.  It was Kissinger, who dealt with Arabs extensively as
Secretary of State.  For him to take that position would be similar to
James Baker saying "Those damn Israelis are always saying one thing
and doing another.  They talk peace and build settlements."  

For Rather to say "We celebrate Jerusalems being reunited" is an
acknowledgement of certain historical facts.  We can flame about them.
But the fact is, when Arabs took over Jerusalem, they kicked out the
Jews, and then violated the cease-fire.  When Israel took over, they
allowed Arabs to stay, and offered citizenship.  The difference in
treatment of minorities is quite startling, and it is not
inappropriate for a news anchor to take note when a nation, contrary
to the pattern in the region, behaves in a civilized manner.

>Now, I am not taking a position on this matter because of FAIR's 
>reputation for distorting news reporting.  However, if you accept that 
>Kissinger or Rather said what is alleged, and it wasn't taken out of 
>context, etc., then, in fairness, you *must* reconsider your position.

I did not accept that it was not taken out of context, but even if I
had, I contend that the statement:
"Jerusalem belongs to the arabs, and that is good" is not equivilent to: 
"Jerusalem beloings to the jews, and that is good."  This is because of the
historical differences is the way the two countries have ruled.

Therefore, I disagree that I am being intelectually dishonest when I
say that the statements are acceptable.

Adam


>Anwar Mohammed





Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.