From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:21:15 GMT
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <JIME.92Apr13005028@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# In article <1992Apr12.071221.2718@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <JIME.92Apr12011324@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# >   # In article <1992Apr12.014433.29249@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   # >   In article <JIME.92Apr10223708@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# >   # >   # Yes, you are right.  [The amount of land purchased by pre-1948
# >   # >   # Zionists] should be between 7 and 8%, not 5%.  I erred.

# >	   You no longer try to defend the 5-8% figure.  I geuss this is
# >   because you must realize that as a percentage of available land the
# >   Zionists bought a huge amount
 
# What gives you this idea?  You posted a 7% number, and I agreed with it.
 
	What gave me the idea was the thought (admittedly a stuoid one)
that you had somehow come to your senses.

# >   # 1.  During the 1948 war, the Israeli forces had the deliberate policy
# >   # to expel the Palestinian populace from their villages and lands.  Even
# >   # Ben Gurion participated in this decision.

# >	   The only deliberate acts of expulsion that were carried out (there
# >   were others that were drawn up but not executed - this is not strange)
# >   were on villages that had been mortal threats to Jewish lives, for
# >   instance some were used as bases to launch attacks.
 
# Of course, in some Israelis' minds, _any_ Arab presents a mortal
# threat, so _all_ Arabs should be expelled.  Your spin is unconvincing.

	This is a straw man argument, which does nothing at all but help
to foster bigotry and resentment.  And it is false also.

# >   # 2.  After the populace fled, any farmers etc returning to their lands
# >  # were arrested or shot.

# >	   At least you admit that many fled, and were not forced.  Almost
# >   none were shot when they did not instigate, and when they were shot,
# >   there was substantial reason to believe there was a threat.  I do not
# >   know of any that were arrested, but some were deported (is that what
# >   you mean by arrested?).
 
# Many were forced to flee.

	This was a small percentage of those that fled.

# Many were shot when they tried to harvest
# the crops from their own land.  Does that count as instigation?

	Nope (to both the question and the statement).  Some were
deported, those that were shot either commited acts of violence, or
else gave good reason to believe they were going to.

# >   # 3.  Many Palestinian villages were dynamited or bulldozed.  Kinda
# >   # makes it hard to come home when there is no home to come home to.

# >	   The only ones this happened to were the ones that were a mortal
# >  threat.
 
# See definition of "threat" above.  You are wrong.

	See response above.  You are wrong.

# Most villages were
# dynamited after they were abandoned by the Arabs, and thus presented
# no more danger to the Israelis.

	But they would have been a danger had they remained and the Arabs
came back to them.

# >  # 4.  The vacant lands were declared "abandoned".  Any abandoned land
# >   # was expropriated and made state land.  It was made available for sale
# >   # to Jews only (an essentially racist law).
# >   # No attempt was made to
# >   # compensate the Palestinians.
# >   # Now that was perfectly legal in the sense that it followed Israeli
# >   # law.  Yet it was not right.

# >	   You seem to have totally ignored the overwhelming amount of land
# >   that was state land before Israel even had it (and therefore does not
# >   include any of the land given in your "explanation").
 
# What does that have to do with the expropriation of land?  Nothing.

	Well you have just shown that it is easy to change the subject (as
you did) and then claim that what was being discussed has nothing to
do with the (new) subject.

	It has to do with the amount of state land that what was
legitimately state land vs. what was appropriated (and some [but not
all] of the appropriations were legitimate).
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:3425 soc.misc:561 talk.politics.mideast:10850 talk.politics.misc:18329