HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:00:31 GMT
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <bdm.717417225@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>In article <9209241645.AA00570@top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Khaled J Shammout <kshammou@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:

>>>Palestine.  By 1948, The Jews owned no more than 7% of the land in
>>>Palestine. Of course, this means that the Palestinians owned 93%.  Now
>
>>Of course, you had a copy of "How To Lie with Statistics" in your hand
>>when you wrote that sentence.  ~70% of the land in Mandatory
>
>I don't believe any of these figures; they look suspiciously like
>the figures that Ed Shnekendorf quoted from Myths and Facts, which
>I proved do not appear in the source M&F gives.  From my rough
>calculations based on the 1946 Survey of Palestine (British)
[...]
>declared abandoned).  If I am wrong, please give your source.

My numbers may be off the mark, a possibility that I honestly don't
have time to research right now, so I'll accept your numbers (under
some protest).

However, the claim that since the Jews only owned 7% Palestinians
owned 93% is more bogus than my numbers.


>>But, the British owned 70%, whihc they deeded to Israel.  Oops.  Your
>>numbers are suddenly a bit flaky.  (A bit?)

>I don't think the British deeded it to anyone, they just washed
>their hands of it.

Leaving it to whoever controlled tha area whenever the dust had settled.

>>>And they blame the Palestinians for refusing to accept it!

>>No, we blame the Arab governments for going to war over it, and then
>>refusing to negotiate when they had the upper hand.  Pretty stupid of
>>some governments.
>
>I don't remember any time when the Arab governments had the
>upper hand.

1948-1967.  They definetly had the uper hand, which does not mean that
they won anything, just that, on paper, the deck was stacked in their
favor.

Adam


Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:33:45 GMT

bgdv706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:

>In article <bdm.717416634@cs.anu.edu.au>, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>		[...] 


>+>Jews then remained in Safed, Jerusalem, and other places around Israel
>+>for the next 2000 years.
>> 
>> An irrelevantly small number did, yes.

>	When does a small number become irrelevant?
>	Is a continuous number of say, 10,000 along 1000 years irrelevant 
>	compared to a wave of immigration of, say, 1,000,000 in 10 years?

What I wanted to say was that I don't think the Jewish claim to
Palestine is in any way enhanced (or reduced) by the existence of
a small fraction of the population of Palestine who were Jewish.
Those Jews who lived there had, by virtue of that residence, the 
same rights with respect to the place that other residents had,
but I don't know of any principle that lets one small subset of a
self-defined group to act as place-holders for all the others.

>+>Most rational historical accounts have Muslims overrunning the area
>+>in the 7th century, or so.  There is no evidence that there was any
>+>historical continuity or ethnic separation between the 7th century
>+>invaders and the local (non-Jewish) population, who you, without
>+>evidence claim, were arab.
>> 
>> I don't know if they were Arab.  I don't think it makes a difference.
>> What seems clear is that the locals adopted the culture and religion
>> of the invaders.  Unless the locals were all killed off, the argument
>> for continuous occupation stands.       =====

>	Are you talking about the Jews that remained in Palestine
>	or about the non-Jews? Do those who did not adopt the
>	invador's culture and religion have somehow less rights than
>	those who did?

Certainly not, but rather than trying to score more points in this
argument let me repeat that I don't think the argument matters a
damn.  I do not accept land claims based on conquest in ancient
times, and that goes for everybody and everywhere.

>Noam

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Whom would Rabbi Kahane (HY"D) Love (Was: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine)
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:43:08 GMT

In article <bdm.717501522@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:

# bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:

	[ most of article deleted - dlm ]

# >Meir Kahane would have loved you, my friend.

# David might disagree.

	I cannot really know for sure, but I think the late Rabbie would
have been very excited about Brendan.  Brendan has brought arguments,
supposedly with millions of sources, that not even the Arabs have
bothered to bring until now because there were Jews who were actual
particpants in certain events, and knew the facts first hand, who
would refute them.  Now that these people are dying off Brendan makes
claims that not only are not true (despite his sources), but given
other items that Brendan admits are true (or he will not try to
refute), cannot be true (i.e. they are mutually exclusive).

	He will even make arguments about population, then concede that
there were no more than a trivial amount for the size of the land
(less than 600,00) which even if you accept Brendan's arguments as
true make those same arguments irrelevent.

	Now why would Brendan be held in such high esteem by the Rabbi?
Because he is living proof that the Jews cannot depend on the rest of
the world to be fair brokers and therefore must fend for themselves.

	Now Brendan does make some claims, and these are true, which
shatter some Zionist "propaganda".  The Rabbi would be appreciative of
Brendan here because it helps to reinforce the idea that the only real
claim to the land is a divine one.  Any other claims have their
viabilities subject to changes in time and circumstances.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
From: steven@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Steve Berson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Arab Jews are ARABS
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:08:48 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.204401.25301@cs.ucla.edu>, steven@maui.cs.ucla.edu
>(Steve Berson) writes:
>> The Majlis is, of course, not really a parliment, but rather a 
>> consultative body (similar to what the Emir of Kuwait has for
>> advice).  How was Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei elected (or
>> the Emir of Kuwait, for that matter)?
>> Steve

>You have the situation a little reversed. The Majlis is elected, as is
>the President. Khamenei is not in the government per se. His position is
>somewhat comparable to the role of the Supreme Court in the U.S. (please
>note that Supreme Court justices are not elected). 

>Brad Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU)

Apparently my earlier message wasn't clear.  I am aware that the Majlis
is elected.  The problem is that it basically has no power, but rather
serves as a consultative body.  Rather power is vested in Khamenei (and
Rafsanjani) who either aren't elected or were elected with only token
opposition.  
Steve
-- 
=========================================================================
Steven Berson           UCLA Computer Science Department   (310) 825-3189
steven@cs.ucla.edu      Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596
=========================================================================
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: What is a terrorist
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:10:15 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <26304@castle.ed.ac.uk> jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>Leaving you with the problem of defining "guerrilla".

  Should that be so hard? A guerilla is a combatant that don't wear a uniform.
And, since you doubtlessly will ask for the definition of a combatant, a 
combatant is one who use violence (aka isn't a civilian).
  This definition of combatant will however include both criminals and police,
but even that isn't so much of a problem because the borderline between 
police and military and war and crime is pretty well defined in international
law.

>=======Jeremy Henderson========jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk===============

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"
From: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Date: 2 Oct 1992 23:43:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) says:

>I, and I'm sure others as well, would take statements like Mr. Stein's
>far more seriously if he found a way to demonstrate that they were
>something less than a mere repetition of propaganda aimed at denying
>dispossessed Palestinians any rights in Israel/Palestine.
>
Is this a case of less is more?

The so-called "dispossessed Palestinians" were neither dispossessed (they
left of their own free will) nor Palestinians (that term was, at that time,
used to refer to Jews and only more recently has been exprpriated by Arabs
to further their propaganda battle).

>How could Mr. Stein demonstrate this?  Well, for example, while
>continuing (if he must) to insist that Arabs were not kicked out in
>1948, he could grant those who could *prove* that they were kicked out
>the right to return or be compensated.  Is that asking too much?

Israel has continually tried to negotiate an agreement for the compensation
of all refugees of the '48 War and its aftermath, both those Arab refugees
who voluntarily left their homes and those equally numerous Jews who were
forced out of their homes.

The Arabs who voluntarily abandoned their homes in anticipation of
returning over the bodies of their Jewish neighbors are no less victims
simply because their action was voluntary.  And they could have been fairly
compensated decades ago had the Arab states not refused to negotiate an
agreement with Israel.

At this point, if they don't get around to it soon, the problem will go
away because all those who left their homes will be dead.
-- 
bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:39:37 GMT
	<bdm.717416634@cs.anu.edu.au> <1aimqiINN2hn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 2 Oct 92 23:43:14 GMT

In article <1aimqiINN2hn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:
>
> In a previous article, arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) says:
>
> >I, and I'm sure others as well, would take statements like Mr. Stein's
> >far more seriously if he found a way to demonstrate that they were
> >something less than a mere repetition of propaganda aimed at denying
> >dispossessed Palestinians any rights in Israel/Palestine.
> >
> >How could Mr. Stein demonstrate this?  Well, for example, while
> >continuing (if he must) to insist that Arabs were not kicked out in
> >1948, he could grant those who could *prove* that they were kicked out
> >the right to return or be compensated.  Is that asking too much?
>
> The Arabs who voluntarily abandoned their homes in anticipation of
> returning over the bodies of their Jewish neighbors are no less victims
> simply because their action was voluntary.  And they could have been fairly
> compensated decades ago had the Arab states not refused to negotiate an
> agreement with Israel.

This is complete nonsense, of course.  You're welcome to document your
bizarre assertion somehow if you wish to claim otherwise.

Just as an illustration of the ridiculousness of Mr. Stein's contention,
I will point out that even in cases (e.g. the villages of Biram and
Ikrit) where in 1948 Arabs were evicted by the IDF to other places
within Israel, and where they had WRITTEN PROMISES from the IDF that
they would be allowed to return to their homes at a later date, the
government has for decades refused to allow them to do so.  When it once
appeared that a Supreme Court decision might go in the residents' favor,
the IDF quickly bulldozed the remaining homes in the villages.  There
are no "Arab states" to blame for this one, are there, Mr. Stein?

You might be curious to know that last time this matter was debated by
the Israeli government the point was made that The Palestinians of Ikrit
and Biram could not be allowed to return, because there were in fact a
large number of other Palestinians in the same position, and this might
set a precedent.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
arens@isi.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem)
Subject: Re: Arab Jews are ARABS
Reply-To: hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:01:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.131315.24213@das.harvard.edu>, adam@endor.uucp
(Adam Shostack) writes:
> 
> 
> In Iran, racism is institutionalized, and Jews must vote for Jewish
> candidates, who get a number of seats proportional to the Jewish
> population.  


Just a thought......If you call this institutionalized racism then how
do you classify "affirmative action"?

Brad Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU)
From: bgdv706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Kozo Okamoto
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:22:15 GMT
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin

In article <3864@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU>, aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.000719.18900@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>
>>BTW, Lebanese sources indicate that IDF navigator Ron Arad is still 
>>alive. Maybe the Hizebolla could make a first step in a long way back
>>to the human race by saying if this is true or not. 
> 
> I believe they were the ones to release the photo of Ron Arad -
> it was publicized on CNN a few days ago.
> 
> He's looking better than ever in that beard - he could even pass
> for being in the HezbAllah himself ...


	The Oh-So-Sensitive-Anisa. 

	May you pass too.


 
> Anisa


Noam

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: memg2102@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: How much is an Iraqi dinar worth?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:31:37 GMT

I am curious to know how much an Iraqi dinar is worth ( in dollars).
I am trying to get rid of several hundred dinars that my parents
picked up while they were in Kuwait/Iraq during the gulf war.
Thanks.
Marlon Menezes
memg2102@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
:
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:20656 soc.culture.arabic:4039
From: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Nabeel Ghuzlaan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Answer to Mr John
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:24:30 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

karr@ukc.ac.uk (K.A.R.Razzooqi) writes:
[Much gibberish was deleted]

> Let me tell you something for sure,all of what was told about the iraqi
> behavoir in KUWAIT was nothing compared to what they realy did to the
> KUWAITI people during the occupation and they still do to the innocent
> KUWAITI POW's.(i do not think that calling them POW is right,because 
> they were taken from the streets,thier homes for no reason except 
> that they are KUWAITIs).

   In what edition of "1001 Nights" did you find that out?
   I guess you guys in the UK do not have '60 Minutes', because if
you do you would know how it was found that Kuwait's advertizing
agent mislead the American and world public opinion.

> I am not going to go into argument about US conning the arabs to attack
> each other ,because if we do not have any thing wrong in us nobody can
> come between us .And nobody can con you to kill your brother if there is
> nothing sick in you.

   That is true because we have sick Amirs and such crap they could
do this to us.

> And what the iraqis did in KUWAIT is realy realy sick.

   And what Kuwaitis are doing to Palestinians is very healthy. If
there was a single man in the Kuwaiti government, they would not
transfer Palestinian personal files to the Mosad. But if they
were men in the first place, they would not run away like
prostitutes hit on by the FBI.

   "You're jive talking ... no one believes what you say ..."
   "Tell me lies ... tell me sweet BIG lies ..."

>   SO PLEASE PLEASE  DO NOT USE ISLAM IN YOUR ARGUMENTS BECAUSE YOU
>  DO NOT REPRESENT IT(YOU ARE FAR FROM IT).

   Yes, I agree with you, only "Fadeelat ishshaykh Jabir" represents
Islam, well, money talks!

   By the way, crude oil does not run in the veins of all Kuwaitis.
(Guys you have money, why don't you refine it?) There are some
decent Kuwaitis albeit rare. There is one here at Carleton, I know
if he was the common type, my decent Arab friends would not give
him the time -- they talk with him. I am not going to lose hope for
Kuwaiti (and Gulfan) people for the negligeble percentage of 99%
of impurities. As the Prophet said, people are like minerals. Gold
is rare and much more so where crude oil runs in the veins and the
brains.


**  Yes, wherever they are and then some!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: fade@quads.uchicago.edu (mohammad h fadel)
Subject: Re: Temple Mount /
Reply-To: fade@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: U of Chicago
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:56:15 GMT

Against my better judgement, I have decided to post some, inshalla, accurate
information about Islam's view of Ishaq/Ismai`l controversy.  The incident
of the sacrifice appears in sura saffat, 37, beginning with verse 82.  After
escaping from his native country, Abraham asks God to give him a son which
he does v. 99-100.  Note, this son is unnamed.  Then, the story zooms forward,
and Abraham tells his son that God has ordered him to sacrifice him. His son
agrees to do as God commands. From 102-106, God gives a brief account of what
happened: Abraham tied his son to the ground, and was about to kill him when
God told him that he had already fulfilled the vision, and sent to him a ram
instead of his son.  Now, in verse 111 of the same sura, God says "and We gave
him (Abraham) the good news of Ishaq, a prophet, of the righteous."  Because
Ishaq is mentioned explicitly after mentioning the sacrifice, many commentators
have understood that the first son must, therefore, be Isma'il.  Another reason
they say the first son is Isma'il is use of the word "sa`y" in verse 101, which
is a ritual of the Pilgrimage in Makka.  However, not all commentators accepted
that the son who was to sacrificed was Isma'il.  Al-Tabari, for example, says 
that it was Ishaq, relying on the Old Testament.

In no case, however, has any Muslim, as far as I know, stated that Isma'il was
going to be sacrificed in Jerusalem.  Instead, they say that he was to be
sacrificed in Makka, an event which we celebrate every year on 'Id al-Adha.
The animal we slaughter that day is to commemorate Abraham's sacrifice of a
sheep in the place of his son.  

Al-Haram Al-Sharif is important to us Muslims becuase (A) it was the city of
the Jewish prophets, (B) it was the first qibla, and (C) it was the spot from
which the Prophet (S) ascended to Heaven.

Finally, textual interpretation is difficult business.  One should have the 
same sensitivity in reading others' scriptures as one has when reading one's
own.  If Jews can give sensible explanations for seeming contradictions in
their scripture, then we should respect that.  Even such a great scholar as
Al-Tabari, despite the, in my opinion, very clear contextual evidence that
the son who was to be sacrificed was Isma'il, said it was Ishaq.  It's just
not that of a big deal whether it was Ishaq or Isma'il; both were Prophets
chosen by God to guide their peoples.  In all this arguing, we (both Muslims
and Jews) have forgotten the most important aspect of the sacrifice: Abraham
and his son's faith and trust in God.

				Was-salam,
				Mohammad Fadel
    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: steven@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Steve Berson)
Subject: Re: Arab Jews are ARABS
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 20:44:01 GMT

hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem) writes:

>This is not true. Indeed, in Iran, Jews have guaranteed representation
>in the Majlis (parliament). While this may not be democracy as it is
>known in the U.S., you are quite wrong that Iranian Jews are not
>permitted to vote or run for office.
>Brad Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU)

The Majlis is, of course, not really a parliment, but rather a 
consultative body (similar to what the Emir of Kuwait has for
advice).  How was Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei elected (or
the Emir of Kuwait, for that matter)?
Thanks,
Steve
-- 
=========================================================================
Steven Berson           UCLA Computer Science Department   (310) 825-3189
steven@cs.ucla.edu      Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596
=========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000)
Subject: 2 dead on Saudi/Qatari Border Dispute Yesterday.
Organization: LC
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 23:44:21 GMT

Today's Los Angeles Times newspaper is reporting a battle that took place
Yesterday  (Wed) on the Saudi and Qatari borders over land
dispute.  The report says 2 Qataris were killed and another was
taken hostage by the Saudis.  Some Saudis were wounded also.

jle