HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: michaelp@ifi.uio.no (Michael Schalom Preminger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: jews as a race
Date: 9 Jan 93 12:42:04 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
Originator: michaelp@grid.ifi.uio.no


In article <1483500318@igc.apc.org>, Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes:
> 
> Maxime Rodinson, a internationally known orientalist, French citizen
> and author of numerous publications, was once asked whether he
> was a Jew.
> 
> He answered: Yes, I am a Jew according to the Nazi definition of Jews,
> which is quite similar to that used by the Israeli government.
> 
> This unusual answer is food for thought.
>
Ill give you another possible interpretation of this answer.

More than being a faith, Judaism is a fate.
The zionist movement was  aiming to build a home for a group
of people that BY FATE were jews, and as such homeless and under a 
continuous threat.
 
> Of course the Nazi persecution of Jews was not based on the Jews
> being a race, although the Nazis maintained they were. But their
> policies are labelled racist.
> 
> It is claimed that Judaism is not racist, because non-Jews (Gentiles)
> can convert to Judaism. This is only partly true, because the Jewish
> rabbinical authorities are not very fond of converting Gentiles to Jews.

What is Judaism? are you refering to the cultural group, the religious
administrations or the jewish faith.




I think concepts should be held apatrt.  


> In fact conversion is a quite complicated process which requires
> the person who converts to study the Jewish religion and accept
> wholeheartedly its principles. A person born to a Jewish mother
> however is not required to prove his faith. He may eat pork, and
> violate all 613 Halakha precepts. But the rabbis consider him a Jew
> nevertheless because of biological descent.

> 
> In fact therefore is is not inaccurate to call Judaism and its
> political modern form Zionism,

You are mixing concepts again.
Zionism was not a religious movement, and is not a "modern form of Judaism"
 Many people that identify themselves as zionists are not happy for the israeli
 governments politics.

> as racist phenomena, at least
> in the current practices.
> 
> ReformJudaism has gone away from this racist practice to some extent.
> 
> My parents practiced Judaism. I married a non-Jewish woman. WWhen I
> read pronouncements by Zionist leaders that assimilation is a
> calamity compared to the Holocaust, I can vomit. Because such
> statements are offensive to human love, which does not know
> religious or ethnical borders.

I share your feelings, but you must remember that zionism was 
responding to a world situation where human love was not exactly the
dominating power.
> 
> Thanks,
> Elias
> 

Michael
From: shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Deportation vs. Murder
Date: 7 Jan 1993 15:02:59 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: galaxy.think.com

In article <1ifungINNouq@life.ai.mit.edu>, gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.190629.19897@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
|> 
|> >A word's meaning is defined by how it is coined and used, not how its
|> >roots define it.  "Inflammable" does not mean "not flammable", nor
|> >does "sycophant" imply a fruit seller (sukon - fig, phantes - to
|> >show).  "Anti-Semite" was coined and has always been understood to
|> >mean "Anti-Jew".
|> 
|> Not by the majority of the Semites.  Interesting this fact, no?

Very, especially when you consider that the majority of semites
do not constitute the majority of english speakers.  Hmm, I wonder
what would happen of the majority of English speakers decided
that the word "shukrun" meant "run to the shuk".  I mean it stands
to reason by your analogy that they are right since after all, they
constitute the majority of English speakers using Arabic.

-- 
Shai Guday              | Knowing martial arts allows one to remain calm when
OS Software Engineer    | confronted by idiots, secure in the knowledge that
Thinking Machines Corp. | you could dismember them easily, while you calmly
Cambridge, MA           | proceed to dismember them easily.
From: gwydion@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Deportation vs. Murder
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:44:38 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation
NNTP-Posting-Host: spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu

I wrote:
# I did not realize that the Bible was intended by its authors as a
# real-estate guide.  It seems to me, however, that the Bible says
# that that land belongs to the children of Abraham.  That includes,
# if you will note, the same Palestinians that are being expelled
# from their homes.

In article <1993Jan4.093911.15544@rdg.dec.com>
kremer@taveng.enet.dec.com writes:

>	I hope you don't consider yourself a Bible scholar. The Bible
>	explicitly qualifies the "children of Abraham" as those who are
>	descendant from Isaac and Jacob. I can bring you the sources if
>	you like but I'm sure that really isn't relevant to you, just as
>	the claims of the Koran are not relevant to me.

Then the Bible is explicitly wrong.  Abraham had two sons.  Ishmael
is the father of the Arabs; you know that as well as I do.  To claim
that Arabs are not the children of Abraham is idiotic in the extreme.
Even Makowsky or Alan Stein do not do that.

>	I don't know whether to take this seriously or not. I'll assume
>	you are serious so let me explain again. The Jewish settlers do
>	NOT want to live in a country where anyone is given the
>	freedom to stone and fire-bomb cars at will. That's why they live
>	in Israel where the police and army do all they can to stop these 
>	culprits. If your head got smashed with a rock, would you feel
>        better if you knew that a 10-year old threw it?

Then the Jewish settlers should not live in the occupied territories.
I find it interesting that you call the occupied territories Israel.
Even the Israeli government does not do that.

Basalat Ali Raja.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:24783 talk.politics.soviet:10249 soc.culture.greek:12066 soc.culture.europe:11020 soc.history:10564 soc.culture.turkish:13841
From: bv652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ilan Uri Woll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: 4Coming in only 4 days, the death of Mutlu
Date: 4 Jan 1993 08:02:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bv652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ilan Uri Woll)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu

Trials will begin tomorrow for the accused, Hassan Mutlu/Serda Argic
on the charges of:

Netiquette violations (infinite charges)
Murderous breath
Character Assasination

Testimony is welcome from all interested parties, please post as you see fit.
IN JUST 4 DAYS, MUTLU/ARGIC DIES, CAN YOU STAND THE WAIT?

-- 
---  !      ^    !\  !
 !   !     /-\   ! \ !
___  !__  /   \  !  \!  
                        Avoid cliches like the plague" George Shaw
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Can anyone answer a real quick, simple question?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:55:25 GMT

In <4614@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:

>In article <Jan.3.00.29.38.1993.7624@bach.rutgers.edu>
>marwang@bach.rutgers.edu (Marwan Gharaybeh) writes:

>>cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>>
>>>The United Nations condemned Israeli expulsion of Palestinians from
>>>the Occupied Territories.
>>
>>>My question...why did the UN not condemn the acts of terrorism
>>>which *led* to the expulsions?
>>
>>>Can anyone (pro or anti -Israel) answer this?
>>
>(Marwan):
>>Because it was not an act of terrorism ... Terrorism is the action of killing
>>civilians not militery ... The victim is a policeman...
>>--Marwan

According to the news reports I heard, this policeman was kidnapped
just outside of his home, so I presume he was off-duty, i.e., a
civilian at the time. Or does joining the police force immediately
remove all of one's civil rights? As to Hammas being a "military"
organization, they are about as military as the IRA.

>I do consider murdering a policeman to be an immoral activity, but
>saying as if Arabs do murder "just policemen" contradicts facts.

>@ hour a go a bomb hidden by Israeli-citizen-Arab was exploded in a
>bus on its way from Petach Tikva to Haifa. ( No one was hurt), but the
>passangers on that bus were not " policemen" , there was a 3 month
>non-policeman baby and a lot of other non-policemen human being.
>Rachel Druk and Yizhak Rofe that were murdered by strangers ( "Arabs")
>and the farmers near Afula as well as the dis-able Mr. Klinghofer of
>Aquila Laura and the pasangers of the Jet exploded by Arab "freedom
>lovers" where all non-policemen !

>( Note the Jihad patwa should be aplied according to Islam not just to
>policemen).

>Gideon Ehrlich   ERETZ YISRAEL    we shell over come

REB

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: jews as a race
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:17:31 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <C0nDs8.DCC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kgivon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (karen lee givon) writes:
>
>This is true for nearly all religions.  Most Muslims and Christians I
>know do not follow all or even most of the rules and laws or their
>religion.  Most Muslims I know drink, sleep around, rarely go to the
>mosque or pray, don't fast during Ramadan, and some even eat pork.
>All these people, however, call themselves Muslims.

This may be true.  And it may be because of the influence of such a
loosely structured society.  Though you have only associated with
non-religious Muslims, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are like this.
I guess I am disturbed by your comments because they seem to somehow
justify the fact that the non-religious Jews are excused for their
lack of faith because this is true for "nearly all religions".  But
don't misunderstand me here, I am not attacking you, only pointing
something out.

This, however, is another topic of discussion and I do not want to be
in the position to make judgements on others.  The point of the original
poster, which you seemed to miss entirely, was that he viewed Judaism as
a racist philosophy because it forbids Jews from marrying non-Jews.  He
stated that human love does not recognize such biased rules, and that
Jews (religious) consider intermarriage to be a serious problem.  I can
understand the fear of assimilation and other principles on this basis,
but I do tend to agree with Elias, despite the appreciation and respect
that I hold for religious Jews.

Anisa

	"When the dust has cleared And victory denied A summit
	too lofty River a little too wide If we keep our pride
	Though paradise is lost We will pay the price But we
	will not count the cost."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: WHY?
From: fedimit@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il (Dan Nabutovsky)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:27:33 GMT
Organization: Weizmann Institute of Science, Computation Center

In article <4777@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.155842.19790@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> fedimit@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il (Dan Nabutovsky) writes:
>>>What do people want in the middle east? Why are they not satisfied?
>>>Why hasn't a solution been found?
>>
>>   Because Moslem fanatics want to destroy Israel,
>>and Israel doesn't want to be destroyed.
>
>Actually, on the other side of the coin, because Israeli
>fanatics want to destroy Palestinians, and Palestinians don't
>want to be destroyed.

I don't know Israeli who wants to destroy Palestinian Arabs.
Should be:
   Actually, on the other side of the coin, we want to destroy Israel,
   and Israeli fanatics don't want to be destroyed.

>Understand jihad a little better now Dan?
   Sure. I thought that it is killing Jews only because they live in Israel;
leaving bombs in shops; killing Arabs only because they are not argainst
Israel; Arab attempts to destroy Israel; terroristic acts against European
and American citizens; etc. Now I now that

>FEEDING A HUNGRY CAT IS JIHAD!

   So, when a crowd of Arabs with axes cry "JIHAD! JIHAD!!" they are only
call to feed hungry cats.

>Dan?  Ah, Dan ... a good Hebrew name.  How is Technion btw?
>
>Anisa

Dan
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Catholic Intolerance
Date: 5 Jan 1993 13:37:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


Just me again, Wayne.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim)
Subject: Re: What is this doing on page 15
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:57:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.030841.2752@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>
>	William Safire did not give his interpretation.  He was reporting
>on the OFFICIAL interpretations of the Geneva Conventions as well as
        ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>its evolution.

Made by whom?

>	The US and the world are making POLITICAL, NOT LEGAL, statements.
>When Bush Baker & Associates wanted the State department to issue a
>legal opinion with your interpretation, they had to get some third
>rate flunky to do it.  None of their top lawyers would because they
>knew it was bogus.

WOW! you must be conected! You know all the legal experts in the State Dept.
and their official rating as well. Care to produce any refrences to any of
this crap.

>	Than why did the Arab war against the Jews start long before there
>was an Israel, your false comment about Israeli oppression of Arabs
>notwithstanding.

Because giving half their country away is oppression, just like taking all the
indians land in America was oppression. I'm not sure what is false about my
statement about oppression? You don't consider denial of human and civil rights
to 1.8 million people oppression. Why don't you annex the "liberated" areas and
give the inhabitants the vote? 
 
># I'm sure living in South-Central L.A. is an excuse for drive-by shootings. Nice
># going @#$%^*(!
>
>	Nope.  But it might be an excuse for having a quick trigger finger
>if you suspect someone in a car is about to shoot you.

There isn't a court in the USA (but there are many in Israel) that will accept
that as a defense, espaecially when you're going around beating the shit out
of black people (vs. arabs).

># ># >Can You say "hypocrisy" boys and girls?
> 
># ># I.S.R.A.E.L.I. A.P.O.L.O.G.I.S.T.S. , is that close?
>
># >	Nope.  Israel does not need apologists since it has nothing to
># >apologize for.
> 
># An oxymoron If I ever seen one. "I'm NOT defensive!".
> 
>	I was making a point to some iombeciles who do not understand
                                     ^^^^^^^^^
>simple logic.  There was no need to defend the actions.

(sic!) and you are STILL not defending Israel. Why do you keep posting then if
there is not need to justify all the good deeds Israel performs to the arabs.

>
># >--
># >	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
># >at math and those that are not.
> 
># You are obviously of the third kind :-)
> 
>	I thought I was of the fourth kind :-)

Judging by your spelling, you think 3==4 :-)
>
>makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu

Zeyd


Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:25170 talk.politics.soviet:10380
From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: deportations
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:58:44 GMT

	Note, I normally do not respond (in fact, if my memory is correct,
this is the first time I have) to this guy for the obvious reasons.
In fact, I probably should not here.  And I may not respond again.

In article <1993Jan5.1777.22045@channel1> "wayne mcguire" <wayne.mcguire@channel1.com> writes:

# To: David Makowsky
 
#  DM> William Safire did not give his interpretation.  He was
#  DM> reporting on the OFFICIAL interpretations of the Geneva
#  DM> Conventions as well as its evolution.
 
# Kindly name one international lawyer in the world who is not a
# militant Zionist who supports Israel's and Safire's
# interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.

	How about one of the world's leading authorities in the area.
Bernard Stone.

#  DM> The US and the world are making POLITICAL, NOT LEGAL,
#  DM> statements. When Bush Baker & Associates wanted the State
#  DM> department to issue a legal opinion with your
#  DM> interpretation, they had to get some third rate flunky to do
#  DM> it. None of their top lawyers would because they knew it was
#  DM> bogus.
 
# Present even one particle of proof to back up this statement, if
# you can. Name the incident and name the lawyers.

	I no longer have a copy of the article, but I posted the whole
thing on the net.

# If you can't answer these two questions, readers here may well
# feel obligated to disregard all your assertions.

	You mean, like they already have with you?

	Ps: please wite more about the "racist Kahanist Brooklyn" Jewish
Press, a newspaper read all over the world.  I laugh whenever I see
you reference it.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
From: bv652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ilan Uri Woll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Can anyone answer a real quick, simple question?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 07:05:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bv652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ilan Uri Woll)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, marwang@bach.rutgers.edu (Marwan Gharaybeh) says:

>bv652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ilan Uri Woll) writes:
>
>>Terrorism is the act of killing non-combatants.  And, as I have proven before,
>>the Palestinian civilians have been anything but non-combative.  Stabbings
>>and stonings do not make you peaceful.
>
>Forget about stabbing because these are scattered incidents and the Israelis
>would never spare this golden chance to kill an Arab ... But saying "Stone
>throwing" is a combatant action" is not really accurate.

Marwan, do you make a tradition of ignoring facts already presented.
THOSE STONES ARE ATTACHED TO SPIKES THAN CAN SERIOUSLY INJURE SOMEONE.

As well, you know damn well that stabbings, letter bombing, and other forms
of terrorism are regular acts 
by Hamas and other Palestinian groups.

>Stone throwing is among the common weapons for civilian uprisings. The
>Tear gas might be a "convenient" way to disperse the stone thrower but
>certainly Ozi machine-guns should never be used. Firing the Ozi-machine
>guns on 10 year olds principle-fighters does not make anyone a hero but
>really a disgrace.
]
1. Stone throwing is a weapon unique to the Intifada, Ghandi didn't throw
   stones, Biko didn't, Mandela doesn't, King didn't.  The Palestinian
   uprising used stones entirely TO GAIN THE UNDESERVED PITY OF THE
   INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.  Palestinians in the occupied territories
   still have a substantial number who advocate violence and murder.

2. If someone attacks me threatening my life, I don't care if they are
   10 or 30, I, like any sane man, will defend my life.  And if I see 
   someone trying to murder my brother, I will defend him as well.  Israeli
   police have been forced into the unenviable position of shooting kids
   who have been brainwashed by terrorists into giving their lives up
   attacking the police all for the benefit of TV cameras, who of course
   are sympathetic to the kid.  It's frankly quite sick.

Marwan, finally, I ask you a question, if you believe in the rights of 
Palestinians to live in their own lands.  Do you also believe in Jews
rights to live in Israel as of its 1948 borders?  Yes or No please.

Adieu

"I'm no bigot, I hate everyone."
-- 
---  !      ^    !\  !
 !   !     /-\   ! \ !
___  !__  /   \  !  \!  
                        Avoid cliches like the plague" George Shaw
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu
Subject: Re: Zionism (was Re: All Arabs...)
Reply-To: pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu
Organization: SUNYA School of Public Health, Albany, NY
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 19:43:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.190044.26415@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>In article <1ic8u7INNbh4@early-bird.think.com> shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday) writes:
>>In article <1483500314@igc.apc.org>, cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:
[...]
>
>Since you want to stick to the narrow biological definition of `race'
>and `racism', then I am sure you would also insist that anti-Semitism
>is not a form of racism.  Right?  Just to be consistent, you know.
>
>The fact is that any ideology/state that discriminates against a portion of 
>its population on the basis of race, religion, color, or _ethnic heritage_
>can be judged `racist' in the _common_ usage of the term.
>
[...]

  I am not sure about your _common_ usage of the term _racism_.  Do you
mean your own understanding ?  My Webster states quite clearly:

 : racism - a belief that race is the primary determinant of human
            traits and capacities and that racial differences produce
            an inherent superiority of particular race.


>
>If you believe that it is justified to create and to continue to _maintain_
>a Jewish exclusivist state in Arab Palestine--which is common to virtually
>all known strains of Zionism--then your views are inherently colonial even 
>if you don't acknowledge it.  Such views can also be judged racist since those
>goals could not be achieved without dispossessing the native population of 
>Palestine (the Palestinian people) and denying them their inalienable rights
>in their homeland.
>
>	``The principle setting up the Israeli case of settler
>	colonialism is that in a certain territory (as yet not
>	well-defined, since various Zionist parties claim different
>	borders for the territory) members of the group known in
>	Israel law as the `Jewish people' have superior and exclusive
>	political rights as opposed to all others, including natives of
>	the same territory.''
>		Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, _Original Sins: Reflections on
>		the History of Zionism and Israel_, Pluto Press, 1992,
>		p. 80.
>
>If one subscribes to that principle, then his/her views (or "version" of
>zionism) are racist, even if he/she does not consciously or unconsciously
>practice racism in other behavior.
>

  As far as I understand the problem the term _'Jewish people'_ is
national (reflects nationality or ethnicity) and not the _race_.
thus your statement is wrong.

  Short remark: it seems to me that from your broad understanding of
_racism_ any nation striving to have national homeland would have
to be classified as 'racist'.

                                                  Paul Penczek

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast