HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu)
Subject: Re: Elghani flames again (JUSTICE/EQUALITY IN...)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:32:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.201834.2413445@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep14.170644.29044@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:

>>>>
>>>>Our money, John?  You're lebanese, remember?
>>>
>>>You are off.  Yes *OUR* AMERICAN MONEY.  I am a US CITIZEN FYI.  I pay
>>>tax probably a lot more than you do, and contribute to AMERICA'S unity
>>>a lot more than you do.  My interest in AMERICA is not only associated with
>>>the saftey of israel like some.  ALSO, FYI, the US and Lebanon do alow dual
>>>citizenships. So, I am an American by heart/practice and Lebanese 
>>>via parents.
>>>
>>>
>>>Question:  Are you American, Israeli, or Jewish?  Try and answer that
>>>if you wished to make the above comment about me.
>>
>>	The implication here is that one cannot be American and Jewish.
>>I find this rather offensive.  Of course, it could be that your English
>>is poor, which is not an outrageous possibility.
>
>No, that's not the implication.  It is a question that lies along
>the question : >>>Our money, John?  You're lebanese, remember?
>Why don't you comment on the above response?  Or you are speachless.

	Because when he asked the question, I assumed he meant "Aren't you a 
citizen of Lebanon?" not "Aren't you of Lebanese heritage."  When you 
corrected his mistake, there was nothing left to comment on.  This is not the 
same as  "Are you American, Israeli, or Jewish?" in where the first two 
instances are nationalities and the last one is a heritage.  Get it?

>
>Of course you can be Jewish and American at the same time,  but 
>you should not burn up the President if he doesn't give $5 billion
>a year to israel (in which he does currently).  I know of many
>great jewish americans, don't understand me wrong.  You just read
>my words above wrong, and they are as clear as the Sun in August
>(not in LA of course :) ) .

	Maybe they're clear to you, but I don't think I was the only one who
misinterpreted the question.


Manu

>
>>
>>Manu
>>
>>>
>>>jle
>>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            
>>
>>"The Arab governments were largely responsible for the ruin of the Palestinian
>>  Arabs"     -Sir John Bagot Glubb
>
>


-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

"The Arab governments were largely responsible for the ruin of the Palestinian
  Arabs"     -Sir John Bagot Glubb
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:13:43 GMT


In article 6IE@news.cso.uiuc.edu, eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:
>bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>
>>In article 7@news.cso.uiuc.edu, eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:
>>>
>>>Jews have always, for the last 2000 years, been the majority in Jerusalem.
>>>To claim Arab sovreingty over Jerusalem is  complete lunacy.  Those who
>>>call for an end to Jewish settlement in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea and 
>>>Samaria are simply racists - they are attempting to deny people housing based
>>>on their national identity and religion.  Israel does not prevent Arabs from
>>>building in the territories...Who is the racist now?
>
>>That's a really pathetic argument, but the reason I replied is your
>>first sentence.  Jews have been a majority in urban Jerusalem since
>>about 1870 and were the largest of the groups {Jew,Christian,Moslem}
>>for perhaps 100 years before that.  Earlier on, Jews were a minority.
>>For most of the past 2000 years, Jews were a SMALL minority of the
>>population of Jerusalem.  The immediately surrounding rural areas 
>>(now part of the metropolis) were almost exclusively Arab until 
>>after 1948. [Source: Bachhi, Population of Israel]
>
>The argument is pathetic - compelling!  Why so?  You are however correct
>about when the Jews became a majority in Jerusalem.  However, recent history
>is important and that is what we are considering.  The only reason the Arabs 
>were even a majority is because foreign occupiers (like the British or the Turks)
>prevented free Jewish immigration.  Just look at the British White Papers, 
>especially the White Paper of 1939.  This is essentially what is important.  
>Thearabs became a majority artificially - only because the Jews were held back.

I think you are about the most ignorant poster on t.p.m for quite a while.
Let's see you find some figures to back up this stupid claim.  Alternatively,
find one professional Israeli demographer who supports you.  (You will fail,
because Israel is a world leader in demographic research.)

>Even though the arabs were a majority, there was no indication of permanancy.
>I may reside in  Illinois, but since I have not shown a tendency toward 
>permanancy, I am not considered a resident.  The Moselms never established
>any provincial centers, Islamic schools, or any significant institutions in
>Palestine.  They were there only by convinience, the convinience being that
>massive Jewish immigration provided job oppurtunities in a financially
>depressed area.

Hogswill.  All this sort of crap has been pushed here before, but nobody
ever provided evidence.  Can you?  

>Ed Shnekendorf.

Brendan.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.rights.human
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu)
Subject: Re: The Ugly Palestinian
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:37:02 GMT

In article <3754@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep7.034830.7370@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>>>	If Hanan Aswari is the Good Palestinian,
>>>	and Ahhmed Jebril is the Bad Palestinian,
>>>	can you guess who Yassar Arafat is?
>
>
>But who said the above is true?
>
>And if this is a joke, we are waiting for an answer to
>who Yassir Arafat is ...
>
>Oh - is the subject line the answer?

	Wow you're quick!!!

Manu

>
>You're a strange one ... grow up Vignes!
>
>Anisa
>


-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

"The Arab governments were largely responsible for the ruin of the Palestinian
  Arabs"     -Sir John Bagot Glubb
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Brendan is a racist anti-semitic bigot
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:39:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.064919.16070@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>
>In article 28949@ennews.eas.asu.edu, makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>>	I believe Brendan's own words here condemn him.  I have deleted
>>most of his article, even though I had planned to reply to it
>>(possibly even agreeing with him on the relevence of 242).  However,
>>he has repeated here an anti-semitic theme of dual loyalty amongst
>>Jews living in the United States in his own words (no source, not that
>>this matters except here he cannot even attempt to blame someone else).
>>I am including only the relevant paragraph.
>>
>>	I am doing this because I believes it throws more fuel on the fire
>>of Brendan's bigotry with respect to another thread where I have
>>pointed this out.
>>
>>In article <1992Sep8.015156.11937@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>
>># The word "the" was left out on purpose; no doubt about it.  However,
>># I don't believe the same can be said about Jerusalem.  Just because it 
>># isn't mentioned by name doesn't mean it was left out.  As to what Goldberg 
>># has retrospectively claimed [I am still waiting for someone to provide an 
>># actual quotation or reference]: Goldberg did not constitute the Security 
>># Council in 1967.  Moreover, his behaviour at the time (more like he 
>># represented Israel than like he represented the US) disqualifies him from 
>># speaking on behalf of any SC members except himself.  It is well known that 
>># almost all the SC members wanted a total withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. 
>
>You have it all wrong.  I criticised Goldberg because I have a pathological
>hatred of the letter "G".  Nobody with a "G" at both ends can be any good.
>
>By the way, I like you.

While I have major problems with most of David Makowsky's opinions - and
the rest of the net knows this - about the nature of Zionism and
specifically referring to Kach - I must agree with David that the charge
that Ambassador Goldberg "more like he represented Israel than like he
represented the US" is quite far out of line.  The charge of dual
loyalty is a common tactic used against American Jews by anti-Semites.
Alan Dershowitz documents this in great detail in his book "Chutzpah."
I don't think - yet - that in Brendan's case that this is an indication
of anti-Semitism; it's the first time I've seen him use this charge.
Brendan, I suggest you reconsider your use of language here.  Seriously.


-- 
"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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:43:15 GMT

bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:


>In a previous article, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) says:

>>
>>>  And, as has
>>>   been pointed out many times, the word "the" is missing, intentionally,
>>>   from 1.i, meaning that the resolution does *not* automatically apply
>>>   to all of the land, but quite possibly, only some of it.  That some
>>>   does not need to include Jerusalem.
>>
>>That interpretation seems incompatible with the preamble.

>How about the second half of the sentence, which emphasizes "the need to
>work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live
>in security," which is incompatible with your interpretation of the first
>half of the sentence?

>Or the part wich affirms the right of every state "to live in peace within
>secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force?"

>Remember, the "Green Line" was just supposed to be a temporary armistice
>line, to be replaced by secure and recognized borders when a peace treaty
>was signed shortly after the 1948 war.
>-- 
>bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu

It is also important to remember that one of the framers of the resolution
himself stated that he had no intention of including ALL of the territories.
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: The Ugly Palestinian
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:36:44 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

>In article <1992Sep7.034830.7370@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>>	If Hanan Aswari is the Good Palestinian,
>>	and Ahhmed Jebril is the Bad Palestinian,
>>	can you guess who Yassar Arafat is?


But who said the above is true?

And if this is a joke, we are waiting for an answer to
who Yassir Arafat is ...

Oh - is the subject line the answer?

You're a strange one ... grow up Vignes!

Anisa

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Who are the Occupiers?
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:23:44 GMT

In article 26010@discus.technion.ac.il, davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>Mythology or not mythology the fact is that Jews were related to this
>specific piece of land for 3000+ years , the last 2000 mainly spiritualy
>although throughout the ages Jews maintained small communities in cities
>like Safed,Tiberias,Hebron and Jerusalem and billages in teh Gallilee.
>
>You may argue that Israel should return the lands to the Cannanites if
>you want to fight ownership. Palestinian Arabs are VERY LATE invaders
>occiupiers who have ENORMOUS NERVE to claim anything in this country.

Please explain the principle by which late invaders have fewer rights
than early invaders.

>They live here - as Jews live in NY and in Germany: Jews don't claim 
>NY or Germany as a NATIONAL home. they have rights as individuals - no
>rights as a nation. The Fiction of Plaestinian nation is one of the 
>greatest tricks in propaganda the 20th century experienced. 

I am perfectly happy for the Jews of the world to decide amongst
themselves whether or not they form a "nation".  I think that the
Palestinians have the same right.  Just because their "nation"hood
is a more recent development than that of the Jews doesn't make it
less real.  

>                                                             There was
>no such thing - they were "Syrians of the South" and no more than that.
>many Arabs from all over the Arab world Egypt,Sudan,Syria flowed into 
>the country since the 1910s - they have not the flimisiest right to 
>sit here on the expense of prosecuted Jews who finally came to rest.

I see, the Massive Recent Immigration myth.  It has been debunked so
many times that it must take some courage to still believe it.
Congratulations.

>The Arabs that sat here before the Jews came will be welcome as Israeli
>citizens (and are welcomed) - they have no national rights here.

So all the Arabs who have recent ancestors who lived in modern-Israel
are welcome to return as citizens?  I didn't expect such a concession
from you.

>David.

Brendan.
From: jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000)
Subject: Re: A naive question about the law of return
Organization: LC
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:45:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.143943.11216@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mmokhtar@attmail.com (Mazen Mokhtar) writes:
>In article <25703@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>>If my ancestors converted to Judaism, does this give me the right to
>>emigrate to Israel? Is this logical? Why (not)?
>
>  I would also like to ask a related question:
>
>  If I am one of the children of Israel and my ancestors converted from Judaism
>and accepted Islam, does this give me the right to emigrate to Israel? Is
>this logical?

"To emigrate" is is not the problem.   It gives you the right to
steal the native's land, home, horse, and cow; that is in addition to 
the right of killing him and his children.


P.S. these issues have been discussed on this newsgroup where none
of the israel-establishment supporters gave a logical answer.

jle

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.rights.human
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Israel and Kuwait in the Spotlight
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<3720@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> <1992Sep9.003354.3761@bony1.bony.com>
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:51:59

In article <1992Sep9.003354.3761@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>   Arabs who are citizens of the State of Israel actually may and do vote
>   for political leaders who actively represent their interests, 

Jake, you know as well as I that the Arab political are not allowed to
question the Zionist nature of the State of Israel.  Thus for example
if in the future the Jews become the minority in Israel (as is the
fear of many Kachists), the Arab parties would not legally be able to
exert their otherwise normal democratic right to take over the
government.  Thus your claim that Arab Israelis are allowed to vote
for political leaders who represent their interests is false.

I should also point out that the Israeli policy of deporting
"troublemakers" extends to Arab politicians of the West Bank, and
often the only trouble some of the deportees made was actively
representing the interests of the Palestinian Arabs.  Thus your claim
is not only false, it is hollow.

>   as
>   opposed to all the other Arab states where elections are non-existent,
>   total shams or merely electing figureheads who have no authority
>   anyways.  The Arab voting-block was not insignificant in the recent
>   Israeli elections.

What is your opinion of the recent elections in Lebanon and Yemen?

>   Arabs in Israel have opportunities to earn money, in some cases enough
>   to qualify as wealthy by American standards.  In most Arab states,
>   such opportunities are apportioned based on class, birthplace, family
>   membership or religious persuasion and other such categorizations that
>   would be considered corrupt or racist anywhere in the West or in
>   Israel.

Oh?  How about the Palestinian Arabs who, because of their religious
persuasion and birthplace, are allowed to work in Israel only under
special conditions.

>   ...
>   When Palestinean Arabs have spent much of this century feuding with
>   Palestinean Jews, killing off hundreds of Jewish women and children
>   along the way,

A treatment, by the way, that they were also getting from the
Palestinian Jews.

>   then spent the last 30 years running the wealthiest and
>   best-known terrorist group in the world, and most recently fighting a
>   full-scale civil war inside Israel, with the declared of ridding
>   themselves of the government, it is very odd for you to describe these
>   same people as now being "scapegoated". ...
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
From: rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:39:28 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <1992Sep14.054008.15083@mcs.kent.edu> rayes@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Sandra Rayes) writes:

>Don't make me laugh...free access to everyone....NOT!  Just ask my neighbor...
>who can't even cross the river.  No, my neighbor is not a former terrorist,
>she is a young lady, mother of two infants, about 5'3", 90#!  A real threat.
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No disrespect to your neighbour (for a start, I do not even know her)
but even a child can be trained in the use of a gun.  Also, it is
thought that one old Arab shepherd caused the death of thirty-three
soldiers on a rescue/reinforcement mission to the Etzion Bloc on 13th
May 1948 during Israel's War Of Liberation [Independence].

>
>Sandra.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg            |    ^     Ellul is here, so:  (I also forgive
Bitnet:                     | \-/-\-/   "Repent now!        everybody)
rothberg@bimacs             |  X   X     Avoid the Yom Kippur rush!"
Internet:                   | /-\-/-\      -Nero (aka Harry Blacker)
rothberg@imacs.cs.biu.ac.il |    V    Ketivah VeChatimah Tovah-Shanah Tovah
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: A naive question about the law of return
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:06:51 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <194gpfINNisa@corax.udac.uu.se> flax@mizar.docs.uu.se writes:
=>In article <25850@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
=>
=>|> If one can become Jewish by conversion, then it cannot be the case that
=>|> the Jews are 100% a people evicted byt the Romans.

[. . .]

=>|> But then you would still have to supply a rationale for the victims of
=>|> Nazism being accommodated in a Middle Esatern country. Should Israel also
=>|> be a homeland for gypsies, homosexuals, the insane, Communists, and other
=>|> groups persecuted by the Nazis?
=>
=>You are missing a point here. Israel is a jewish state. 

No, I think it is you who are missing the point, by not reading what I
wrote. I made the point that there are people who are Jewish who have
no connection through their ancestors to any part of what is now "Israel".
I inquired into the rationale by which these people should have any more
right to move to Israel than does anyone have to move anywhere they choose. 

[. . .]
=>What you are suggesting is that we apply a VICTIM label to all people
=>mistreated by the Nazis, and ship them to a certain geographical area 
=>on that criterion. It's like trying to represent music with 1 bit.
=>The victims are of a broader range than that, and the ranges overlap 
=>as well. Most important, I feel that it must be _their_ choice.

On the contrary, I was simply saying that if persecution by the Nazis
was, as Adam may have suggested, a reason for accommodating (certain) people in
Palestine, then why should this facility not be afforded to anyone else
who wanted it.

[. . .]
=>|> Indeed a disgraceful state of affairs, but not really a reason for the 
=>|> Palestinians to pay for the choice of some people to elect to become Jews.
=>
=>Agreed. Now, am I to understand that you suggest we dismantle the whole 
=>state of Israel, returning it to the englishmen and start over?
=>Or should we send all the victims (and their descendants) of WWII to 
=>England instead? 

No. The best way to understand what I am/was saying is to read my postings
from this thread, without making false assumptions about what my "hidden
agenda" may or may not be.


-- 
=======Jeremy Henderson========egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk===============
Q: How many user support people does it take to change a light bulb?
A: We have an exact copy of the light bulb here and it seems to be
   working fine.  Can you tell me what kind of system you have?  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Historical study (Was: Re: Lehi and nazies)
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:28:28 GMT

In article <25691@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:

# In article <1992Sep7.160131.1719@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# => If you did not here it from something
# =>directly related to the subjects in question, you have no business
# =>dealing in it at all.  
 
# This is going to make study of any history older than about 100 years ago
# a little bit tricky?
 
	Nope.  It only makes claiming people have made disgusting
statements, and then in an illogical fashion analyzing those statements
without any real proof they were made, a little more dificult.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
From: v053qhyx@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Jeremy A Berger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: How Much Did The U.S. Get?
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep12.200154.7725@ifi.uio.no>, michaelp@ifi.uio.no (Michael Schalom Preminger) writes...
> 
>In article <1992Sep10.180958.26254@discus.technion.ac.il>, davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:> 
>                                  .
>                                  .
> 
>> I think that not killing Saddam Husein (or at least trying the best to
>> do it) was a MAJOR mistake , again motivated by stupid righteousness
>> and incompetence.
> 
>Quarreling about what is right or what is wrong is one thing. Moral is relative.
> 
>But believing that Saddam still sitting as president is a "mistake
>motivated by stupid righteousness" of the U.S is to my opinion very naive.
> 
>Nothing "righteous" in Saddam still in power. It is a practical choise done by
>the U.S thinking mostly about Turkey and the Curdish problem in the north, and
>Shia moslems in the south. After killing 250000 to punish Iraq and
>Saddam, Saddam is still the best choice for the U.S. 
> 
>No mistakes. The word is interests.
> 
>Michael


One of the major worries of desert storm was that of someone more radical than
husein taking power if his "unfortunate" death were to happen.  Or of Husein 
being used as a morter and of getting a greater anti-U.S. sentiment in the 
region..
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast