From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Brendan's comments
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 05:39:27 GMT

In article 14671@vela.acs.oakland.edu, rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>Yes, It's Ilan userzv6z@wayne.edu.bitnet for mail.
>
>I had written:
>As a result, the 
>Balfour Conference partitioned Jordan into 2 countries.  One of them was 
>an independant Palestinian state and the other Israel. 
>
>Brendan flamed:
>Congratulations, Ilan!  You have won the TPM Prize for the most
>innovating rewriting of history for the first quarter of 1992.
>
>My (new) response:
>
>Ok, I goofed in 2 areas (I was tired at the time, so sue me).
>1. Not all of Jordan was split, only part of then TransJordan
>2. It wasn't the Balfour conference, but a UN resolution which accepted

Ok, (2) is now correct but (1) is way off the mark.  Except for minor
border adjustments, Jordan now occupies the exact same plot of land
that Transjordan occupied in 1923.  Jordan was already an independent
country when the UN approved the partitioning of Palestine.

>Jake commented to Brendan:
>   most of Balfour's conclusions.
>Brendan seems to have a pet project, Israel-is-Palestine.  It's a funny 
>one, though.  Even Palestinean Arabs do not deny that Jordan encompasses
>much of Palestine.  If Brendan hasn't seen any better re-writing of 
>history on TPM in recent weeks, then perhaps he actually supports
>much of the garbage produced by the Holocaust Revisionists and the 
>Muslim Students Union, or whoever they were.  Or perhaps, he just
>has this religious thing about Israel-is-Palestine.
>
>My (new comment)
>
>I don't know anything on this subject (Brendan's alleged viewpoint on Israel-
>is Palestine.  So I won't comment in lieu of more comments from Brendan.
>
>Brendan commented to Jake:
>
>So you agree with Ilan's gaffe about the "Balfour Conference" I 
>take it?  How embarrassing for you.  I think it is funny how you try 
>to suggest that I support the Revisionists when you are a Revisionist 
>yourself!
>
>My (new) comment:
>
>Brendan, take a chill pill, I wasn't attempting Revisionism, I made an
>error in fact, anyone who watches Dan Quayle speak should be familiar with 
>that.  As far as whether the 2 of you accuse each other of Revisionism is, I
>suppose, between the 2 of you.
>
>Mark Kaufman wrote:
>(excerpt taken only)
>
>   I was in error when I claimed that Palestine did not include any
>part of Israel.  It was not as big an error as the one you continue
>to make when you claim that no part of Jordan was ever Palestine. It
>is regarded by most non-Israel-hating historians that what we regard
>today as Jordan contains land that was once Palestine.  This part of
>Jordan that was Palestine covers an area that is larger than ALL of
>Israel.
>   Another manner in which you toss aside historical fact is that 
>the Palestinians had an opportunity to have their own state in the
>region.  And they turned it down!  The United Nations Partition Plan
>of 1947, the plan that created the State of Israel, also partitioned
>land that was to have been a Palestinian state.  The area that was 
>to be under Arab sovereignty covered an area far more vast than the
>territories that are currently in dispute.  In 1948, when the United
>Nations voted on the plan that would have given the world two brand
>new nations, the Arabs rejected the plan, and instead cose to attack 
>the new Jewish State.  Now that the Jews have developed the region,
>the Arab world has changed its mind!
>
>P.S.  Before you waste everyone's time nitpicking again, the UN
>vote took place on November 29, 1947, and not 1948.  1948 was the
>year that Israel declared its Independence.
>
>My (new) response
>
>Thank you Mark, you did establish the fact very clearly, that my original
>posting was meant to state.

I already responded to Mark's posting in some detail.

>Ilan U. Woll

Brendan.