From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (perlman eric)
Subject: Re: Nadia: Cool Out / History & Scholarship
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:30:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.121630.26021@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.233919.18389@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (perlman eric) writes:
>
>>>If I remember correctly from my reading of "Transfer Agreement" and
>>>"Zionism in the Age of Dictators" about two years ago, the cooperation
>>>with Germany was not by "a small splinter group" at all.  It representated
>>>dominant Zionist policy.
>>
>>Obviously, you don't; Leon Gross has refuted this.  Plus, the bias of
>>both these sources has clearly been shown, and I think anyone who has
>>fairness in his or her mind would strongly doubt both sources' veracity.
>>Face it, Behnam, your arguments have been completely refuted.
>
>Hello, Eric.  How are you?

Doing just fine, Behnam, and you?  I'm busy with grad school; I expect
Caltech is giving you plenty of work too.

>Let me reply to your paragraph sentence by sentence.  You say,
>"Leon Gross has refuted this."  I haven't seen such refutation
>(I am following the discussion from soc.culture.arabic).  In fact,
>I haven't seen him comment on the book Transfer Agreement at all.

From memory (our newsreader has already deleted articles from the early
part of last week, and this article was even earlier), I don't remember
if this book in particular was addressed.  

>Then you say "the bias of both these sources been shown."   It doesn't
>require any effort to prove the bias of any book:   Every book is
>biased in favor of its thesis!  

While the above goes without saying, I think you missed my point,
Behnam.    Leon's post went a long way towards demonstrating that the
book was much more.  It ignored evidence to the contrary, preached its
viewpoint in a dogmatic manner, and the like - making it not a work of
history but rather of propaganda.

>Then you say everybody in his right mind should doubt the veracity
>of these sources.     Four comments:  
>
>i)  I think everybody in his/her right mind should "doubt" the veracity 
>of ANY sources, not just these two.  (i.e. don't accept anything blindly).

OK, fine.

>ii) The fact that one source is by a staunch Zionist makes it rather
>"unlikely" that his goal was to attack Zionism.  If anything, he 
>probably wanted to put a good face on the actions of Zionists.

Possibly, but since every piece of evidence I've ever read mentions Lehi
and ONLY Lehi as the ONLY pre-1948 Zionist organization to have any
contacts at all with the Nazis, I'm highly skeptical, at the very least.
Further reinforcing my skepticism is the fact that this charge is so
often repeated by the likes of the KKK.

Not that I'm accusing you of this, Behnam; please don't get me wrong.

>iii)  Leon Gross didn't discredit Brenner's book.  He refuted only a 
>small part of it (and I am not able to confirm/oppose Mr. Gross's
>refutation). 

I disagree completely.  He didn't address the book as a whole, it's
true; however, he addressed the part your previous articles addressed
directly, and discredited Brenner's presentation thoroughly.

>iv)  I haven't seen anything by Mr. Gross on the book Transfer Agreement.

See above.
 
>>It is true.  However, Behnam, what is the chance that he could get a
>>fair trial in Syria?  I'd say essentially zero, given his connections in
>>the Syrian government.  Plus, there is a principle both in American and
>>other nations' laws that says that if possible the accused must fully
>>confront the charges and evidence against him.  This could *not* be done
>>in Syria.  
>
>I appreciate your reply.  Since I know close to nothing about Syria's
>judicial system, I don't have any comment on what you say above.
>
>>Your answer avoids the question.  Alois Brunner should be
>>extradited to ISRAEL for trial.
>
>*Assuming* everything you said above was correct, then this conclusion
>does not follow!   A more logical conclusion would be that Syria must
>first clean up its judicial system and then put the alleged Nazi 
>criminal on trial.    Another equally logical conclusion may be that
>(*depending* on what extradition treaties Syria has with other countries,
>IF ANY) Syria must extradite the alleged criminal to his country of
>citizenship, which I doubt is Israel.

First of all, the question of "country of citizenship" is a difficult
one, now isn't it?  This is a crime of genocide we're talking about, and
particularly an international one.  By law, if you commit a crime you
should be tried in the jurisdiction(s)  where that crime was committed.
However, there isn't much in the way of international law to cover these
sorts of trials, except the Nuremberg trials, and the many war-crimes
trials which have gone on since after Nazi leaders were uncovered - and
most of these, recently, have been in Israel.  It was in Israel, for
example, that Eichmann and Barbie were convicted.  Are you then arguing
that neither Eichmann or Barbie should have been tried in Israel?  The
Jewish state?  I don't buy this.

We agree, by the way, that Syria needs lots of governmental reforms (and
not only in the Judicial system)..

-- 
"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> or <eric@lyra.Colorado.EDU> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder