From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Deportation of Palestinians
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:59:06 GMT

I found Jeremy Henderson's article truly hilarious, not to mention
utterly specious.  It's funny how he uses his perceptions of one
incident to try to prove things completely unconnected with it, and to
draw connections about the nature of Israeli democracy which are
patently false.

In article <29851@castle.ed.ac.uk> jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeremy Henderson) writes:
>The affair of the illegal and immoral deportation of Palestinians has
>brought some interesting things into focus on this newsgroup. First of 
>all we can dispose of the myth that Rabin is a peacemaker, since he has
>single-handedly destroyed the peace process more effectively than even
>Shamir could have dreamed of.

I disagree.  First of all, are you suggesting that he did this expressly
to ruin the peace process?  You're sadly mistaken.   Are you suggesting
that Shamir, faced with the same wave of attacks from Hamas & co. would
not have torpedoed the process even further?  You're also mistaken.
Sharon, Netanyahu et al. have recently written in the Israeli press that
the recent upsurges in violence both from the Hezbullah (in Lebanon) but
also from Hamas are themselves not only warranting of actions like
Rabin's but also formal withdrawal from the talks.  Third, do you think
that Rabin doesn't want peace?  Then let's see some evidence, not
innuendo such as you state here.

> Secondly, we can also dispose of the myth that
>the Israeli parliament contains a wide spectrum of viewpoints with regard
>to the (surely central) issue of the Palestinian question, since the
>so-called leftist Meretz party steped neatly into line and goose-stepped
>into ignominy behind Rabin. 

Talk about shaky evidence.  I would suggest that Mr. Henderson try
reading the broadsheet in the Jerusalem Post International Edition
concerning the party platforms for all the parties now in the Knesset.
The most recent one was printed the week of the most recent editions,
and he should easily be able to find it in Edinburgh.  What he's saying
essentially is that since his point of view isn't represented then by
definition there is not a wide spectrum of viewpoints!  Talk about
specious!

>Thirdly, we can also consign to oblivion the
>notion that the majority of the Israeli public really want a just peace
>based on honest dealing with the Palestinians, since according to opinion
>polls 91% of them are in accored with the deportations. 

Maybe there's a reason for that?  What you're trying to say is that
unless they agree with you on this point they cannot be called serious.
Utter Hogwash.  Jeremy Henderson, czar of political opinions.

>On top of that,
>we can see that the Israeli supreme court is not an independent judiciary
>body, it is a political poodle of the government, since otherwise it would
>not have been possible for it to decide that the deportees are now a
>Lebanese problem since they are on Lebanese soil (Great idea for reducing
>overcrowding in US prisons - parachute the criminal into Israel, then it's
>their problem!!).

Excuse me, you're confusing things here.  First of all, it wasn't the
Israeli Supreme Court that decided that the deportees, now that they're
in Lebanon, are a Lebanese problem: like it or not, Rabin himself made
that decision and announced it.  The Supreme Court did however rule that
the deportations were legal according to Israeli law.  You may not like
either decision, but you should at least attribute things correctly
instead of using incorrect information to draw incorrect conclusions.

>As for the debate on this newsgroup, that too reveals some sorry sights.
>I can believe that the apologists for Israel

I see his own biases showing.  Israel doesn't have "apologists" in the
sense Mr. Henderson means.  None of us walk lock-step with any Israeli
government.  None of us will defend every actions of Israel.  That is
evidenced over and over again in this newsgroup.  But I see that means
nothing in context...

> might in good faith debate the
>finer points of the translation of the LEHI letter to the Nazis, they might
>discuss the number of Palestinians in Palestine in 1948 before they were
>"ethnically cleansed",

They were *NOT* ethnically cleansed.

> they might even, in good faith, believe the various
>silly myths about "blooming deserts", and other codswallop, but now the facts
>are plain to see, and yet they STILL pop up defending the indefensible. I
>am sure that Makowsky, Tractinsky and the whole sick crew would defend the
>devil himself if he wrapped himself in the Israeli flag. So it is with some
>regret that I am adding the names of these gents to my killfile. I usually
>try to avoid adding people, rather than topics, since there's always the
>small chance that you will pickup some useful information from the 
>unlikeliest source, but in this case it's clear that they cannot even be relied
>upon to give the correct time of day. Adios, amigos.

What is made completely clear is that Mr. Henderson is not debating the
issue with an open mind.  I'm very much insulted by the utterly false,
specious, and despicable charge that "Makowsky, Tractinsky and the whole
sick crew would defend the devil himself if he wrapped himself in the
Israeli flag."  Henderson, you *KNOW* that's not true.  There is a very
very wide spectrum of belief among those of us who support Israel on
this net - from an open supporter of Kach (Makowsky), to supporters of
Meretz/CRM (Danny Keren).  I personally place myself in the Labor camp
though on the left of the Labor spectrum.  Do you honestly think that
there is no disagreement that goes on in Israel, or that supporters of
Israel will not criticize what they see as an evil therein when they
believe it exists, especially when you have myriad posts *ON THIS NET*
as evidence that they *DO* exactly that?  Well, Mr. Henderson, that is
*EXACTLY* what you've just said.  

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Henderson, good riddance.  What's needed in
the middle east and indeed, in our world today, is an open mind.  It's
evident that you don't consider anyone who doesn't share your views as
worthy of any consideration at all.  

-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder