From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: He Who Saves a Single Soul...
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:46:17 GMT
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University


In article 17077@rs.com, horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.043954.12169@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>In article 15613@rs.com, horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen) writes:
>>>In article <bdm.714534253@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>>>>Nora wrote:
>>>>>>Nabil wrote:
>>>>>>Why then in 1948 when the Arab majority opposed the establishment
>>>>>>of the Jewish state did not rule?
>>>>
>>>>>The Arab "majority" tried to oppose the establishment of the Jewish
>>>>>state in the UN's General Assembly, which is the majority-rule body
>>>>>among nations, and got voted down by majority rule. I believe they
>>>>>got one vote from a non-Muslim country, that being Cuba; and that's
>>>>>even with having tried to buy Costa Rica's vote and G-d alone knows
>>>>>how many others. They were voted down anyway. 
>>>>
>>>>What a weird definition of democracy you have.  The UN vote on
>>>>Palestine was taken against the wishes of a large majority of the
>>>>inhabitants, and there is no way around it.  
>>>
>>>Your comment about "weird definition of democracy" is out of place. 
>>>It is evident that Nora's response was directed *solely* to Nabil's
>>>wording of "...when the Arab majority opposed..."
>>>
>>>As for the UN vote being taken against the wishes of a large majority
>>>of the [its] inhabitants, well, this is both irrelevant and incorrect.
>>>
>>>It is irrelevant in that the purpose of the UN, or any large representative
>>>legislative body, is to act on-behalf/in-the-best-interests of those whom
>>>it represents. If a majority (or a powerful-enough minority) of the
>>>inhabitants of any member of the UN is dissatisfied with the representation
>>>of its UN ambassador, then they should appoint a new ambassador. If one
>>>doesn't like the way the body votes, then one can "put up or shut up".
>>
>>"put up" what?  And what ambassador are you referring to?  The Palestinian
>>Arabs had no representative at all in the UN in 1947.
>
>Obviously, you do not understand (originally) American idioms -- the phrase
>"put up or shut up" means `put up a fight (to change what you don't like),
>or shut up (quit your complaining)'.

Well, in my experience in the US and elsewhere it means "be prepared to 
support what you say or else remain silent" (copying my dictionary).  No 
matter; the Palestinian Arabs did exactly what you suggest, they put up 
a fight to change what they didn't like.  Interesting that you approve.

>"What ambassador"? Exactly. There *was* no UN ambassador for the Palestinian
>Arabs at that point in time, *nor was there one for the Israeli Jews*!!
>Israel was not yet a "modern" state, recognized by the UN, thus it had no
>ambassador to the UN, neither to represent the Jews nor the Arabs.
>
>Because of this, the ambassadors to the UN of every Arab nation, as one,
>voted against recognizing the modern State of Israel and, to this day, they
>actively wage physical and/or economic war against us (oh, excuse me; right,
>Egypt signed a treaty with us so that they could get the Sinai Penninsula
>back after losing it to us in a war they started).

Because of that??  Your political analysis is even more pathetic than
your knowledge of demographics (good one that, wasn't it?).

>>Anyway, it is quite obvious that your support of UN decisions is restricted
>>to those decisions that suit you.  Your pretence to general principles
>>is just a smoke-screen; or maybe you would like to apply them to some
>>other UN resolutions I will choose for you? 
>
>My support? *I* don't personally support *any* UN resolutions, and neither
>do you -- governments support (or not) UN resolutions. My support of *all*
>UN resolutions has been actively proved since I was 18 years-old by virtue
>of my paying income tax, which financially support my country's involvement
>in the UN and UN activities, as well as by my 5 years of active military
>service in the US Army (Infantry) during Vietnam, and by my 8 years of
>active military service in the Israeli Defense Force during the 1980s.

You don't support them, you do support them, this is real confusing.

>What has been the nature of *your* support, Brendan?
>
>You're a voyeur. You have no personal, abiding interest in the Middle East.

I see.  The old "only people with a vested interest may comment" argument.

>Have you considered posting to alt.sex.masturbation, rather than to here?
>I'm sure that you'd find a much more receptive audience there.

You didn't see my followup on alt.naughty.bits.ogle.ogle then?

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast