From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: MEQ -- Its Editor and His Agenda
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

In article <1993Jan26.042408.12410@cirrus.com> Chris Metcalfe writes:

Good subject line, Chris.

>In article <1jvu5cINNqlp@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

>>>>>>[Chris:]
>>>>>>You (Center For Policy Research) and Wayne and MEQ consistantly
>>>>>>label Jews and Zionists as racists, as you have done above. 

>>>>>[Brendan:]
>>>>>What kind of vicious lie is this?  No posting in the MEQ series,
>>>>>nor any posting of its editor (me) has ever labelled Jews and
>>>>>Zionists (in general) as racists.  Let's see if you are adult
>>>>>enough to prove your claim or apologise.

>>>MEQ #12.  Chaim Weizmann expresses his admiration of Arabs.

>>So?  I posted the actual words of ONE Jew+Zionist.
>>I didn't even comment on it, apart from the title, though it is
>>VERY VERY clear that anyone who wrote similar things about Jews
>>would be instantly stomped on and you would be first in line.
>>
>>What does that say about my views on Jews or Zionists in general?
>>Did I claim that the views Weizmann expresses are representative 
>>of Jews or Zionists in general?  Why don't you analyse Weizmann's 
>>words for us?  Are they racist?  Are they representative?  Of who?  
>>I will repeat MEQ#12 below for your convenience.

>I just don't get it, Brendan.  The title says that Weizmann expresses
>his admiration of Arabs.  But in the selections posted, no such
>admiration appears.
>
>Perhaps the title is meant to be *ironic* ?

Very good!  Go to the top of the class.  Ironic titles are a tradition
for MEQ; sorry you don't like it.

>        Irony: the use of words to express something other than and
>               especially the opposite of the literal meaning.
>
>        Admire: to wonder, to marvel at.  Ant.: despise.

>I'm assuming here that you meant to be ironic, so your title actually
>communicates:

>>>MEQ #12.  Chaim Weizmann expresses his despisement of Arabs.

How would you describe the sentiments he expresses?  Fraternal love?

>1. "What does that say about my views on Jews or Zionists in general?"  
>Either you are the editor and owner of MEQ or you are not.  

I am.

>When you
>put an editorializing headline on this post, which you just admitted, 

I did.

>you should have been ready to accept responsibility for it.  

I was.

>In your 
>MEQ disclaimer you position yourself as a neutral editor:

>>Middle East Quotes is an occasional series of quotations on Middle
>>East history.  The editor does not necessarily approve of the sentiments
>>expressed in quotes, nor will he necessarily join in any discussion
>>they engender.  Contributions are welcome but will not necessarily be
>>accepted.  Full sources are essential.      Brendan McKay.

I can't see anything wrong with that.  You seem to be ignoring
the "necessarily"s.  My intention when starting MEQ was that it
was to contain a wide variety of different political views 
expressed in solid quotes contributed by lots of people.  The 
disclaimer was (and is) intended to cover me in that situation.  
However, the experience has been that only one person has decided 
to contribute anything, namely Danny Keren who contributed #23 
(1941 meeting between Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem).  
The acceptance rate so far has been 1/1, which is nothing I should 
be ashamed of.  If you don't like the choices I make on my own, well 
tough.  I have taken pains to make this clear to the tpm community:

] I choose quotations primarily on the basis that they catch my eye somehow,
] usually by being controversial.  You can expect a bias towards quotations
] which threaten the "common view" as I see it.  I will also admit to some
] perverse pleasure in quoting things that promise to stir up tpm a bit.
] (tpm, 1 Dec 1991)

] I just notice stuff that interests (or amuses) me and I post it.  ...
] I do not claim lack of bias in the selection.  However, the offer 
] at the end of each quote is genuine and you are invited to contribute 
] something.  (tpm, 17 Oct 1992)
 
>But the ironic cast,

Just the title.  The quote is verbatim.

> selectiveness, 

See above.

>and lack of context 

Ok, here's some more context.

  "The English are treating Jews and Arabs with an equal justice,
   but the Arabs don't understand such treatment without the whip"
 
  -- Chaim Weizmann to Vera Weizmann, 20 May 1918, reprinted in
  The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann (Weisgal, ed., 1977)
  Series A, Volume VIII, p190.

>in your post 
>belie that pose.  It says that you don't have the guts to say 
>forthrightly what *you* think about this text, preferring simply to put 
>a heavy spin on it with your editorializing headline.  That way, you are 
>not really available for discussion about what you have posted, as can be
>seen in the evasiveness which I am now addressing: "What does that say
>about my views on Jews or Zionists in general?", and can be seen stated
>plainly in your disclaimer: "nor will he [Brendan] necessarily join in any
>discussion they engender."  Only a real chicken-shit would come up
>with a device whereby he can post to a political discussion forum and 
>then be free in his own mind from any responsibility to back his position.
>Position. As in editorialized content. As in agenda. Tell 'em MEQ sent you.

You really ought to go change your diapers.  The fact is that I have 
never failed to defend either the facts or the editorial in any MEQ.  
On many occasions I have revised them after reasonable criticism.  
In the case of the MEQ that has so upset you, after the first posting
I discussed it on tpm with Jacob Baltuch at great length.  (This by
itself proves you are talking out the wrong end.)  At the end of it,
Jacob offered to submit an MEQ on the theme of Arab attitudes towards
Jews during the same period.  I would have accepted it but he never
sent anything.  Maybe you would like to.

If you wish to discuss the subject matter of this MEQ with me, you will
have to begin by contributing something other than childish tantrums 
and wild accusations based on zero knowledge.

>2. "Did I claim that the views Weizmann expresses are representative of 
>Jews or Zionists in general?"  Why else did you go to such lengths, at the
>end of the post, to remind the readers of TPM  exactly where Weizmann 
>stood within the Zionist movement, and where his career progressed?

>>   [extract from letter written by Chaim Weizmann, leader of the Zionist
>>   Commission in Palestine, later President of the World Jewish Congress
>>   and President of Israel; 30 May 1918]

I'm sorry, what I meant to write was

  [extract from letter written by Chaim Weizmann, a minor and 
   uninfluential Zionist, whose views about Arabs were quite 
   exceptional and in any case totally irrelevant to Palestinian 
   history]
   
>When the HAMAS covenent was being discussed in this forum, Shaul Wallach
>posted the entire document.  

It was one of the most informative tpm posts ever.  Thank you, Shaul.

>Could you do the same for this letter?  

No, it's too long (nearly 5000 words).  However, the full text is
widely available in Weizmann's collected works: The Letters and Papers 
of Chaim Weizmann (Weisgal, ed., 1977) Series A, Volume VIII, p197-206.
At the end of this posting I will add some extra portions, but you will 
have to look up the full text yourself.  Then you can make accusations 
of invalid context on the basis of knowledge rather than ignorance. 

I will edit MEQ #12 to contain these extra pieces and the better
reference.

>Or
>did your source, "Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922 (Murray, 1972)"
>cite only these fragments?  

Slightly more than I quoted.

>If that is the case, don't you feel bad about
>quoting from a source document that you have not read in its entirety?  

Of course.  I always make an attempt to find the original.  
I expect my record in that respect is the best on tpm.

>If
>this isn't the case, you have done the author a disservice in slicing
>up her work to fit your agenda.  

Everyone can see you know nothing about the letter I am excerpting.

>If you don't have an agenda, why post
>only these fragments?  Well?

I hate to tell you this, but someone using your name posted
FRAGMENTS from something on tpm only recently.  Since I know
you only post complete documents yourself, you should track
down the culprit immediately.

>>While you are at it, why not contribute something to the MEQ series
>>yourself?  Just send me your favorite quote and be prepared to
>>argue about sources and context.  If I decide to accept it, you
>>will get a chance to veto the final product.  

>But we *are* arguing about context already, Brendan.

No we aren't.  You haven't looked up either the original or
secondary source so you have no idea whether the context made
any essential difference.  That is no argument, it is just you
going blah blah.

Brendan.

>=================================================================

Label "]" indicates original MEQ text, unlabelled text is extra.
Original "..."s are omitted if the new text fills them in.
New text in "<>" did not appear in Ingrams.


]      MEQ #12.  Chaim Weizmann expresses his admiration of Arabs.
]
]   Dear Mr Balfour,

    It is with a great sense of responsibility that I am attempting to
    write to you about the situation here and about the problems which
    confront the Zionist Commission. ... 

]   ...
    
    <Owing to the serious events in France, the campaign here was 
    brought to a sudden stop, and the great hopes raised by the
    victorious onrush of the British troops and the capture of Jerusalem 
    have not yet been realized.>

]   The Arabs who are superficially clever and quick witted, worship one
]   thing and one thing only---power and success.  

    Hence, while it would be wrong to say that British prestige has
    suffered through the military stalemate, it certainly has not
    increased.  ... <Rumours sinister and absurd, exaggerations of
    all sorts, circulate very rapidly here, and an atmosphere is
    created very quickly.  It is not exactly disaffection, but is
    an uncertainty, a lack of firm ground---a haziness in the
    outlook and a sitting on the fence.  This has naturally made>

]   [t]he British Authorities  

    <rather nervous, and,>
 
]   knowing as they do the treacherous nature of the Arab,
]   they have to watch carefully and constantly that nothing should happen
]   which might give the Arabs the slightest grievance or ground of complaint.
]   In other words, the Arabs have to be 'nursed' lest they should stab the
]   Army in the back.  The Arab, quick as he is to gauge such a situation,
]   tries to make the most of it.  He screams as often as he can and
]   blackmails as much as he can.
]   ...

[about 2 pages omitted here]

    ... all the offices are filled with Arab and Syrian employees, <who
    have certainly not changed their mentality with the change of 
    master.> ... We see these officials, corrupt, inefficient, regretting 
    the good old times when baksheesh was the only means by which 
    matters administrative could be settled.  ...

]   The fairer the English regime tries to be, the more arrogant the Arab
]   becomes.  It must also be taken in to consideration that the Arab
]   official knows the language, habits and ways of the country, is a 'roue'
]   [Fr. sly, wily -bdm] and therefore has a great advantage over the fair
]   and clean-minded English official, who is not conversant with the
]   subtleties of the Oriental mind.  So the English are 'run' by the Arabs.
]   ...

    ... the Englishman at the head of affairs is fair and just, and in 
    trying to regulate the relations between the two chief sections of 
    the community he is meticulously careful to hold the balance.  But his 
    only guide in this difficult situation is the democratic principle, 
    which reckons with the relative numerical strength; and the brutal 
    numbers operate against us, for there five Arabs to one Jew.  
    <The influence of the Arab must in fairness be five times greater 
    than the Jewish; in fact, in many cases it is far more than that, 
    as the Arabs are in the Administration and the Jewish participation 
    is very limited, because Jews never took much part in it under the 
    old regime: they kept aloof.  The result is that the Jews are practically 
    handed over to the Arabs.  This system does not take into account the 
    fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew 
    and Arab.  The T*rk, being himself of inferior culture, saw in the 
    Jew a superior to himself and to the Arab, and so by virtue of his
    intelligence and his achievements the Jew held a position in the
    country perhaps out of proportion to his numerical strength.
    The present system tends on the contrary to level down the Jew
    politically to the status of a native, and in many cases the 
    English Administrator follows the convenient rule of looking 
    on the Jews as so many natives.  ...

]   The present state of affairs would necessarily tend toward the creation
]   of an Arab Palestine, if there were an Arab people in Palestine.  It will
]   not in fact produce that result because the fellah is at least four
]   centuries behind the times, and the effendi (who, by the way, is the
]   real gainer from the present system) is dishonest, uneducated, greedy,
]   and as unpatriotic as he is inefficient.

    <But it is also difficult to imagine how under the above described
    circumstances effect can really be given to the Government's
    Declaration in favour of a Jewish National Home. ...>

    [In the final four pages, Weizmann delineates a number of requests.
    (a) Foundation of a university, (b) The handing over of the
    Wailing Wall to the Jews, (c) A scheme for land acquisition
    wherein land owned by Arabs but not properly utilised can be
    made available for Jewish cultivation.]
  
=================================================================