From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian boy
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:11:19 GMT

In article <23075@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.045957.15659@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>
>> In article <23061@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
>> >In article <1992Dec15.182856.23705@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>> >>
>> >> ...  I do know that numerous
>> >> PLO-affiliated activists who've stated even slightly non-standard
>> >> opinions have been forced to seek protection from Israeli authorities
>> >> not for being collaborators - which they're not - but just for speaking
>> >> something that some party or other doesn't approve of.
>> >
>> >This often repeated claim is absolute nonsense, completely untrue. .
>> >. .  Can you provide us ONE (1) example of a PLO-affiliated activist
>> >who did no more than state a slightly non-standard opinion, and as a
>> >consequence was forced to seek protection from Israeli authorities?
>>
>> OK, Dr. Arens, here we go.  Go ahead and eat your words:
>
>Mr. Perlman responds to my posting that requested just one example of
>the kind he promised.  That's fine, although it is worth remembering
>that in a subsequent response to me he said he had seen TWO examples in
>the New Republic.  Never mind.
>
>> From the New Republic, November 23, 1992, p.28 (Article "The Palestinian
>> Meltdown" by Steven Emerson): "The first Palestinian to openly criticize
>> the internal killings was Adnan Damiri, a Fatah activist who had served
>> in an Israeli jail for training in a Palestinian terrorist camp in
>> Lebanon.  In a June 1991 article in Al-Fajr, the second-largest
>> Palestinian newspaper, Damiri wrote that 'the revolution has started to
>> swallow its children.'  He criticized the roving groups of teenage
>> executioners.  'One cannot tolerate such punishment by people who were
>> not elected ... many of those who were killed were innocent of
>> collaboration ... the dream of the intifada has turned out to be a
>> nightmare ... if this continues, we're going to leave the country like
>> Rechavam Ze'evi [the ultra-right-wing Israeli Knesset member who
>> advocates "transfer" of the Palestinians to Jordan].  Almost immediately
>> after he published his article, Damiri was threatened by the death
>> squads and forced to seek protection from Israeli security forces on the
>> West Bank."
>
>Let's compare what was promised with what we got.
>
>Mr. Perlman said:             We got:
>---------------------------   ----------------------------------------
>"I know of numerous ..."      One (1) case.  Of course, I only
>                              challenged him to produce one.  But for
>                              his own peace of mind and self-image, I
>                              hope he can quote a few more.
>
>"slightly non-standard        Mr. Damiri characterized killing of
>opinion"                      collaborators as "nightmare", comparing
>                              activists engaged in such to ultra-right-
>                              wing Israeli Knesset Member who advocates
>                              "transfer" of Palestinians.

NO.  This is completely misquoting what Mr. Damiri said.  He
characterized the killings, *in general* as a nightmare.  As I showed in
that message, and as you so conveniently ignored, the vast majority of
those killed for "collaboration" are completely innocent.  Even
Palestinians now admit this.  Please learn to take words at face value
instead of twisting them to meet your own aims.

>"forced to seek protection    Steven Emerson's word that this is what
>from Israeli authorities"     happened. 

Yes.  So is there a reason why Mr. Emerson's word is not good?

>Before I continue, let me make it perfectly clear that I object to any
>threats against Mr. Damiri for what he wrote in Al-Fajr.  I think this
>is completely unjustified and inexcusable.
>
>Having said that, though, even in this single case, I doubt that one can
>fairly  characterize the opinion expressed by Mr. Damiri as "slightly
>non-standard".  Think what you want of the killing of collaborators,

Once again, this is *NOT* what he said.  Please learn to read the
English language.  If you don't believe what I posted I encourage you to
go back and read the LA times article which Ron Evans mentioned.

>this is something that is quite widely supported in the Palestinian
>community in the occupied territories.  Witness the massive support
>shown to members of one of the hit squads when they were temporarily
>trapped in a West Bank university a couple of months ago.  Hundreds of
>community members came to their support and eventually the Israelis had
>to let them go.  So comparing the effects of the actions of such people
>to a fullfillment of the desires of an ultra-right-wing Israeli MK is
>certainly not run-of-the-mill.

The fact is, we don't know the exact level of support.  No polls have
been taken.  Second, I reiterate the fact that the vast majority of
those killed by the "hit squads" are completely innocent.  "Death
Squads" a la El Salvador is a much more appropriate name.  

>Again, I still firmly believe that Mr. Damiri is entitled to his opinion
>and should have the right to express it freely -- but it is not just
>"slightly non-standard".

I disagree.  It is when you twist it as completely as you have done, Mr.
Arens.  But what you say he said is clearly not what he wrote.  It is
also a clear distortion of the truth about the Death Squads.

>As for "seek[ing] protection from israeli authorities", I would like to
>check that out.  There have been many disagreements among intifada
>activists, I've even witnessed this one occasion.  It stretches
>credulity to think that anyone involved (except for a true collaborator
>working for the Israelis) would consider going to them for "protection".
>Mr. Damiri has spent time in Israeli jails -- he knows exactly what the
>Israelis are up to.  Steven Emerson provides no detail.  I'll see if I
>can find out anything.  In the meantime, let everyone feel free to
>believe the New Republic on this.

Please do.  I don't think, however, that it stretches credulity to
think that Mr. Damiri would go to Israeli authorities if he really
thought his life were in danger.  Yes, he knew what he was doing - but
as Steven Emerson's article showed, free speech has been one of the most
persistent casualties inflicted by the Palestinians on themselves during
the intifada.  

Note that in one sentence above, Dr. Arens treads very close to a
guilt-by-association argument.  He argues that 

"It stretches credulity to think that anyone involved (except for a true
collaborator working for the Israelis) would consider going to them for
'protection'."

He therefore comes very, very close to the accusation that because he is
going to the Israelis for protection, he must therefore be a
collaborator.  He certainly makes the case that it is a strong piece of
attitudinal evidence for that charge.  Of course this is utter balderdash.

>But this still leaves us with the broader point made by Mr. Perlman.
>His claim was that many people who merely stray slightly from the
>"official" line on Palestinian issues are threatened/attacked/killed as
>supposed collaborators.  This is simply not true.  There is great
>diversity of opinion within the Palestinian community, which is
>expressed freely.  

There is certainly diversity of opinion in the Palestinian community,
but Mr. Damiri's only "crime" was speaking the truth - that those who
are killed are *NOT* collaborators, by and large, and that it is ruining
what the Intifada sought to achieve.  

>Currently, people in the occupied territories are in
>the throes of a great debate between "nationalists" (supporters of the
>PLO) and "religionists" (supporters of Hamas).  These two groups hold
>pretty divergent views on Israel (PLO accepts, some in Hamas do not),

No, PLO does not accept the existence of Israel.  Yasser Arafat has
numerous times contradicted himself on this claim after the famous
"Algiers declaration."  He has never said, in a clear way "I accept 
Israel's right to exist."

>negotiations (PLO for, Hamas opposed), an Islamic state (PLO against,
>Hamas for).  Expressing any groups position is far more than a slight
>deviation from the other's position, and yet these people are not
>engaged in a civil war.

Actually, they're getting close to it - many of the killings by
Hamas-associated death squads are of Fatah-associated activists.  The
amount of documentation for this is too long to list.

>As for Mr. Perlman himself, I can only end by reminding our readers that
>while he has responded to my challenge (to find ONE example -- which
>although not perfect, I'm willing to accept for now), he has done
>absolutely NOTHING to defend his original claim, which I reproduce
>below, in case he's forgotten it:

Don't bother.  You've provided absolutely no evidence to impugn it, Dr.
Arens.  You've tried to impugn it by innuendo, deliberate twisting of
Mr. Damiri's writings, and the like.  That simply will not wash. 

-- 
"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