From: jars@milton.u.washington.edu (Juan Rodriguez-Sero)
Subject: Re: About the explosion
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:23:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.033505.21950@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>Do you believe the government of Israel is murderous?

No (by definition; as I have already said, states can not commit murder).

>Do you believe Mr. Shamir is a murderer?

I don't know; and it is completely irrelevant as far as the bombing in
Buenos Aires is concerned.

>Do you believe Israeli attacks on refugee camps are murderous?

Again, no, by definition.

>Do you believe that the massacre at Kafar Qasim was murderous?

I never heard this name; maybe you mean Kfar Etzioni?

>Do you believe that the massacre at Deyr Yasin was murderous?

According to my source (the book by J. Bowyer Bell, the Irish
historian) murders may have been committed.

>Do you believe Israel's invasion of Lebanon, in which Israel 
>killed thousands of civilians was murderous?  (Mr. Reagan, 
>Israel's staunch ally, has referred to Israel's attacks on civilians
>as "slaughter.")

Again, no, by definition.

>Do you believe the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was murderous?

Again, most likely many deaths there were murders.

>That's a good question:  "How can we demand that the Israelis 
>negotiate with individuals like you [Behnam Sadeghi] with any 
>realism?"  The answer is that as far as I know nobody has 
>demanded Israel to negotiate with me or with individuals like
>me.

We (the rest of the world) have been pressuring the State of Israel
to negotiations with all the Arab states, the only way we all see to
a real and lasting peace; some (not all) Israelis have demurred,
saying that there is almost no one to negotiate with in good faith.
After reading texts like yours, that looks like more than an empty
excuse.

>     Anyways, I don't see what the point of Israel negotiating 
>with me would be. 

As I said, my intended meaning was "negotiating with people with your
same outlook". Remember, you are the guy who said: "I was HAPPY when
I knew about the bomb in the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires".

>                                              I am not one of the
>involved parties. 

Well, I thank whatever Gods there may be for that!

>>                                                    Sadly, it takes
>>two sides who agree to peace to wage peace, but just one bent on war
>>to wage war; as long as attitudes like yours persist, there will be
>>no peace.
>
>I think I am the one who is being realistic. 

The "reality" you seem to support is made up of more hate and death and
destruction and suffering, mostly of innocents; you don't even deny it.

>                                                   Look at the PLO and
>those naive Palestinians who thought that by giving Israel every pos-
>sible concession

Have they? That is not what we can see from either here (USA) of from
Latin America. EVERY possible concession?

>they could expect to get Israel to negotiate in a reasonable way.  They
>have recognized Israel

Have they? Clearly and explicitly?

>without being recognized by it. 

Of course, that should be one of the issues to negotiate; isn't that
clear to you?

>They have gone out of their way to make every reasonable (and often un-
>reasonable) concession.

Again, that is not the way things look from here; would you care to
list those concessions?

>Israel has proven that the only language it is able to communicate in
>is force.

Even if that were true (and, as far as I know, it is not so) my
original point (which you keep evading) is that "force" (or more
properly violence) should never be exerted on embassies and similar
facilities. That is, by the way, the same reason why I condemn the
assaults on Iranian embassies by the MKO a few days ago; even though
(at least as far as I know) no innocent bystanders were hurt, those
actions deny the very concept of diplomacy and absolutely unaccept-
able.

>perhaps you think the net readers aren't able to understand what you say
>the first time.  Just to assure you that we can understand your English,
>let me summarize your view of me:    You believe my position is "crap," 
>"excrement", and that I am a "disgrace" and a mentally "sick" person who 
>must go back to Iran.  
>Now, if I didn't get that right, maybe you want to write a few pragraphs
>to delineate your view of me in greater detail.  Otherwise, I assure you
>we understood what you wrote.

Behnam, you keep evading the central points of my e-notes; namely, that
attacks on embassies and similar facilities are unacceptable; and that
when those attacks kill five or six innocent bystanders for every
member of the embassy staff, they are (objectively, and in fact) at-
tacks executed mainly on the surrounding population. You still have
not condemned, in spite of many opportunities offered to you, that 
criminal action; nothing others have done excuses that bombing. You
say you can understand simple English; why don't you ever answer 
simple points like these? All this started, let me remind you, when
you wrote: "I was HAPPY when I knew about the bomb at the Israeli
embassy in Buenos Aires". Let's go back to your original statement,
and take it from there. COnsidering this, your summary in the previous
paragraph seems very appropriate.