From: jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:33:10 GMT
	<1992Apr14.060810.25881@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<JIME.92Apr14123220@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.190527.23560@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Apr14.190527.23560@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr14123220@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   # In article <1992Apr14.060810.25881@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   # Palestinians from their homes is an essentially racist action,
>
>	   Why is it racist?  Even if you claim it to be wrong, they would be
>   deported because they are a threat (and if they agreed to not be a
>   threat, they would not have to be deported), not because of their
>   race.

Certainly a deportation of all Palestinians is racist.  How do you
choose whom to deport?  Not based on previous crimes, for not all
Palestinians have committed crimes.  Not based on actual threat, for a
peace-loving Palestinian (and such do exist) is no threat.  The only
criterion is that the person is a Palestinian, and this criterion is
by itself racist.  Would you include in the deportation order any Jew
who advocates the establishment of a Palestinian state?  Such Jews
exist in Israel.   Such advocacy would be considered by the likes of
yourself to be a threat (please correct me if I'm wrong).  And yet
they would not be deported.  This demonstrates the ultimate racism
inherent in your deportation idea.

>   # I am
>   # surprised that you prefer [deportation of Palestinians] to peace.
>
>	   Wrong.  I prefer peace.  It is just for so many reasons (hatred,
>   the status of Jerusalem - there are a lot more), peace is impossible.

Do you hate the Palestinians?  All of them?

>   # Please list the other examples of forced mass deportation in this
>   # century, and I will comment on them too.
>
>	   Here are just some of the ones I am aware of (I am sure there are
>   more).  After World War 2, Checklosvakia expelled every single ethnic
>   German.  Greece and Tukey have exchanged populations, as have Indiaand
>   Pakistan.  These deportations were forced in order to prevent
>   bloodshed.  It would have been better not to have to deport them.  But
>   the alternative, massive bloodshed, was worse.

There are presently ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia, who have
lived there since before WWII.  The Greek-Turkish problem is also an
instance of racism, and any deportations have not eased the tensions
there.  Ditto for India and Pakistan.

>   # No, you wish to change the Geneva Convention only because it disagrees
>   # with your final solution to the Palestinian problem.
>
>	   You are an imbicile.  Deportations are necessary to PREVENT a
>   "final solution" for BOTH SIDES!

Honestly, name-calling won't get you far.  Anyway, I doubt that an
imbecile would be able to spell "imbecile".

Deportation _is_ your final solution to the Palestinian problem, not a
way of avoiding the solution.  It is also against the Geneva
Convention, and for good reason.  It is not humane, it is not
civilized, it does not solve problems, it only displaces them.  Look
at the PLO.  They have camps outside of Israel, and aperiodically
launch attacks against Israel.  Deportation can't solve the
Palestinian problem.

What would you say about another way of using deportation to solve the
Arab-Jew conflict:  Deport all the Jews from Israel.  That satisfies
the arguments you have stated so far.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3445 soc.misc:577 talk.politics.mideast:10904 talk.politics.misc:18408