From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: How to destroy a population
Date: 8 Nov 1992 06:50:59 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

In article 15120@cbnewsl.cb.att.com, sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal) writes:
>In article <1dd482INNf5r@manuel.anu.edu.au>, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes: 
>> In article <dfs.720976414@crusher>, David Skoll writes:
>> >I just want to take issue with one point that Brendan makes:
 
>> >In <1d8bcpINNper@tyl.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:

>> >>Your first sentence is illogical.  It is easier to destroy a
>> >>dispersed (thus weak) population than a concentrated one.

>> >I don't agree.  It has been the policy of those wishing to destroy
>> >populations to concentrate them in ghettos first.  We saw this with
>> >the Nazis, and we see it now in Bosnia, as ethnic "cleansing"
>> >concentrates minorities in a few small centers.

>> I can't argue with your first example, and won't argue with the second.
>> However, there is an awfully big difference between concentrating a 
>> largely powerless (in military terms) population in a ghetto and enriching 
>> the population of a nation state with a proven army.

>I don't understand this Brendan.  Were Iraqi Jews a "proven army"?
>I don't know for sure, but I would bet that they weren't given
>much access to the Iraqi military, and if they were, would avoid
>it at all costs.  Until the Haskala came to Europe, this was the
>rule there, among Sephardim and Ashkenazim.  I'm pretty sure that
>the Greek Jews avoided the Greek army until the 20th century.
>The Iraqi Jews were the most religious of the Sephardic communities,
>I doubt they would have much military value.  The few who worked in
>the Mossad were hardly an army.

Sorry, my wording was ambiguous.  The "proven army" referred to Israel,
not to Iraqi Jews.  To follow your analogy, if the Nazis wanted to 
kill all the Jews of country X (under Nazi control), they wouldn't
begin by shipping them all to country Y, which was independent of
Nazi control and had recently defeated the German army.

>> I really can't agree with Seth's idea that Iraq tried to weaken Israel
>> by allowing its Jews to leave.  (It did have plenty of other reasons,
>> though.)  Amongst other things, they didn't expect more than a few
>> tens of thousands to take the opportunity (general agreement between
>> sources).  One thing that nobody mentioned yet is that Iraq originally
>> proposed a 1-1 swap for displaced Palestinians, but this deal fell
>> through due to opposition from the Arab League and the Palestinian
>> leadership.  (Syria made an offer like that too; I forget the details.)

>Depends on whether you think there is strength in numbers,
>or if sending a population that is penniless, sickened and hungry
>by months in detention centers, is going to help or hinder
>the economy, especially while the buildings still have shell
>holes, the streets are still not all functional, etc.

It's a matter of timing.  In the short term (months), dealing with 
a massive influx of refugees would have weakened Israel, but in the 
long term (years) it had the opposite effect.  Your argument only
makes sense if Iraq intended war with Israel almost immediately.
It is probably true that Iraq (and other Arab states) foresaw
another war with Israel when the time was right, but only after
years of preparation.  Israel had soundly defeated them only two
years earlier and had grown considerably in strength since then.
 
>		Seth

Brendan.