HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ejk@coral.JPL.NASA.gov (Elya Kapelyan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Prote
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:14:38 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <1992Jul23.200154.4222@cs.cmu.edu>, anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:

|> Our local paper, the Pittsburgh Press, has reported on Yitzhak Shamir's
|> dealings with the Nazis.  Should it be shut down? (Despite the fact that
|> the Teamsters have done that for several weeks now).
|> 
|> >-- 
|> >bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
|> 
|> -anwar
|> 

	Exactly what were these "dealings" with the Nazis?  Are you (or the
paper) referring to the attempts by Avraham Stern to get in touch with the
Germans, and offer to help them fight the British, if they guaranteed that
European Jews would be allowed to go there, and be left in peace?  Or are you
referring to the policy of the Jewish Agency, which bought the freedom for 
German Jews in the mid-1930's (which was bitterly opposed by Jabotinsky)?

	If you are referring to the former, then these "dealings" didnt't get
very far, and represented a desperate attempt to save the Jews who later 
perished in the Holocaust.  If you are referring to the latter, then you are
making a gross mistake, since the policy of ransoming Jews was pursued by the
Labor Zionists, and in the face of vociferous objections of the Revisionists.

	As for the case of the DJ in San Francisco, I am _assuming_ that the
reason that many found his references offensive was that he played out the
old canard (quite popular in some Arab circles) that the Zionists conspired
with the Nazis to stage the Holocaust.  (Or some variation on this canard.)

	Elya
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: flax@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare)
Subject: Re: Things That Make You Go Grrrrrrrr....
Reply-To: flax@mizar.docs.uu.se
Organization: Dept. of Control and Systems, Teknikum, Uppsala
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:48:24 GMT

In article <23959@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul20.122826.4926@corax.udac.uu.se> flax@mizar.docs.uu.se writes:
|> =>You say free speech is _not_ divisible, either one is permitted _all_ 
|> =>free speech or you are pro_censorship.
|> =>Question #1: Are you for or against free speech?

I'd appreciate an answer to the above.

|> =>Question #2: If for, how should a system allowing free speech handle the
|> =>'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' problem, without imposing censorship
|> =>upon its members.

And this as well.

|> =>As I see it, what you are effectively saying, is that no system can handle
|> =>free speech. Is this correct?

This is called a yes or no alternative. If you don't think my statement is correct,
a simple 'no' will suffice.

|> =>As for myself, I like the idea of 'free speech' but accept that in order
|> =>to have a working system, there may exist some exceptions. That is, to 
|> =>embrace the current system I must accept using an inconsistent ruleset.
|> =>
|> =>Any ideas how to solve that dilemma?

This I'd _really_ like to see you answer. I believe many lawyers would too.

|> =>(And yes, the above make me go 'Grrrrrr...' as well at times.)
|> 
|> [whizzzzzzzzzzz........piiinnngggggggg]    <-sound of Jonas missing the point

Nice onomatopoetic effect, but not very appropriate, since you included more than
90 % of my posting, just in an attempt at being funny.

|> What you think is one thing, but saying that you think one thing but acting
|> like you think another is called "hypocrisy" (well, almost).

Oh? I _really_ believe we should all be nice to each other, I often say I think
that, but if someone punch me in the face I punch back. Hypocricy? I guess I'm
not the only one then.. I'll settle at _trying_ not to be, oh so perfect one.
Now, if you can take time off from running the world for us, I'd be 
overjoyed to have answers to my questions.

--------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Flygare, 		+ Wherever you go, there you are
V{ktargatan 32 F:621	+
754 22 Uppsala, Sweden	+
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:33:40 -0400 
From: Radu Eugen Edelstein <re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Want facts? "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA? The Alarming Facts"

Scott Gibson writes:
I missed no point at all.  I understand, first, that Israel has been
subjected to more criticism than Israel's neighbors; and second, that
you believe this is an unfair treatment of Israel.  I agree, in
general, that this does not show a balanced treatment of Israel and
her neighbors.

This isn't where we have a dispute, Jake.  Where we part ways, is that
_you_ believe that any criticism of Israel can be waved away by referring
to these facts, while _I_ believe that it is dishonest to reject valid
criticism in this fashion.

I say:
Given the fact that I made the same argument that Jack did, I
want to explain what I meant.  For me, somebody who is concerned
too much with what Israel does wrong, while not making
comments about even worse things happening elsewhere, has an
interest that is very suspicious to me.  I believe that people whose
preocupation is unbalanced to such an extent have other reasons
behind their ultraconcern with Israel and I strongly suspect them
of being antisemites.  The condamnation of Israel is a condamnation
of the Jews.
Rad
From: murray.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Prote
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:09:35 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

> Look, if Shamir's name was an Arabic one, you and your cohort would have
> declared him an outright Nazi long ago, based on what we know of his
> actions during that period.  You might as well admit it.
> --
The major Nazi in the area was the Grand Mufti and this is not hearsay, 
it's a verifiable fact.

              ==========================================
                | We want to be troubled no more by Arabs;|
                |          room to breathe;               |
                |    a skyline cleansed of them           |
                |                                         |
                |      Franz Kafke, Jackals and Arabs     |
                ===========================================
From: analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: stones over the wall
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:16:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


I believe bob's analogy comparing the Palestinians with the North
Vietnamese leading to the conclusion that the Intifada will eventually
success is badly flawed and that his conclusion can thus not flow
by analogy.

The North Vietnamese weren't dependent on the U.S. or the South
Vietnamese for jobs. I had a long talk with a Palestinian from the
West Bank whose family still owns property there, and who was by
happenstance enrolled in a seminar with me on quite another subject,
this weekend. He says that about 90% of the Palestinians in the West
Bank and Gaza are directly or indirectly dependent on Israel for jobs.

Second, the Palestinians don't have access to weapons at a comparable
level of lethality as the Israeli Army. The Israeli Army has and
uses the capability to interdict any shipment of such weapons in
any significant quantities.

By the way, an interesting corrolary of the conversation is that the
Palestinian claimed that most Territory Palestinians were so linked to
Israel economically that if there were a mutually acceptable
settlement (and perhaps the dust settled for a few years) an attack on
Israel by other Arab countries would be so inimical to the
self-interest of the Palestinians that they would side with Israel,
and help defend against the aggressor.

Although some may find such a statement surprising, it's at least
worth noticing.

-- 
David Sternlight        David Sternlight Inc.        email:analyst@netcom.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen)
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
Reply-To: horen@rs.com
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:40:13 PDT

In article 91477@bu.edu, gene@cs.bu.edu (Gene Itkis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.063519.4451@rs.com> horen@rs.com writes:
>+In article 21981@venera.isi.edu, arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
>+-I'm afraid you know wrong.  The US does not even recognize western
>+-Jerusalem (i.e., the part taken by Israel in 1948) as part of Israel.
>+-I've mentioned in the past that the US State Department will not record
>+-a person's country of origin in a passport as 'Israel' if they were born
>+-in Jerusalem.
>+
>+Ah-h-h, I'm afraid *you* know wrong. Both of my daughters were born at the 
>+"Bikur Cholim" hospital, smack-dab in the middle of Jerusalem, and both of 
>+their *American* passports list place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel".
>
>Perhaps you both know right: Yigal probably meant those born before 48.

Uh-h-h, if *that's* what Yigal meant, then heck, my wife was born in Tel-Aviv
in 1945, and *her* birth-certificate lists place of birth as "Tel-Aviv,
Palestine", while her US Passport lists it as "Tel-Aviv, Israel".

If Yigal wants to be mekhadesh something, he's gonna hafta work harder.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: ISRAEL JOINS THE CIVILIZED WORLD
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 23:39:00 GMT

In article <23796@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.000649.12765@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>=>In article <23602@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>=>>In article <1992Jul8.002754.8220@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>Another graduate of the Pee-Wee Hermann School of Debate. Like to try
>answering the question now, Jake?

On you, it would be a wasted effort.  
Look it up in a dictionary, if you can figure out how to use one.

Virtually all world leaders are interested in (roughly this order):
- themselves;
- politicking;
- administration of the people they are supposed to lead
...and somewhere near the bottom of the list...
- aquiescing or even active support of military efforts and killing.

This includes the Bush's, Majors, Shamirs, Yeltsins, Gandhis and Palmes
of the world.

Other leaders are interested in:
- themselves;
- encouraging and organizing the killing of innocents who are 
  entirely unrelated to any "struggle" that is being emphasized;
...and down at the bottom of their list...
- administration of the people they are supposed to be representing 
  and occasionally even doing something in their benefit.

This includes the Arafats, Habash's, Hawatmehs of the world.

Whether you describe such behavior as monstrous or terrorist or
extra-terrestrial, there IS a difference between the former and 
the latter.

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: U.S. territories vs. Israel territories
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:04:37 GMT
	<156d64INNn1p@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Jul29.153831.25189@colorado.edu>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Jul29.153831.25189@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:

   In article <156d64INNn1p@agate.berkeley.edu> dan@jonas.berkeley.edu (dan graves) writes:
   >In article <1992Jul29.143532.1796@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, diaz@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Rafael Diaz) writes:
   >|> 
   >|> I would like to raise an issue of comparing U.S. territories vs.
   >|> Israel territories. To be more specific I will use the Island
   >|> of Guam in the South-East Pacific ocean.
   >|> 
   >|> * The people of Guam are U.S. citizens, but they have NO voting power
   >|>   in the presidential election.
   >|> 
   >|> * The people of the W.B. & Gaza are NOT Israeli citizens and have
   >|>   no voting power in the Israeli elections.
   >|> 
   >|> 
   >|>   Could somebody explain why is it O.K not to have presidential 
   >|>   voting power in U.S. territories?
   >|> 
   >|> 
   >|> -Rafy
   >|> 
   >|> -- 
   >|> ________________________________________________________________________
   >|> 		       __        _    
   >|>   =_   __   ___    =  /  )      / )   ==========   diaz@sigi.sps.mot.com
   >|>  =  ) /_ )     )  =  /--<  _  -/-     == oakhill!sigi!diaz@cs.utexas.edu
   >
   >Are you certain that this is true?  i remember some coverage of
   >politics in Guam and Puerto Rico.   Email replies will be appreciated.
   >
   >respectfully,

   The situation, as I recall it, is that while Guam, Puerto Rica, et
   al. have presidential primaries, and some delegates to both the D&R
   conventions, they have no electoral votes and thus don't have
   presidential voting power.  They also don't have representatives in
   Congress.

They do however have a certain amount of local autonomy, something the
Palestinians in the territories will only begin to acquire in the next
year or two.

Also, as US citizens, they can emigrate to the United States (proper)
and become first-class citizens at any time.
--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss)
Subject: Re: Arab Gestures
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:23:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.171746.23926@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:
>
>Can anybody list any substantial Arab gestures of goodwill towards Israel,
>say comparable to ending the intifada, stopping terrorist attacks on
>civilians, ending the boycott, ending the secondary and tertiery aspects of
>the boycott, ceasing to distribute anti-semitic literature such as the
>Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or something comparable?
>

1> Me talking to you
2> Peace with Egypt
3> Meeting at the Peace table
4> Accepting two states idea

Give the Palestinians a state and you will not need any goodwill gestures, you
will have peace.
>Or can anybody explain why it is always Israel that is called on to take
>confidence-building measures? 
>
>-- 
>bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu


-- 
Nabil Idriss                           |       FOR EVERY ACTION AN OPPOSITE  
NCR - Midrange Products Division       |       AND EQUAL REACTION.
      Columbia, South Carolina         |      
email: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM |
From: phd21@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A. Jaber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: More about Foua Ajami
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:05:31 GMT
Reply-To: phd21@seq1.kl.ac.uk (A. Jaber)
Organization: University of Keele, England



	Fouad Ajami in his article "the End of Arab Nationalism" in the 
	New Republic of August 12, 1991 he says" An Arab historian with
	American Citezenship was lifted out of Beirut in the summer of
	1982 by the US Enbassy; he arrived on America's shores to rail
	against America's Imperialism and to offer up the old pieties.
	Christian Arabs who in private expressed deep fears of the
	Muslim tide stepped out into the public domain to speak the
	progressive role of Islamic movement, to praise its
	anti-Imperialistic character. ......"
	

Here again Ajami shows his mentality. Who gave Ajami the right to
slander American citezens for speaking out their mind? Those American
Citezens who thought the US policy in the Middle East was not right.
Ajami is not aware that he is denying them a very sacred American
institution which is freedom of speech. The same institution that gave 
him the right to come on TV and dish out his mumble-jumbe about any
thing moves in the Middle East. 

Ajami chose the words carefully by describing his foes as Arab 
Americans instead of refering to them as Americans in order to discredit
them. I wonder if Ajami ever heard of many promiment Americans who 
disagreed with the Reagan's Policy in the Middler East, those honourable
Americans were not Arabs but for some reason Ajami choose to ignore this.
To be honest those Americans who said no to the US policy said it while 
they are proud of America and they did not need to crawl to get recoginition 
from America. 

The calculated cheap attacks of Ajami extends to the Christian Arabs of 
America. In his calculated attack Ajami thinks he want to become a Giant
in the eyes of the literary world. Of those Christian Arabs who are
attacked by Ajami for the defense of Islam is Prof. Edward Said, Ajami
is not aware that he is adwarf in the intellectual world when compared
to Prof Said to quote Lloyd Bentsen ( YOU are no Prof Said Fouad Ajami).

Ajami goes on to say that Christain Arabs were expressing their fears 
in private about Islam, I do wonder if Ajami was the private confidence
of the Christian Churches in the Middle East. Once again the attack by
Ajami on christian Arabs is a calculated  Khomeinist approach. This
tactic was used by Radio Tehran to discredit Arabs by saying what
good Arab Nationalism since many of its followers and leaders are
Christians.

This is Ajami and his admirer Anwar Mohammad!! Compare the two.

A Jaber

" Why don't you Shut up and sit down" George Bush July 24th. 1992
speaking to the families of the MIAs.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen)
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
Reply-To: horen@rs.com
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:37:26 PDT

In article 4587@daily-planet.concordia.ca, ilyess@davinci.concordia.ca (Ilyess Bdira) writes:
>
>About the U.S government receiving orders:
>Nobdy can deny these two facts:
>
>1) In the U.s systems the PACs and the secial interest groups are
>the ones who determine the agenda of the President and Congress.
>2)The pro-Israeli PAC's are the most powerfule most organized and most
>influencial lobbies around.
>
>The rest is left as an exercise to the student..
>

You ignorant twit. While "Fact #1" is quite correct, "Fact #2" is a crock.

Although AIPAC is well organized, it is only so because we Jews care. The
problem with Arab PACs is the same as with Korean, African, etc. -- those
of Arab/Korean/African/etc. nationality here in the US, for whatever reasons,
have not gotten themselves organized. Is it our (Jews) problem that you people
can't get your shit together?

As for being "most influential", well, influence happens because someone else
listens. Don't bother us about it -- if you've got a bone to pick, go to the
people doing the listening. But don't just tell them to stop listening, try
and offer them a better-sounding tune to listen to.

And the *most* influential PACs on Capitol Hill are the tobacco, oil, arms, and
sugar (among others) lobbies. Hell, who was it that convinced the US Government
to *forgive* billions of dollars in loans to Egypt? Was it AIPAC? huh, do ya
think so??

As you wrote, "The rest is left as an exercise for the reader."



Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Mr. Arens, what would you have done?
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:17:57 GMT

In article <22061@venera.isi.edu>, arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
|>In article <1992Jul28.192217.21828@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
|>ejk@coral.JPL.NASA.gov (Elya Kapelyan) writes:
|>>
|>>  While reading Mr. Arens's responses on Lehi's contacts with the
|>Nazi's,
|>> a question kept popping into my head, and since I wanted a public
|>response,
|>> I decided to ask the question here.  So here it is:
|>>
|>>  What would you have done if you were in place of Avraham Stern? 
|>(I
|>> believe that he was still alive during these attempted contacts.)
|>
|>It sounds from your question like you believe that the approach taken
|>by
|>LEHI was somehow the only reasonable one possible under the
|>circumstances.  Do you?
|>
|>What confuses me is that you appear to be ignoring the fact that by
|>far
|>the great majority of Jews in Palestine, under the leadership
|>Ben-Gurion, managed to get through WWII without seeking an alliance
|>with
|>the Nazis and/or offering to fight on the Axis side.  As bizarre as
|>it
|>may seem, many Jews from Palestine actually joined the British
|>army(!).
|>
|>So why ask *me* what I would have done?  Are you not happy with what
|>the
|>mainstream Zionist movement chose to do?

I have spoken to a number of people in the civil service who seem to
think that were it not for LEHI murdering the British High commisioner
and carrying out various acts of terrorism that the British would have
been much more in favour of the creation of Israel. 

Providing retrospective explanations of Shamirs actions in terms of
assisting European Jewry just will not wash. The mindset of the
terrorist is to justify anything that will assist in achieving their
aim. Shamir wanted an exclusivist Jewish state in Palestine. I think you
underestimate the absolute single and literal mindedness of such
fanatics. The IRA man justifies the kneecaping of a 15 year old Catholic
boy for the crime of joyridding because it is `neccessary' within the
struggle to free Ireland from the country that exploited it in the 19th
Century. LEHI were the lunatic fringe of the underground movement, there
can be no doubt that they would consider anybody and especialy any Jew
who was not actively working to fulfil their ends as an enemy. 


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: IRAQ & UN Inspection - what next?
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 21:18:32 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

With the continuing refusal (by Iraq) to permit UN inspection teams into the
Ministry of Agriculture offices, speculation about Iraq's future once again
becomes interesting.

Is Iraq in violation of the ceasefire agreement? Their UN ambassador, in an
interview today (CNN), says that Iraq is not - that Iraq has the right as a
sovereign nation to deny entrance to government offices.

If Iraq _is_ in violation (again), will the UN push for a military solution?
Does the UN need another resolution to implement such a solution, or are
existing resolutions adequate?

Would the American and Canadian public accept such a solution? (I would, so
all those pursuing moral high ground may now pounce upon the issue in a
flurry of self-righteousness :-))


-- 
"Also, our records do not support that Mr. Leuchter performed either
consulting or any service...I can attest that the planning and work was
performed by the Department of Correction Engineering Section and our
institution maintenance department." Signed: Gary T. Dixon, Warden NC
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen)
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Prote
Reply-To: horen@rs.com
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:46:50 PDT

In article 4222@cs.cmu.edu, anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.182600.16986@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:
>>
>>I wonder if the fact that Edwards is a hate-monger, or the fact that he had
>>little regard for facts and made up absurd, inflammatory statements such as
>>"Yitzhak Shamir and David Ben Gurion colluded with the Nazis during World
>>War II" could have had anything to do with his well-deserved canning. 
>
>Our local paper, the Pittsburgh Press, has reported on Yitzhak Shamir's
>dealings with the Nazis.  Should it be shut down? (Despite the fact that
>the Teamsters have done that for several weeks now).

What? The Teamsters have had dealings with the Nazis for several weeks now??
Is *nothing* sacred???