HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bval@ilws61 (Valentine Bob)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: stones over the wall
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:30:04 GMT
Organization: Intel
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Arens suggests that the stones assembled on the Temple Mount were for
defensive purposes.

Okay.

In this case, there use was a pre-emptive first strike (like Israel '67)
against some anticipated aggression from the Temple Mount group (name?).

So, the Israelis repelled this pre-emptive first strike. 
Successfully, since rocks, even many rocks thrown
down from 30 feet, are not effective against people with guns.

Israel would have fared badly in the '67 war if they had attacked Egypt
with rocks. [And threats from a fringe group who were denied a permit by the
Israeli government are not quite as meaningful as those from Nassar.
But...]

The Intifadah, in general, has been effective strategically, even
as it has been poor tactically. The "kill ratio" as the U.S. called it
during the Viet Nam conflict is decidedly to the advantage of the Israelis
in battling the Intifadah. (As far as I know, only one soldier has been 
killed by a "stone". It was a cinder-block dropped from a roof. And this
is not to ignore the fact that most of the Palestinians killed over the past
few years were to other Palestinians.) 

So I believe that ultimately the Intifadah will succeed, in much the same
way the North Vietnamese succeeded against the U.S. Ths cost of suppressing
the uprising will be greater than the benefits of the territories.

It will take a while, since the cost to the Israelis in relinquishing the 
territories is much greater than that for the U.S. [security, encestral
homeland, etc., etc.] 

And it will be bloody dragging the settlers off the West Bank.

But not as bloody as the first few years of the new Palestinian states
government in-fighting.

Bob
From: rdtst+@pitt.edu (Richard D. Thorne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:17:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

| Nope, WE in the UK defended France in WWII. The US merely helped recapture it.
| 
| 
| Phill Hallam-Baker
| 

	You mean from the start of hostilities to Dunkirk right?  Not
        a shining moment in the annals of military history.

     Richard rdt@med.pitt.edu
From: dan@jonas.berkeley.edu (dan graves)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: NUKE IRAQ
Date: 31 Jul 1992 20:46:12 GMT
Organization: University of California Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jonas.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul31.154958.27820@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
|> 
|> This is not right, I believe. 
|> Democracy is not something defined in the same way to everybody. Nor is
|> democracy the kind of government that everybody in the world choses to have.
|> It is a cultural thing that we, in the western hemisphere, have chosen 
|> a democratic system as our government. And, it has to be related to the 
|> history and traditions of the people. Other people with different traditions
|> and cultures might choose other system of government.
|> Now, the antiwestern attitude of Iraquies is not different from the 
|> ani-eastern attitude of most western people. 
|> I do not see why we should go there and imposse our system of government 
|> (and life).
|> 
|> AAp

Democracy is simply rule by the people,  letting the people
determine by one mechanism or another how to run their own lives.
This may be an ethnocentric point of view, but i don't think 
many people CHOOSE to live under the brutal dictatorships of
Iraq and Syria.  Hussein and Assad maintain power solely
by ruthless force.  Whatever ethnic background, democracy
is the only legitimate form of government.

dan
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem)
Subject: Re: Zachary Baumel
Reply-To: hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:15:56 GMT

In article <JqqkoB3w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>,
murray.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
> > The conditions at the Khiam prison in southern Lebanon, where Israel
> > places its captives from the area, are notorious.  If you are not aware
> > of this place, you should probably take the trouble to find out.  Just
> > recently, I beleive, another report concerning the goings on there was
> > put out by some humanitarian organization.
> > --
> Israel does not run thios prison but rather the SLA, and they are Arabs.

....but, of course, Israel pays them. Furthermore, Khiam is in Israeli
controlled territory and so Israel is guilty of knowingly allowing
attrocities to occur within its domain.

Brad Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: flax@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare)
Subject: Re: FACTS EVERY ISRAEL BASHER MUST AVOID!
Reply-To: flax@mizar.docs.uu.se
Organization: Dept. of Control and Systems, Teknikum, Uppsala
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:59:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.055738.8110@mcs.kent.edu>, rayes@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Sandra Rayes) writes:
|> In article <EeOr_aW00WB2EUcVcI@andrew.cmu.edu> Radu Eugen Edelstein <re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> >
|> >I say:
|> >How do you explain the fact that the piles of rocks were prepared
|> >in advance, that the "worshipers" went directly to those piles at
|> 
|> HAHAHAHA...what a load of crap!  How were the Muslims supposed to
|> know that right-wingers planned a rally that day?  Do they make
|> a habit of informing their enemies of their rallies?

|> Do you think the SOLDIERS who patrol the Mosque courtyard just let
|> Muslim build a pile of "killer rocks" just in case???

Pardon me, but have you _ever_ been to the Al Aksa?
Last time I went there Israeli soldiers were not allowed in the
area, but only to guard the _entrances_ to it. I thought this
was quite sensible.

--------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Flygare, 		+ Wherever you go, there you are
V{ktargatan 32 F:621	+
754 22 Uppsala, Sweden	+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Iraq/Kuwait border dispute?
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:36:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.092107.29660@discus.technion.ac.il>,
davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
|>In article <1992Jul29.015322.90002@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu
|>(Anwar Mohammed) writes:
|>>In article <1992Jul28.195953.14935@cs.ubc.ca> yogi@cs.ubc.ca (Yossi
|>Gil) writes:

|>>>A friend of mine, (who is not an Iraqi himself, but probably closer to the
|>>>Iraqi side then to the Kuwaiti one) said that the Kuwaitis are in danger
|>>>that this demand would backfire on them.  Should this be realized "even
|>>>the opposition of Iraq would never forgive the Kuwaitis". He mentions that
|>>>the Iraqis are known for years in the Arab world as the most stubborn,
|>>>persistent and aggressive of all Arab nations.
|>>
|>>Who cares?  If this is true, they will never forgive the Kuwaitis for
|>>resisting their occupation and taking steps toward self-preservation.
|>>If Iraqis can't forgive Kuwaitis for the mistakes of their own government,
|>>then they'll never get themselves out from under this brute, Saddam
|>>Hussein.
|>>
|>>In general, though, I disagree with this assessment of the situation.
|>>Nationalistic stereotypes aside, the region would be much better off
|>>if Saddam Hussein was overthrown and the GCC states chipped in to
|>>help Iraq rebuild (a Marshall plan for Iraq).

Given that Saddam was for years tipped off about internal dissent within
IRAQ byt the CIA, given weapons and generaly counted as one of `our'
side, despite gassing the Kurds, attacking Iran etc. etc., it hardly
seems likely that the aims of the GCC countries has a great deal to do
with altruism.

Taking land from Iraq and giving it to Kewait sounds like an ideal way
of guaranteeing a second gulf war.

|>Only, Bush got cold feet all of a sudden in 28 Feb. and announced a
|>uni-lateral cease fire. What a blunder! He only had to wipe out Sadam
|>remaining forces.

And do what precisely? In case you hadn't noticed foriegn occupations
arn't too popular in those parts. Go in as liberators on day 1 and
within two months the people who hailed you as liberating heroes are
lobbing bombs bombs at you.

The most stupid blunder Bush made in the war was giving Saddam the
dignity of a battle. Forcing the Iraqui's to go home without a fight
would have dishonoured him, in that part of the world you can loose a
battle (especialy to the great Satan) but you can't loose face. 

|>The Goal of the war was mistakenlt defined as "liberation of Kuwait"
|>it should have been the "Taming of unscrupulous states in the ME"

Yes making ME states bow down to superior fire power. Gosh what a great
way to prove our moral superiority, lets just kill a couple of hundred
thousand extra Iraquis. That's really going to convince them that
democracy is a great thing.

Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem)
Subject: Re: Israel Cancels Building in the West Bank
Reply-To: hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:44:37 GMT

Alan Stein (AS) writes in response to me (BH):

BH>If you know of any Palestinian launched rocket or artillery attacks on
BH>Israel which have occurred since summer of 1991 (when the Palestinian
BH>fighters in Lebanon were disarmed) I would be interested to know your
BH>source of information.

AS>I confess that I have not kept a database of the numerous rocket attacks on
AS>the Galilee launched from Lebanon recently.  One particular attack in the
AS>last few months that comes to mind, although I forget the names,
AS>thoughtfully killed a very young (I believe pre-school) girl as she ran to
AS>greet her father when he came home one day.

BH> I have heard of none. Some people (yourself,
BH>perhaps) have trouble believing things that they don't want to be true.

The incident that you mention followed the Israeli assassination of
Sheikh Abbas Mosavi (who was Secretary General of the Lebanese
Hezbollah). If you recall, a small number of rockets were launched into
Israel, presumably by the Hezbollah. To my knowledge, this was the first
and only time that Hezbollah has ever launched a rocket attack into
Israel or attacked Israel directly. The rockets were not launched by
Palestinians. Furthermore, the strikes into Israel ceased within a week
of Mosavi's assassination, while Syria and Iran were publicly expressing
concern about the attacks and pressuring the Hezbollah to concentrate on
attacking the Israeli occupiers and not on Israel.

BTW, you may have noted my recent post concerning the transfer of the
Hezbollah compound in Baalbek to the Lebanese Army. You should pay more
attention to what is going on in Lebanon. It is a great mistake to
confuse the actions of the Lebanese with those of the Palestinians and
it is a great mistake to ignore the positive developments toward Israeli
security. 

Brad Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: ISRAEL JOINS THE CIVILIZED WORLD
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:22:05 GMT

In article <24152@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:

>If this is the most profound criticism you can come up with, I think that
>says a lot about the bankruptcy of your position. Why don't you read a 
>little about your hero's dealings with the Nazis, and stop talking rubbish.

Are you ignoring the questions on which "murderous gang" you allege Shamir 
to be a member of and how many people you believe they have killed recently
because you routinely ignore questions or because you know that you are 
dead wrong?

>I think the part of Pee Wee's Big Adventure that you're trying to remember
>here went something like "I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say
>bounces off me and sticks to you". Maybe you can re-view your video and
>find a new debating technique before posting again.

I've never seen this film, but thanks for recommending it to us grown-ups.

BTW, are you still incapable of recognizing the difference between terrorists
like Arafat and between politicians like the ones who get elected routinely 
in most countries?


-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Prote
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:09:47 GMT

<24131@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:

##I wonder if the fact that Edwards is a hate-monger, or the fact that he had
##little regard for facts and made up absurd, inflammatory statements such as
##"Yitzhak Shamir and David Ben Gurion colluded with the Nazis during World
##War II" could have had anything to do with his well-deserved canning. 
#
#Maybe he was referring to the 1941 offer of the LEHI group, commanded by
#Shamir, to co-operate with the Nazis against the British (Ha'aretz, Jan 31,
#1983).

a) And what does that have to do with Ben-Gurion?

b) I remember reading the exact letter sent from Lehi to some Nazi official
   regarding this cooperation. It specificaly mentioned that the cooperation
   would involve moving the Jewish population of Europe to Palestine. One
   has also to remember that the nature of the Nazi genocide *was not* yet
   known, and, in fact, in 1941 (perhaps somewhat can get the exact date
   of the letter) there wasn't yet an organized extermination program
   around; the death camps weren't built yet, and there was hardly a clue
   as to what the Nazis were pursuing. It was definitly known that they
   were rabid antisemites, and word of scttered massacres was proabably
   getting around, but the extent and methods of the mass murder were not
   applied yet.

   If one does not look at this in a cynical way, it can definitly be
   interpreted as an attempt to get the Jews of Europe out of there and
   into Palestine.

c) For fairness sake, one should remember the open admiration top Arab
   leaders, like Sadat and Hussein, expressed towards Hitler and Eichmannn,
   and that Syria is *still* harboring one of the most notorious Nazi
   war criminals. I find this much worse that the Lehi attempt to
   cooperate with the Nazis in 1941.

-Danny Keren.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Prote
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:15:41 GMT

In article 24131@castle.ed.ac.uk, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>=>In article <1992Jul23.182600.16986@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:
>=>>
>=>>In a previous article, awair@igc.org (Arab World and Islamic Resources) says:
>=>>
>=>>>
>=>>>From: Arab World and Islamic Resources <awair>
>=>>>Subject: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Protest
>=>>>
>=>>>July 1st was the last program on KALW-FM (San Francisco Bay Area)
>=>>>regularly hosted by Colin Edwards, who for several years on that
>=>>>station has given valuable information and commentary on the
>=>>>Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 
>=>>
>=>>I wonder if the fact that Edwards is a hate-monger, or the fact that he had
>=>>little regard for facts and made up absurd, inflammatory statements such as
>=>>"Yitzhak Shamir and David Ben Gurion colluded with the Nazis during World
>=>>War II" could have had anything to do with his well-deserved canning. 
>
>Maybe he was referring to the 1941 offer of the LEHI group, commanded by
>Shamir, to co-operate with the Nazis against the British (Ha'aretz, Jan 31,
>1983).

Shamir wasn't commander then, but a subordinate of Stern.
More in another posting.

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:25:16 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Jul23.031418.9056@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <0eOrGre00WB28UcXJa@andrew.cmu.edu>, Radu Eugen Edelstein
><re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>|>Hallam writes:
>|>I think that it is more enlightening to consider that no member of the
>|>security council recognises the Israeli annexation of Eastern Jerusalem
>|>
>|>
>|>I say:
>|>According to what I know, the US does recognize Eastern Jerusalem as
>|>part of Israel.  It is Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel that
>|>the US has problems with.  I think someone recently posted something
>|>similar to what I am saying.
>
>Since I remember the immense panic after Gary Hart made his election
>promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem I can guarantee that this is
>false. The US does not recognise the anexation of East Jerusalem.

Excuse me, but as embassies are located in a nation's capital, it seems
that a panicked refusal to move an embassy to a particular city could
equally well represent an unwillingness to recognize the city as a part
of the country or an unwillingness to recognize the city as the country's
capital. You've given no evidence either way.

>Phill Hallam-Baker

	-Nora
From: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Subject: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NON-AGENDA
Reply-To: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 02:09:09 GMT


In a previous article, noah@acs.harding.edu () says:

>This is completely off the subject, but if you listen to Rush Limbaugh at
all >you have heard him talk about Comp-U-Serv.  I know you can send mail
to members >of Comp-U-Serv.  How is this done and does anyone know Rush's
address.  >Thanks > >John Noah >Noah@acs.harding.edu >

Just mail it to id@compuserve.com, where id is the user's id, but with a
period substituted for the comma. 
-- 
bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: WHAT DID YOU EXPECT???
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:45:53 GMT


   I have read numerous complaints about the continued posting of
Jack Schmidling's beliefs, in spite of the fact that he said that
he would leave this group.  Of those who expected him to keep his
word, I must ask the obvious.  WHAT DID YOU REALLY EXPECT?  After
all, you know what this person is like.  How could you believe an
individual such as this would suddenly stop lying?  It can happen
that people see the light and decide to become honest.  But it is
not a good idea to expect it.
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
From: brian@baja.Corp.Sun.COM (Brian Edge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: NUKE IRAQ
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:55:33 GMT
Reply-To: brian@baja.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: baja.corp.sun.com

>Opher D. Kahn In article 23245@ncsu.edu, odkahn@eos.ncsu.edu (Opher D. Kahn) writes: 

>Let's imagine a slightly different scenario.  Lets say the US did not
>have veto power in the UN security council, and all the other countries
>decided they want to eliminate the terrible threat of nuclear war by
>disarming the U.S.  Don't you think more than a few Americans would rise
>in protest if UN and perhaps Russion and Chinese representatives wanted
>to gain entry to federal buildings in D.C. and search for evidence of the
>U.S.'s weapons programs???  I know I would.  The fact that some majority
>or powerful portion of the U.N. decided they have the right to do with
>Iraq as they please does not have to satisfy the Iraqi people!


 If the U.S. was at war with another nation or group of nations and the
 U.S. lost, then yes the U.S. would have to allow the victors to do as
 the pleased.  To the victor goes the spoils.  
 
 The US kicked their butt!!  It is our right to inspect anything in Iraq
 that want, whenever we want or we will kick their butt again!
 
 Mark my words:  The US will go back to war with Iraq if Saddam remains
 in power.  Its just a matter of time and the next time, Saddam will
 not survive.
 
 Brian@baja 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:14:28 GMT

In article <37402@imag.imag.fr> oueichek@ngulu (Ibaa Oueichek) writes:
>perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>: In article <11102@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@stars.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo) writes:

[Translations deleted for brevity]
D
>:In any case the question of wording in French is rather
>: pointless, since the resolution was debated and drafted in English,
>: therefore the English text is the official wording by the UN's own
>: rules.  End of story.
D
>  Very good, someone asks for the French version, when i post it and explain
>its meaning and how it speaks for THE territories, Mr Perlman comes and says
>"pointless". If i remember well (and i'll verify this one) there is nothing as
>"drafted in English", the French draft is an *original* one drafted 
>SIMULTANEOUSLY with the English one, it has the SAME value, La France adopts 
>an official position based on the French draft, and not on the English one.

No, France chose to vote for the resolution submitted in English, by
the British.  They may have chosen to vote based on an official
translation into French, but that is *quite* different from voting on
their own draft, submitted in French.

The French draft has historical value in that it was an alternate
point of view.  The fact that the English, ambigious version was
adopted, instead of the French version (and I don't know French, so I
won't try to comment on it), was a political decision by the French
Government. 

>  It's obvious that the US has chosen carefully to put enough ambiguity in the
>English draft to play with the interpretation later.

Almost exactly.  Except it was a British draft, and it was adopted by
the UN, unlike the French draft.  So, the US saw to it that 242, as
adopted by the Security Council, had in it some flexibility which
could be negotiated by the Israelis and Arabs.

> Your position reflects
>some disrespect to the France and to the international institutions
>in general,  because it means that there are "superior" nations that
>impose their will on others even if those other nations are civilized
>and welthy. No wonder why the France has left the NATO and why
>Europeans are doing their best to kick Yankees out of Europe. 

There is no disrespect involved in choosing a language to write
legalese in.  Your claim that this is an insult to France is an prime
example of why I complain we defended the ****ers for 40 years.


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.