From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: casualties during the Intifadah
Date: 12 Oct 92 03:51:22 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

Hello again Phil ... :-)

In article <XBRgsB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:
>
>Anisa, you're quick to quote figures from The Washington Report, but
>most readers are probably aware that The Washington Report is very
>anti-Israel in its very nature.  Pete McCloskey is one of their
>leaders, along with the chief editor, Richard Curtiss.

Phil, who are these two men?  Black-listed by the Anti-Defamation league?
Vicious anti-semites?  I didn't find Pete McCloskey's name in the inside cover.
You say he is "one of their leaders"?

As far as I am concerned, and what Sandra said previously, the Washington Report
offers a variety of viewpoints which does not follow mainstream media reports,
although it does include many articles from well-known publications and other
sources.

I would like to quote you their disclaimer (on the inside cover) which reads:

	"The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take
	partisan domestic political positions.  As a solution to the
	Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses UN Security Council
	Resolution 242's land-for-peace formula, supported by six
	successive US presidents.  In general, it supports Middle East
	solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of
	the United Nations and traditional American support for human
	rights, self-determination, and fair play."

I don't understand why people like yourself feel that any views that do
not follow mainstream, pro-Israeli ones are non-credible and anti-Israeli
(and I know that you and others hear subscribe to the theory that if a
person does not support Israel, they are automatically anti-semitic).  I
have read this time and again by posters and it simply is not fair practice.
It isn't that I do not believe that the material is favorable to one side
and not the other, but it doesn't mean that the material published is
non-factual, invalid, and non-credible.  I am still not clear on what basis
you and others can make this assumption.  I think you should keep in mind
that the material is based from personal portraits (while there are also
articles from current news and from re-printed newspaper articles) and if
it does not support yours or others' theories and conclusions doesn't mean
that it is anti-Israel.  We are to hold a variety of philosophies and
perspectives that makes us a complete person and more sensitive to the
situation.  I believe that is why I like to post these various articles.


>"We must confront Israel.  We have to face the fact that they may
>become our enemy and be as great a threat to world peace as Saddam
>Hussein." -- Pete McCloskey.

>"Since the end of the Second World War, every major crisis in the 
>region has been directly or indirectly connected to the question of
>Palestine." -- Georgetown professor Hisham Sharabi.

You didn't include any references or dates.  How am I to know if
these people really said this?
 
With clowns like these running The Washington Report, keep quoting
them, Anisa.  It undermines your credibility on Middle East issues
even further.  You're dragging yourself down to the Elghani level.

Phil, I have heard this 'if you continue, you will undermine your
credibility' too often, and to tell you the truth, it doesn't matter
if I believed in your ideas or not or was pro-Israeli or not.  I
present my ideas and my feelings on this forum and they are here for
people to read, reflect, and take if they want - leave if they want.
I never wanted to be anyone's idea spokesperson or philosopher and
if you can't accept what I have to say, that is your problem.  We
can agree and disagree and still be friends here.  You don't have to
undermine my respect or intelligence.

Anisa