HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Apr12.071917.2928@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<JIME.92Apr13012616@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.054637.25386@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:22:36

In article <1992Apr14.054637.25386@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr13012616@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   # In article <1992Apr12.071917.2928@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   # >   In article <JIME.92Apr12012706@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>
>   # >   # >	   However, Israel
>   # >   # >   is the first local non imperial "power" to allow freedom of religious
>   # >   # >   expression.
>
>   # >   # Now as for the rest of your claim, it is so restrictive as to be
>   # >   # meaningless.  ...
>   # >	   How petty can you get?  Fine.  I will amend my statement to be for
>   # >   modern history.  Capish?
>
>   # You still haven't answered the question.  Let me summaraze what I
>   # think you are saying: "Israel is the first local non-imperial power in
>   # modern history to allow freedom of religious expression."
>
>   # My question is: What other local (to Jerusalem, I guess)
>
>	   Your guess is correct.
>
>   # non-imperial
>   # power in modern history are you comparing Israel to?
>
>	   All of them (which means any Middle Eastern country that has
>   controlled it).

Yet again, you haven't answered the question.  Why do you avoid it so?
Name the countries individually, please.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3451 talk.politics.misc:18420 talk.politics.mideast:10917 soc.misc:582
From: ghassoun@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Hassoun)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.misc,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: (Control of the News Media)
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:58:05 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Apr10.130648.6395@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> sasha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alexander.kostomaroff) writes:
>IN THE CASE SOMEBODY MISSED THE MOMENT ON A NEW SPIRITUAL ALLIANCE
>BEING BORN, I'M POSTING A COPY OF A SOUL CRY FROM George Hassoun TO
>ralph "The Nazi" winston:

At the risk of sounding like the defender of `Nazi' tendencies, i would
like you to know that `ridiculing' those whom opinion you don't support,
would not serve your purpose on the long run.

At the time, i posted the article above, i did not have the slightest idea
who Ralph ("The Nazi" as you 'label' him) was. At any rate, i still don't have
any reason to believe your accusations against him. His article about
the Control of the Media in the United States sounded to me very informative
so i asked for a copy of it.

You know some people go by facts, not labels. Please, don't panick and start
writing in capital letters. Be assured, this new spiritual alliance will
not result in a serious threat to the state of Israel..i promise!


>__________________________________________________________________
>>>From: ghassoun@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Hassoun)
>>>
>>>Hello Ralph,
>>>I tried to contact you through private e_mail, my letter bounced
>>>back.
>>>Could you please post me (by e_mail) a copy of your recent article about
>>>the control of the media in the States?
>>>George Hassoun
>>>University of Adelaide, EEE Dpt.
>>>Adelaide, South Australia
>>>email: ghassoun@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au      Phone:(08) 228 5468
>
>FOLKS, REJOICE !!!
>__________________________________________________________________
>
You included every word in my article but the statement that contains
an apology for the other netters whom my article might have annoyed.
I wonder why..

Alexander,
your attitude is cute.

>Alexander Kostomaroff
>Observer Of Passing Events, Falling Empires, and Human Follies.


-- 
George Hassoun
University of Adelaide, EEE Dpt.
Adelaide, South Australia
email: ghassoun@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au      Phone:(08) 228 5468
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
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: 14 Apr 92 18:52:25 GMT
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <JIME.92Apr14122236@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# In article <1992Apr14.054637.25386@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <JIME.92Apr13012616@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# >   # In article <1992Apr12.071917.2928@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   # >   In article <JIME.92Apr12012706@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# >   # >   # >	   However, Israel
# >   # >   # >   is the first local non imperial "power" to allow freedom of religious
# >   # >   # >   expression.

# >   # >   # Now as for the rest of your claim, it is so restrictive as to be
# >   # >   # meaningless.  ...

# >   # >	   How petty can you get?  Fine.  I will amend my statement to be for
# >   # >   modern history.  Capish?

# >   # You still haven't answered the question.  Let me summaraze what I
# >   # think you are saying: "Israel is the first local non-imperial power in
# >   # modern history to allow freedom of religious expression."

# >   # My question is: What other local (to Jerusalem, I guess)

# >	   Your guess is correct.

# >   # non-imperial
# >   # power in modern history are you comparing Israel to?

# >	   All of them (which means any Middle Eastern country that has
# >   controlled it).
 
# Yet again, you haven't answered the question.  Why do you avoid it so?

	You are being dishonest here.  It is obvious that even you
recognize that I answered, and did not avoid, your question.  You just
do not like my answer because it was not specific enough for you.

# Name the countries individually, please.

	How about these two?  The Ottomans and Jordan.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3199 talk.politics.misc:17097 talk.politics.mideast:10344 soc.misc:418
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: 14 Apr 92 05:40:09 GMT
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <JIME.92Apr13012048@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# In article <1992Apr12.071510.2846@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <JIME.92Apr12012428@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# >   # >	   What the world community considered [occupied Sinai] was irelevent.  How would
# >   # >   you like it if the world community refused to recognize your property
# >   # >   rights to your own home?  

# >   # And here we see the image of arrogance.  World opinion be damned,

# >	   Great way to respond.  You did not even address my point.
 
# Read on, my friend.
 
	I did.  See my response.

# >   # Israel took the Sinai from Egypt, and that's it.  Luckily Begin was
# >   # more flexible than you appear to be.

# >	   Which was one of his few mistakes.

# >   # Answer me this:  How many Jews
# >  # lived in the Sinai in 1966?  Then tell me that it was the home of Israel.

# ^^^^Here is where I addressed your point.

	Excuse me for missing it.  Your analogy was so flawed it never
occured to me.  As it is, I am sure there was a date prior to which
you did not live in your home.  As it was, Israel did have possesion
of the Sinai before 1967, but they returned it to Egypt (which history
showed to be an error).  It is also possible to own something without
living on it.

# >   This is irelevent.  Israel payed for the Sinai with its blood in
# >   defensive struggles.  And then gave it back.  This has happened more then
# >   once, by the way.
 
# This is not at all irrelevant.  You claimed that the Sinai was the
# home of Israel.
 
	That was an anology, i.e. similar logic.  A possesion does not
have to be the home of the owner.

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

# >   # >	   World events.

# >   # Great quote.  I'll have to remember that catch-all reference when I
# >   # write my next term paper.  See footnote 3.
# >   # -----
# >   # 3.  World events.

# >	   Your the one that claims to have read a lot and to be well
# >   informed.  For you, this should be sufficient.
 
# I apologize for my severe sarcasm.  It was uncalled for.  I guess I
# just didn't think that "World events" was much of a response to a
# request for substantiation.

	It should not be were the facts are readily verifyable.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3356 soc.misc:503 talk.politics.mideast:10683 talk.politics.misc:17986
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: Re: Texas gas explosion
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:47:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.182032.7056@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu writes...
>Can you say FAE (fuel air explosive)? The key is not confinement,


No, but I can say "Killeen" :-)

Actually, there are Texans on the net who might have heard this
explosion if it could be heard for 140 miles. Both Austin and
Houston are apparently with 100 miles of Brenham.

Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
From: jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Apr12.070834.2636@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<JIME.92Apr13001541@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr13.054206.5584@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:16:32

In article <1992Apr13.054206.5584@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr13001541@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   # Now that we have pretty much delimited the two poles of the argument,
>   # the true state of affairs must lie somewhere in between.  Both the
>   # Palestinian rock-throwers and the Israeli policy for dealing with the
>   # intifada are responsible for the deaths.
>
>	   Wrong.  The Israeli policy for dealing with the intifada is a
>   result of the activities of the intifada (which includes the stone
>   throwing).  That makes those responsible for the stone throwing
>   responsible for the Israeli response.   One consequence of this is
>   that those Arab parents who are responsible for the stone throwing are
>   responsible for all the deaths (inclduing innocent Arabs, many of
>   which are children) and they therefore should be put on trial for such
>   acts.

This sort of logic leads nowhere.  The intifada is a result of the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The Israeli
occupation is a result of the 1967 war, started by the Arab powers.
The 1967 war is a result of the 1948 formation of the state of Israel
and the subsequent war.  The 1948 formation of the state of Israel is
a result of Zionist settlements in Palestine, sympathy for the Jewish
people in the wake of the Holocaust and pogroms, and Zionist
terrorism.  This sort of logic leads to infinite historical recursion,
and the result depends on where you stop the recursion.  The intifada
is, like many historical developments, an emergent phenomenon, which
has no single cause, and for which no single blame can be assessed.

The same logic that drives your assignment of 100% of the blame of the
shootings of the Palestinians on the victims would also assign the
blame of the deaths of the Jews in the 1929 riots on the Jews
themselves.  They did not, after all, have to riot.  They invited
their own deaths.  This is a nonsensical argument.

The correct logic is to develop a policy that leads to a solution of
the problem.  This solution must lie in the context of history, of
course.  The present policy of shooting rock-throwers does not fit
that model.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3403 soc.misc:541 talk.politics.mideast:10788 talk.politics.misc:18231
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: King David Hotel bombing
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:45:57 GMT
	<1992Apr14.050948.24611@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<JIME.92Apr14103413@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.175801.18171@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Apr14.175801.18171@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr14103413@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   # Au contraire, Pierre.  The King David Hotel bombing was clearly a
>   # terrorist action.  A military action wouldn't have been preceded by a
>   # telephone call telling the people to get out.  (In this case, some may
>   # find it curious that a military action would have been more brutal,
>   # but c'est la guerre.)
>
>	   You are being an imbecile here.  Let us assume for the sake of
>   argument that the King David hotel bombing was not a military action.
>   That still does not make it a terrorist action.

I doubt that an imbecile could spell terrorist.

What was the King David Hotel bombing then, if neither a military nor
a terrorist action?  It was surely no walk in the park.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Crowd size at abortion rights march
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:48:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: amarna.13APR199222480647
Organization: Dept. of Independence
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <MATT.92Apr12014558@physics1.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes...
>Actually, what I would like to see whenever crowd size estimates are
>reported is an error estimate as well.  


Well, as the Park Police told me when I inquired about their
200,000 figure for a 1990 march, they estimated 99,000 to 198,000,
then "rounded it up" to 200,000 for the official figure!
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3229 talk.politics.mideast:10427
From: souissi@ei.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Arafat's Plane Missing in Libyan Desert
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:57:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr8.005509.7156@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (manu) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.001202.6862@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>Fresh from CNN - the plane carrying PLO leader Yaser Arafat is missing
>>in the Libyan desert. It is not known if it crashed or not, but there
>>was no radio contact with it for 8 hours.
>>
>>-Danny Keren.
>>
>>
>Let me guess.  Israel did it right???
>
>							-Manu

No it was two Libyan agents who masterminded the downing of Arafat's
plane-- in fact the same agents who are "suspected" of downing the PanAm plane
over Scotland :)

>-- 
>Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            
>Do unto others before they do unto you.
>"The future of the Arabs of Palestine was sacrificed to Egyptian politics"
>						-Sir John Bagot Glubb
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3477 soc.misc:599 talk.politics.mideast:11027 talk.politics.misc:18554
From: jsast+@pitt.edu (Jonathan S Anderson)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Arafat's Plane Missing in Libyan Desert
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:40:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Christian Science Monitor radio just reported (15:30 UTC on 15665 Khz) that
Arafat was found by Libyian search planes.  Apparently he was somewhat
bruised from the crash, but is otherwise alright.  Three members of the
crew were reported as dead.

I heard a rumor from a friend that the US aided in the search by sending
Libya Sattelite photos of that section of the desert.  It sounded a little
far-fetched to me considering the current state of US-Libyia relations.
Anybody know the truth of this?

-Jon Anderson

  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
  Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
      "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
       You've just got to see me through another day.
       My body's aching and my time is at hand,
       And I won't make it any other way. "                 -James Taylor
  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  
-- 
  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
  Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
      "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
       You've just got to see me through another day.
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3421 soc.misc:559 talk.politics.mideast:10843 talk.politics.misc:18324
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: 15 Apr 92 13:36:19 GMT
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <1992Apr14.235044.3175@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss) writes:

# ># >   # Transfer to where?  You support the uprooting of a people from their
# ># >   # homes, and deportation to a land foreign to them?

# ># >	   It is not a pleasant situation.  However transfer is much better
# ># >   than everyone LITERALLY killing each other.  Do not give me any of
 
# Thank you Mr. Makowsky for your concern. Thank you for your humane thinking.
# How do you feel if The arab ask all Jews to return back to Europe?

	Sorry to disapoint you Nabil, but not all Jews come from Europe
and even more importantly, the German Crematoriums no longer exist.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Where is B-CPU, you ask?
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:06:10 GMT
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, WA

In article <23MAR199209083166@zeus.tamu.edu> pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (PHILIP A. CARNEY) writes:
:In article <22V4HB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM>, djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes...
:>What is the problem? They have a right to communicate too whether
:>or not you like what they say. If they can be silenced (or scared
:>into silence) - Then so can you.
:> 
:>This is the US not the middle east or exUSSR.
:> 
:>-djk
:Is it my imagination, or have more people stood up the rights of free speech
:for scum like B-CPU than would ever do so for a film like the Last Temptation
:of Christ. Indeed this is the US, where it appears some people would like
:to ban rock music, anything radical and anything deemed "pornographic", but
:where people like the revisionists and televangelists are apparently guaranteed
:a right to speak. Funny how the First Amendment counts in some cases but not
:others, or at least that's how it appears. 

Phobic Dave has no problem with free speech as long as it's isn't
disgusting, faggy, or queer.




     Donn Pedro ...................{uunet, sequent, pn400}!uswnvg!dfpedro.

From: hypes@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Gary Hypes)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:22:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Charting the murkey depths of Bill Clinton
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: misc.headlines

*****************************
matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (John Morgan Morris) writes:

Can anyone else compile a better list? I'm just sick of seeing one
candidate getting bashed because he's new to the scene, and another
getting away with everything just because he's been around a while...
****************************

John, Willie-bashing is so much fun because it's so EASY! Honest, I like
Bill Clinton; I think that he's a nice guy, bright, and overall a good
and progressive governor for the state of Alabama. But this parade of
scandals is HILARIOUS! Any day now, I expect to see an illegitimate son
pop out of the woodwork, or maybe revelations that his mother heads up a
coven of witches somewhere in the back woods. Or maybe that the joint he
didn't inhale was smoked in the house Jerry Brown didn't own while he
wasn't there.

It's like probing your best friend about the blind date he's hooked you
up with. First you find out that she really is blind in one eye, the
result of a violent dorm fight in the state women's prison. Where she 
was incarcerated for murdering her fourth husband. For giving her 
incurable herpes. I mean, after a while the news gets so bad that 
it's funny.

(And all the while, your friend is pleading, "Ignore all that stuff!
She's really a neat lady!...")

What small fairness I think should be extended to Willie is that the
media scrutiny is unnecessarily harsh and demeaning. No newspaper
reporter (Doonesbury notwithstanding) is going to get a raise and a
promotion for writing a story that begins with "FLASH! Bill Clinton is
an honest, decent man who has demonstrated sound political
administration skills." The press has lost all moral integrity in this
respect, and I think it's sad.

A better case can be made for what's happened to Jerry Brown with the
latest marijuana charges (not that I care for Jerry, either). This
appears - right now, anyway - to be a story with little or no merit
whatsoever, and I think it's patently unfair for the press to have
pushed this "news" with as little substantiation as it has.

The net result is that these guys wind up spending the bulk of their
time and energy putting down scandal rumors. No wonder we know as little
as we do about the candidates stands on significant political issues.

- Gary Hypes -
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
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 15:48:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: bullwink.JIME.92Apr14104800
	<1992Apr12.014433.29249@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<JIME.92Apr12012428@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr12.071510.2846@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<1992Apr13.203813.19355@techbook.com>
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Apr13.203813.19355@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>   ># >	   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?  
>   > 
>   This is a very good question.  Turn it around, Makowsky, how would you
>   feel if you were a Palestinian Arab in Jaffa in 1947.  The United
>   Nations tells you that your home is actually in the Jewish state. How
>   would you like it?

Right question, wrong locality.  Jaffa was in fact in the Arab
partition.  It was attacked by the Irgun; its Arab residents fled
under mortar attack.  British attempts to regain the city failed.
Jaffa was once the largest Arab city between Cairo and Beirut, no more.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism