HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein)
Subject: Re: Oct 1973: Yom Kippur War (To Husam)
Organization: NYSERNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:36:26 GMT

chedley@carthago.intel.com (CHEDLEY_AOURIRI) writes:

>What's the difference between Warfare and Defense...? It is the same thing.
>The only difference is in the semantics: you accuse your opponent
>of conducting warfare against you, but if you do the same, that's
>Defense!!

1948.  A dozen (roughly) Arab armies invade the newly recreated state
of Israel.  That's warfare.

Israel prefers not to have its people slaughtered.  That's defense.

>Well, Israel is really NOT just a minor piece of real estate in the sand, 
>as you put it.
>For Arab states and countries, what is at stake is the future of
>Palestinians, including those who have not been chased out of their
>homeland and given second class citizenship in Israel.

People with short memories, who don't recall that Egypt and Jordan
were in control of Judea, Samaria and Gaza for 19 years and had ample
opportunity to set up a third Palestinian Arab state, might swallow
that hogwash.

>Beyond that, there is the political and psychological meaning of the 
>creation of "the zionist entity", which the Arabs have to swallow.

Why is that a problem?  Are they all racists?

>Here's a state created by the western colonial powers in the hart of 
>Arab land,

Created by its own people, not the western colonial powers (who sat by
while Israel was invaded), and in the midst of Arab lands, but not on
Arab land.
-- 
Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Israel Apartheid????
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:03:29 GMT

mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael Gschwind) writes:

#The Law of Return is definitely racist, it meets all the criteria - it
#singles out groups according to race & religion, per definitionem
#racism! 

1) The law of return has no relation to race, only to religion. you
   better check out before you make such accusations.

2) The law does not treat non-Jews in any racist way, because no
   country in the world just lets anyone come in. It does give
   Jews a special benefit in that they come to Israel without any
   restrictions. Considering the fact that Jews have been
   persecuted and murdered almost everywhere they lived, culminating
   in the Holocaust when the world stood looking and shrugged, I
   think the law is understandable. Seeing what is happening recently
   in Germany, Italy and Austria makes it even more understandable.

-Danny Keren.
From: abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Egypt and the Arab world
Summary: Apology for hasty remark, and some questions.
Keywords: Muslim brotherhood, Egypt
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:23:22 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <Bx988s.8tA@newsflash.concordia.ca> ilyess@Davinci.Concordia.CA (Ilyess Bdira) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.040250.26218@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad) writes:
>>
>
>>Sure, to supress the tens of millions who want nothing to do with them!
>>
>I do not have time to answer your false claim here, I will just give you
>the ast news about Egypt, maybe the give a partial answer:
>

(Please refer to the original posting by Mr. Bdira for the omitted news-clip)

My statement was incorrect and paranoid.  Thanks for calling it simply a
"false claim"  (lessons to be learned here, fellow netters!).  However,
I would like to express some apprehensions about a "Muslim Brotherhood"
government in Egypt:

(1)  What would be the status of Egypt's relations with Israel?

(2)  What kind of Economic system would the 'Ikhwan' embrace? I'm 
     specifically concerned about sound economic principles like fixed
     interest rates, government insurance of private deposits, ...etc.
     that are interpreted as violating Islamic principles.

(3)  What level of censorship would the 'Ikhwan' impose?  Specifically,
     what would happen to foreign and domestic film and TV production,
     satellite reception of foreign TV, exchange of ideas that are 
     considered sacreligious by the media,...etc.

(4)  What kinds of social behavior would be made illegaL?  Would belly
     dancers be banned,  women have to conform to the Islamic dress code,
     alcohol become illegal,...etc.?

I mean these questions to be only half-rhetorical:  I understand that the 
'Ikhwan' have some different opinions from those typically ascribed to
violent extremist groups.  I would like to hear about these differences
especially in connection to the above questions.


Tamer Abdelgawad
From: ccav38@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("I.Ballouz")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: To Mr. Balloz, Thankyou
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:55:41 GMT
Organization: University of Strathclyde

In article <92Nov06.063939.14323@acs.ucalgary.ca> kinawi@acs.ucalgary.ca (Husam Kinawi) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.083543.16875@ccsun.strath.ac.uk> ccav38@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("I.Ballouz") writes:
> 
>Ibrahim, let me say: I doff my hat to your intelligence and civility. If
>all  of our countrymen/women had similar attitudes, we wouldn't have the
>fiasco  nor  the mess our part of the World is in. Arabs would have been
>far better off!
>Thank you very much.
>
Mr Kinawi, 
I am honoured. You and others, have shown me, through your kind replies,
the noble moral values the egyptian people have.

I wish all well.

Thank you.

>Husam Kinawi

I.Ballouz

-- 
*******************************************************************************
* IBRAHIM BALLOUZ            **           DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE          *
* ccav38@uk.ac.strath.ccsun  **  STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY GLASGOW SCOTLAND U.K. *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Bulbul)
Subject: Re: Who is Crepin-Leblond
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:08:32 GMT

mmg@doc.ic.ac.uk (M M Ghanem) writes:

>Well, He is a networking expert, well known for compiling several FAQs
>for networks and internet !

>Moustafa

   So that is why someone forged the article in his name. But
the forger (not an expert) did not know that there is no direct
connection between Imperial College and Ohio State University,
also forgot to override the Sender: field. Also the forger
used a non-existing account as the source of the article.

   The forger is from Ohio State University.

**


Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: jodar@aludra.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna
Subject: Re: ISLAMIC WORLD NEWS (10th)
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:54:50 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <1992Nov11.144312.13782@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:

>>BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA
>>An entire people are being slaughtered before our eyes, yet the
>>world watches with splendid indifference.
>
>I wouldn't exactly call it indifference.  Horror, perhaps, but not
>indifference.  What should we do?  Should we leap into a centuries old
>conflict, guns blazing?  Such a posture would cause far more harm than
>good.  

Do you really think so?  I think the question of how things could
possibly be made worse is worth asking.

>I don't have any solutions, but I know that intervention on the
>part of the UN or the US is inappropriate.

The UN (and the U.S.) are already intervening.  They've cut the
supply lines to those in B-H while allowing Serbia to continue
receiving outside help.  That, and the UN Peacekeeping forces 
are basically working against the Bosnians....

Or did you miss that part?

Well, if you really want to help, there are ways of doing so.
I suggest contacting one of the organizations attempting to 
aid the Bosnians.  Another alternative is to go over there
yourself.

-AQ
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.turkish,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.afghanistan
From: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Bulbul)
Subject: More Forgery: Now A Real One: Who is "Crepin-Leblond"?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:38:47 GMT

   In some article someone trying to shed light on my identity [sic], wrote:

>Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
>Path: cunews!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ic.ac.UK!o.CRepin-leblond
>From: o.CRepin-leblond@ic.ac.UK (Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Olivier M.J. 
      Crepin-Leblond)
>Subject: >> Who is really "Mr. Bulbul" ? <<
>Message-ID: <9211051336.AA27928@cscmgb.cc.ic.ac.uk>
>Sender: daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu
>Organization: Imperial College, London, UK.
>Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:36:41 GMT
>Lines: 160
>
>In this message, I attempt to shed some light over the identity
>of "Mr. Bulbul". I would also ask everyone to exercise restraint
>with their use of foul language. I am amazed that in the course
>of a year, some people have gone down as low as not being able 
>to write a sentence without swear words. Pathetic.

   [Some others even went lower!]
   
   The sender of that post is daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu. Why
would IC use OSU to send its outgoing news mail? Anyway, I hope
the poster of this article is not the one I am thinking of
right now. In that case, how would we know that he did not
forge the paths of the so-called "Sheikh Jaber Subah" to point
wherever he/she/it wishes?

   I think he understands:

** yA  aYoha   Rajolo   lmo^aLimo   .gayrahO   
            haLA  linafsika  kAna  _tha  Ta^lImA
   lA tanha ^an .koloqin wa ta'tiya mithlahO
            ^Uron ^alayka i_thA fa^alta ^a.thImO
                                            Abu-l-Aswad Ad-Du'ali
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ohm Salam)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Marriage:Arab-Americans,Arabs, questions
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:41:39 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

Nabil writes:

[Excellent and well-written points deleted]

>cause more dis-unity rather than unity. Even if local stratification 
>disappears, there is still some regional stratification (for example 
>the Maghreb countries are quite similar but a bit distinct from the Gulf
>countries who are a bit distinct from the "Shamm" countries, etc..).
>These distinctions can be social, cultural, and evidently economical!

I would like to add that within the Gulf states, marriage within the family
is encouraged and promoted more so than other Arab states (from my
understanding of the situation) so as to maintain the strength of the family
in view of status and structure.  There are laws which prohibiting the native
men from marrying foreigners (going to the extent of granting generous loans
to men who marry the women from their own country, as in the case of the
Emirates) and strict limitations, such as Saudi Arabia and Oman.  Of course
the families themselves generally have the influence and usually, final
decision concerning the future spouse.  There is also the question of how
much money the family has and the amount of the dowry, which too many,
unfortunately, view as the primary factor in deciding whether the fiance'
qualifies to marry into the family.

The other matter concerning Arabs in general preferring to marry someone
from their own country holds pretty true, especially in regard to the
issue of compatibility - with social and cultural identity as a key factor.
When observing the cliques in the Arab and Muslim communities, one can
understand how it would be even more tight-knit in view of marriage.  The
song 'bint al-balad, ya walad' rings very clearly now ... :+)

Anisa

Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Normand Arthur Beeline)
Subject: Re: Israel Apartheid????
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:26:55 GMT

aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:

>And what religion, specifically, is that Danny?  Singling out groups
>because they don't meet the criterion of a *religious* group IS infact
>racist.  Before you start defending these policies, you'd better face
>reality first that discrimination on the basis of *race*, *religion*,
>and *gender* IS NOT DEMOCRATIC!  Case in point:  Nazi Germany.

kayfoki yA anIsah?

While this is a chance to criticise the Israeli policy, you should be 
careful with your argument becase it may sound hypocritical to some
(including me!) You know that Islam discriminates among people based
on religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. You should evaluate your
own system with the same rules.

   I do not see anything wrong with the Israeli policy of return, but
I question the right of applying this policy on some piece of land
which belonged to Israel by force and enemy treason. (In fact, I do
not see much wrong even in that.)

>Vat a country!

ve ave vorse contries, mademoisel!

>Anisa

*norm**norm*


Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast
From: astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein)
Subject: Re: Palestine
Organization: NYSERNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:53:04 GMT

mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael Gschwind) writes:

>>   Or have you really forgotten the fact that it was Jordan that attacked
>>   Israel in 1967, that refused to negotiate a territorial compromise

>Trash! Israel attacked!

It's easy to make a case when you ignore history.

Although the first actual attacks of the 1967 war were launched by
Israel after a number of acts of war by Egypt and Syria, Jordan was
not part of that.  Israel pleaded with King Hussein (that well-known
moderate) to stay out of the war, but he attacked Israel anyway.

>Why should the Palestinians give up part of their territory?

You are making an unwarranted assumption--that parts of Eretz Yisrael
are Arab territory.  At this point, they are unallocated portions of
Britain's Palestine Mandate, with their final status up in the air
until an agreement is reached.

>Well, so let the intifada continue, and, inshallah, they might even
>win more international support...

I guess the lives and futures of their children, a generation of which
have already been destroyed by the intifada, are a small price to pay.
Why negotiate a reasonable settlement when you can destroy your
economy, ruin the lives of your children, and kill Jews. (sarcasm intended)
-- 
Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal)
Subject: Re: Israel Apartheid????
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:45:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.173732.28018@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>, ahmed@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
> 
> >2) The law does not treat non-Jews in any racist way, because no
> >   country in the world just lets anyone come in. It does give
> >   Jews a special benefit in that they come to Israel without any
> >   restrictions. Considering the fact that Jews have been
> >   persecuted and murdered almost everywhere they lived, culminating
> >   in the Holocaust when the world stood looking and shrugged, I
> >   think the law is understandable. Seeing what is happening recently
> >   in Germany, Italy and Austria makes it even more understandable.
> 
> You mean the jews in Palestine have the right to do what they are
> currently doing to the Palestinians, because those jews were treated
> badly in Germaany and Italy ?
> 
> I see !

Ooh, boy.  You see how hard it is to get a few simple things
across to people when they are so poorly informed.

Italy???????

Does the poster have even a foggy notion of how few Jews there
have been in Italy since the Inquisition (roughly 40,000)?
Does he also know that during WWII when Jews all over Europe
(except England) were
being massacred, that in the Italian controlled zones, the Jews
were not turned over to the SS?  In Southern France, and the
coastal areas of Yugoslavia, thousands of Jews were saved from
deportation because the Italian occupying authorities refused
to deport Jews in those zones.  In Salonika, the most important
European Sephardic community, the Italians saved many Jews by
pulling them out because they were either Italian citizens,
had once been Italian citizens or were related to Italian
citizens.

Now, in Palestine, the Mufti and his followers put so much
pressure on the British, that transit visas that would have
allowed thousands of Jews to escape central Europe, and go
to either America or Latin America, were denied.  In Latin
America most nations were deliriously happy to get Jewish
refugees, because they were good for the economy, and perhaps
because they haven't forgotten that Latin Americans are descended
mostly from Iberian Jews.  Most of
the Jews turned down for transit visas were gassed.
All because these fanatics were afraid
some of them would stay in Palestine and not complete their
trips elsewhere.  We won't mention the Bosnian Muslim SS brigade
that the Mufti recruited.

In Iraq, the Nazi installed nationalist government sent
representatives to Germany to see how they could deal with
their own "Jewish Problem".  The British liberated Iraq before
anything could be done.

See the comparison?  Personally I'll take the Italians.

		Seth Rosenthal

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own not my employers'.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.arabic:4787 soc.culture.jewish:19486
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:28:28 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: King Hussein is dying

I read a report in yesterday's Globe and Mail that King Hussein of Jordan has
cancer of the urinairy tract and is not expected to live longer than 18 months.
From: abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Oct 1973: Yom Kippur War (To Husam)
Summary: U.S. government has no "steel-trap mind"
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:12:44 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov8.201501.13628@trl.oz.au> a.Faris@trl.oz.au writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.044131.26967@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad) writes:
>|> 
>|> So the war, the thousands that died on all sides, the arab oil embargo,
>|> the emergency airlift from the U.S. to Israel, the Soviet intervention
>|> on behalf of the arabs, the U.N. meetings and cease-fire agreements, ...
>|> etc. , all that was orchestrated by the U.S. to test Sadat ?! And teach
>|> people a lesson about war and peace, so that over the course of two
>|> U.S. presidents (one republican and one democrat) they can convince
>|> Egypt and Israel to sign a peace agreement?!
>|> 
>|> Believe me, the U.S. government is simply not capable of such cleverness!
>
>I think you underestimate the power of the west in those regards. The latest
>fiasco just occured recently that culminated in the bombing of Iraq to the
>stone ages. What was so ironic, even Saddam Huesain was celebrating the defeat
>of G.Bush.
>
>US policy changes only slightly from one administration to another, the aim
>is always the same, and that is US stratigic interests.
> 

Of course the aim of U.S. policy in the middle east is U.S. strategic 
interests.  My point is that their policies to achieve this aim have 
typically been myopic.  The Gulf is a good example:  

1.  The Iran-Contra affair:  'let's give weapons to a regime we adamantly
    oppose, in the hopes of getting back our hostages in Lebanon, so that
    everyone will know that we are not serious when we say we will not
    negotiate with hostage-takers...'. 

2.  The Iraq grain credits:  'Saddam is our man.  Let's give him some 
    money to help build his super-gun.'

3.  The Gulf war:  'Oops, Saddam is NOT our man.  Let's get a few hundred
    Americans killed to pound his country to dust.'

4.  The Bush-Saddam vendetta:  'Let's make this war a personal vendetta
    against Saddam, so that when he's still in power, and Bush out of 
    office, Iraq can laugh their heads off at us.'

I don't think that any of the above actions caused serious damage to U.S.
interests in the middle east.  I simply, to paraphrase Sam Donaldson's 
comment on Dan Quayle, 'do not see a carefully constructed facade that 
hides the working of a steel-trap mind!'

Tamer Abdelgawad
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein)
Subject: Re: Israel Apartheid????
Organization: NYSERNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:44:51 GMT

mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael Gschwind) writes:

>Wait - admittedly, the Israel will not be declared a purely Jewish,
>theocratic state, BUT there exist a number of discriminations: among
>them, you mentioned the army service. (Not that I am a big fan of
>armies) A lot of things in Israel are contingent on having served in
>the army which clearly excludes Arabs from certain benefits, jobs etc.

Not quite true.  For example, Druze (who are Arab) have the same
responsibility for army service as Jews.

>Expropriation of Arab land is mostly no longer a problem in Israel
>proper (since nearly all of it has already been expropriated!), but is
>proceeding at a frantic pace in the occupied state of Palestine and
>esp. its capital, East Jerusalem. 

There is no "occupied state of Palestine."  There has never been a
state of Palestine, and it is impossible to occupy something that
doesn't exist.

The only states Jerusalem, a city virtually ignored by Arabs except
when Jews control it, has ever been the capital of have been Jewish
states.

>The trick here that makes Israel able to proclaim non-racism is that
>citizens of the state of Palestine are NOT citizens of Israel, but of
>an occuppied territory, therefore the have NO rights (or close to no
>rights).

Once again, there is no "state of Palestine," and there never has been
one.  The Arabs who remained in Israel after the War of Independence
were granted citizenship; the Arabs in what had been the Jordanian
occupied sector of Jerusalem were offered citizenship when the city
was reunited in 1967.  There is no justification for blaming Israel
for the Arabs' refusal to become citizens.
-- 
Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org
From: walid@dhvx20.csudh.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Arabs in Latin America
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:59:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: dhvx20.1992Nov11.175949.1
Organization: CSU, DOMINGUEZ HILLS

Salam
If anyone knows the answers to these questions please post.
1. Where are the large arab communities in Latin America besides
Buenos Aires Argentina?
2. Does Panama have a large Arab population
3. How well do Arabs fit into Latin American society, along with
being accepted as Latins if they are born in a Latin American country?
This is interesting since many Arab-Americans (born in the U.S. but
of Arab parents are not accepted as americans and I was told it was
opposite in Latin America)
4. Are the majority of Arabs in Latin America muslim or christian?
5. Do arabs in Latin America tend to marry arabs or marry with people
from that country?

Any answers/ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Salam
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic