From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
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: 12 Apr 92 01:44:33 GMT
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <JIME.92Apr10223708@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# In article <1992Apr10.170451.3075@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   [Characterizing the rock-throwing youths in the intifada as solely
# >    responsible for their own deaths at the hands of the Israeli soldiers]
# >	    may be propaganda, it may even be one sided, but it is the
# >   truth an it goes a long way in explaining a major portion of the
# >   intifada.  This view would have to play a strong part of any
# >   description that was not propaganda and was not one sided also.

# No, it is merely propaganda

	It may be propaganda.  I am not denying that.  But it is also the
truth.  If you believe it is misleading please say why.  Since the
"palestinians?" themselves glorify these children for their actions, I
think you are barking up a tree you cannot climb.

# designed to ease the consciences of the

	It is what has happened on a day to day basis.  The only
consciences that need to be eased are of the parents, who should be
prosecuted for child abuse.

# occupationists.

	The only occupationists are those Arabs living in homes that are
identifyably marked as Jewish homes by mezuzah holes (a mezuzah is a
Jewish ritual object).  There are many such homes in Judea and
Samaria.

# (Are you one, by the way?)

	No, but what do you mean by this?

# There is plenty of blame
# on both sides.
 
	I agree.  However this does not absolve the "palestinian?" parents
for the abuse of their children.  In fact, I could use your faulty
claim above here about "ease the conscience".  It would be accurate
here about the "palestinian?" parents (or others) who make the claim
about blame on both sides to shiled themselves from charges of child
abuse.

# >   # Israel did _not_ acquire its land in the same way that that America
# >   # acquired its land.  About 5% of the Israeli partition of the
# >  # Palestinian Mandate had been legally bought by Zionists.

# >	   This figure is extremely misleading if not outright false.  If you
# >   take the amount of land bought as a percentage of the amount of land
# >   that was private (land that could be sold), it is much, much higher.
# >   As it is I think your 5% figure should be 7% anyway (but this is
# >   irelevent).
 
# Yes, you are right.  It should be between 7 and 8%, not 5%.  I erred.

	One admission out of several possibilities.  At least we have a
start.

# This modified figure is not misleading at all, however.  Any
# explanations you may wish to offer are merely spins on the simple
# truth that the Zionists didn't buy much of what is now Israel.
 
	This is also misleading if not outright false.  The bought a lot
of what could be bought.  You would then lead the net readership to
believe most was stolen.  It was not.  It went to the State of Israel
legitimately as state land.  The only reason the amount bought was so
low is that you use as your basis land that could not be bought.  If
you use a non misleading basis, the figure is much higher.

# >   # The other
# >   # 95% was ceded to the nascent Israel by the UN and the UK, ...
# >   # partly because the Zionist terrorists were killing and murdering
# >   # Arabs, Brits, and a UN mediator.

# >	   Not only was this not a reason, but for the most part it falls
# >   flat on its face as a lie/untruth.
 
# How so?  Do you mean to imply that the Zionist terrorism was
# _completely_ ineffectual against the British?  Nonsense.

	Do you mean to imply that since you stoped beating your wife ....

	Zionist resistance played a part.  Zionist terrorism, for the most
part (there were minor exceptions) was (as it still is now) a figment
of some propagandists' imaginations.

# >   # The rest of Israel (about half) has
# >   # been acquired by conquest (in wars mostly started by the Arabs).

# >	   For this statement to be correct, you must agree then that those
# >   lands are part of Israel.  At any rate, you seem to ignore that Israel
# >   ceded the Sinai back to Egypt (and not for the first time I would like
# >   to state).  Do you know what percentage of Israel was contained in the
# >   Sinai?
 
# 0%.  The Sinai was never considered to be part of Israel by the world
# community.  That was a trick question, funny huh.

	What the world community considered it was irelevent.  How would
you like it if the world community refused to recognize your property
rights to your own home?  However, for the sake of argument I will
change what I wrote above to this:  Do you know what percentage of
land and wealth under its control Israel let the Egyptians take
control of?

# >  ... the overwhelming majority
# >   of the terrorism was (as it still is) commited by the Arabs against
# >   the Jews.
 
# Substantiate, please.
 
	World events.

# >   # And in my admittedly insufficient reading, Jerusalem was free for
# >   # worship to all faiths under British rule.

# >	   Jerusalem may have been, but certain places outside of Jerusalem
# >   were not.
 
# Backpedaling.  So Israel is _not_ the first power to administer
# Jerusalem and allow freedom of religious expression.  What were these
# "certain places"?

	Certain areas in what is now Judea and Samaria.  However, Israel
is the first local non imperial "power" to allow freedom of religious
expression.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism