waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
It is very encouraging that a number of people took so interest in my posting.I recieved a couple of letters too,some has debated the statement that events in Bosnia are unprecedented in the history of the modern world.Those who contest this statement present the figures of the World War II.However we must keep in mind that it was a World War and no country had the POWER to stop it,today is the matter not of the POWER but of the WILL.It seems to be that what we lack is the will. Second point of difference (which makes it different from the holocast(sp?) ) is that at that time international community didnot have enough muscle to prevent the unfortunate event, today inspite of all the might,the international community is not just standing neutral but has placed an arms embargo which is to the obvious disadvantage of the weeker side and therefore to the advantage of the bully.Hence indirecltly and possibly unintentionally, mankind has sided with the killers.And this,I think is unprecedented in the history of the modern world.
In article <C5u4qI.Mz4@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes: >                                 >  BTW, with Bosnia's large Moslem population, why have nations like  >  Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and others with either money  >  or strong military forces not spoken out more forcibly or offered  >  to help out Bosnia?     Obviously, you really don't know.  They *have* spoken out (cf Sec'y of State Christopher's recent trip to the ME), they have provided millions in aid, and they have participated in the airlifts to Sarajevo.  They *would* supply military aid, if the UN would lift the embargo  on arms sales.   >  The Turkish ambassador has ocassionally said >  a thing or two, but that's all; I see no great enthusism from any  >  of those places to get *their* hands dirty.    Why does the US always >  get stuck with this stuff? >  See above.  (Kuwait has directly participated in the airlift of food to Sarajevo.)  >  Besides, there's no case that can be made for US military involvement >  there that doesn't apply equally well to, say, Liberia, Angola, or >  (it appears with the Khmer Rouge's new campaign) Cambodia.   Non-whites >  don't count?  Hmm...some might say Kuwaitis are non-white. Ooops, I forgot, Kuwaitis are "oil rich", "loaded with petro-dollars", etc so they don't count.
(Amir Y Rosenblatt) writes    > Sam Zbib Writes    >>No one in his right mind would sell his freedom and dignity.    >>Palestinians are no exception. Perhaps you heard about    >>anti-trust in the business world.    >>    >>Since we are debating the legality of a commercial    >>transaction, we must use the laws governing the guidelines    >>and ethics of such transactions. Basic ANTI-TRUST law says    >>that, while you can purchase IBM stocks for the purpose of    >>investing, you can not acquire a large number of those    >>shares with the intent or controlling IBM. You can do so    >>only if you make your intentions CLEAR apriori . Clearly,    >>the Jews who purchased properties from palastenians had some    >>designs, they were not buying a dwelling or a real estate.    >They were establishing a bridgehead for the European Jews.    >>    >>The palastenians sold their properties to the Jews in the    >>old tradition of arab hospitality. Being a multi-ethnic /    >>multi-religious society, accepting the jews as neighbours    >>was no different, just another religion. Plus they paid fair    >>market value, etc... They did not know they were victims of    >>an international conspiracy. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist    >>myself, but this one is hard to dismiss).    >>  >Right now, I'm just going to address this point. >When the Jewish National Fund bought most of its land, >It didn't buy it from the Palestinians themselves, because, >for the most part, they were tenant farmers (fallahin), >living on land owned by wealthy Arabs in Syria and Lebanon. >The JNF offered a premium deal, so the owners took advantage of >it.   It's called commerce.  The owners, however, made no  >provisions for those who had worked for them, basically shafting  >them by selling the land right out from under them. >They are to blame, not the Jews. > >  Amir:  Why would you categorize the sale of land as shafting? was it because it was sold to Jews? was it fair to assume that the  fallahin would be mistreated by the jews? is this the norm of  any commerce (read shafting) between arabs and  jews?   Your claim that the Lebanese/Syrian Landlords sold Palestine (if true, even partially) omits the fact that the mandate treaty put Lebanon and Syria under French rule, while Palestine under british.  Obiviously, any such landlord would have found himself a foreigner in Palestine and would be motivated to sell, regardless of the price.  It is interesting though that you acknowledge that the palestinians were shafted. Do many Israelis or Jews share your opinion ?  Do you  absolve the purchaser from any ethical commitments just because it wasn't written down?   All told, I did not see an answer in your response. The question was whether the intent behind the purchase was aimed at controlling the public assets (land, infra-structure etc...). IMHO the Palestinians have grounds to contest the legality of the purchase, say in world court.  Sam
In article <1smllm$m06@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes: >In article <1993May10.211316.28455@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> adams@bellini.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz) writes: >Which was my point. By converting to another religion I do not loose >my cultural identity, I just loose my religious identification. >I consider that defining the belonging to a nation that claims the  >right to have a State based on religious belief is a form of racism. > > >To be a part or not of the Jeish Nation is defined by my culture and not >by my religion. Actually, if I am an atheist, which is in fact like  >converting into a non-Jewish in terms of religion, I am still considered as >part of the Jewish Nation. >I can be proud of my Jewish culture while not giving any importance to the >Jewish religion. Or, even more, I can be proud of my Jewish culture while >still be convinced that the real god is another one. >I do not know anyone who lost his memebership to the American nation  >because he changed of god.  Alberto, you've repeatedly misunderstood my postings.  You are now making the exact point that I've made several times but with a different definition of religion.  You don't not have to believe in the "religious" aspects of Judaism to be a Jew (this would confine Judaism to be just a religion in the sense of a Christianity.).  So, by converting out of Judaism, I don't mean just not believing in the god of Judaism.  I mean voluntarily removing yourself from the Jewish nation.  I am an agnostic but still consider myself Jewish because of my cultural heritage.  (I admit that many religious jews would argue that I am not completely jewish because of my lack of faith, but Judaism is a religion of dissent and debate isn't it?).  The fact that one can opt to become Jewish simply by converting to Judaism makes the nation of the jewish people the *least* racist and most open nation.  We have no quotas!  So I will once again make my point.  Defining a member of the Jewish nation by religion (not, as you say, religious belief) is NOT racism.  You come to your incorrect conclusion because you use a different definition for religion when you define the law of return and when you define judaism.
In article <1993May12.013527.21904@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes: > > >>Which was my point. By converting to another religion I do not loose >>my cultural identity, I just loose my religious identification. > >	I disagree.  By converting to another religion, you certainly >do change your cultural identity, and lose that part of you which was >Jewish. >  I would change one of the many parts that define my cultural identity. If I loose a leg, it might change my personality, but I do not stop being a human being.  Even more, when someone gets a baboon heart, that person is still human.  > >>To be a part or not of the Jeish Nation is defined by my culture and not >>by my religion. Actually, if I am an atheist, which is in fact like  >>converting into a non-Jewish in terms of religion, I am still considered as >>part of the Jewish Nation. > >	No, there is a serious cultural and religios difference >between renouncing the jewish god and accepting a new one.  "Thou >shall have no other gods before me."  Conversion is a violation of >this, atheism you might be able to wiggle around with.  Not really. That is what differenciates agnostics from atheists. As an atheist, I do not believe there is a god, nor do I believe that there ever was one. So, those commandments have no meaning to me. Also, there are a lot of ideas that have no meaning to me: The idea of a chosen people, the idea of a given right to the land of Israel, the idea of keeping kosher, the idea of opposing intermarriage, the idea of having a  Torah that was inspired by god, etc.  By being an atheist, I cannot support the idea of the Jewish Nation as defined by a religious principle or based on a religious identity. For me, religion is just another piece in what constitutes the cultural identity of the Jewish people. I believe that as a people with a  cultural identity they constitute a Nation and have the same right as any other people in the world to have their own State. The same right as the Armenians have, as the Palestinians have, as the French have, and as anybody else have. I cannot say that by accepting a different god someone has lost all  cultural identification.    > >Adam > > > >Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu
cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:  # 3.      Is it true that Israeli stocks nuclear weapons ? If so, # could you provide any evidence ?  Yes, Israel has nuclear weapons. However:  1) Their use so far has been restricted to killing deer, by LSD addicted    "Cherrie" soldiers.  2) They are locked in the cellar of the "Garinei Afula" factory, and since    the Gingi lost the key, no one can use them anymore.  3) Even if the Gingi finds the key, the chief Rabbis have a time lock    on the bombs that does not allow them to be activated on the Sabbath    and during weeks which follow victories of the Betar Jerusalem soccer    team. A quick glance at the National League score table will reveal    the strategic importance of this fact.
From Israeline 4/14  Today's MA'ARIV reports that yesterday, following Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's meeting with PLO Chief Yasser Arafat and prominent Palestinian Faisal al-Husseini, the latter said that in principle, the Palestinians have decided to participate in the peace talks. Nonetheless, he noted that everything will be decided upon at the meeting of the Arab foreign ministers in Damascus. The newspaper also reports that threatening phone calls were recently made to houses of several of the senior members of the Palestinian delegation to the peace talks. The threats, in Arabic, demanded that the delegates not go to Washington to, "sell out the Palestinian people." One caller threatened, "Should you go, you will not find your family alive upon your return." The newspaper states that such phone calls were received, as far as is known, at the houses of Faisal al-Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi and others.
ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") writes:  >I think the Israeli press might be a tad bit biased in >reporting the events. I doubt the Propaganda machine of Goering >reported accurately on what was happening in Germany. It is >interesting that you are basing the truth on Israeli propaganda.  If you consider Israeli reporting of events in Israel to be propoganda, then  consider the Washington Post's handling of American events to be propoganda too.  What makes the Israeli press inherently biased in your opinion?  I wouldn't compare it to Nazi propoganda either.  Unless you want to provide some evidence of Israeli inaccuracies or parallels to Nazism, I suggest you  keep your mouth shut.  I'm sick and tired of all you anti-semites comparing Israel to the Nazis (and yes, in my opinion, if you compare Israel to the Nazis you are an anti-semite because you know damn well it isn't true and you are just trying to discredit Israel).
In article <1sufneINNe4f@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes: > >In article <1sueslINNa6g@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, >jovanovic-nick@yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:  > >> "Muslim" in ex-Yugoslavia was a *nation* not a religion.  In fact, not >> all Muslims in B-H are followers of Islam.  Therefore, there do (did?) >> exist in ex-Yugoslavia "Christian Muslims."   > >Yeah!  That's it! :)  You've really outdone yourself this time Nick... >Don't forget the "Davidian Muslims"... :) > >Islam is not a race.  It's a religion.  You can be white, black, >Fijian or Alaskan.   This does not change the *fact* that "Muslim" is a legal and political term defined constitutionally in former Yugoslavia, and therefore has meaning and consequences entirely *independent* and *immaterial* of any religious considerations.    >> It is a >> civil war in which the terms of secession are being negotiated with guns >> instead of pens.  The Croat, Muslim, and Serb political leaders *all* >> chose to fight over the terms of secession instead of compromising and >> peacefully negotiating multilateral secession agreements.  > >Terms of secession?  You are, of course, joking, right Nick?  Nobody >*chose* to fight.  Bosnia and Croatia were *internationally* >recognized nations when the Serbs attacked and started on their >well-documented genocide.  That makes them an outside aggressor.  It's >a simple genocide, a classical example of ethnic cleansing.  There is >no question of civil war...  You only wish it were so.  More than 2,000,000 residents of Croatia and B-H have *not* accepted the terms of secession which Tudjman and Izetbegovic unilaterally forced upon them.  Croats and Muslims may have a right to negotiated secession but they do not have a right to grab the *entire* territories of the former Yugoslav republics of Croatia and B-H.  Oh, BTW, *Yugoslavia* was *internationally recognized* when it was  destroyed by Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Milosevic, and the international community led by Germany.  If Yugoslavia's borders could be changed against its will, then certainly Croatia's borders and B-H's borders can be changed as well.    As I have stated many times: the civil war in ex-Yugoslavia will end when the terms of secession (borders, etc.) for Croatia and B-H are finally agreed upon.  Serbs, Croats, and Muslims will *all* have to make territorial concessions to reach such an agreement.
Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes:     From: Center for Policy Research <cpr>    Subject: Zionism - racism      Diaspora 'a cancer'    ------------------- by Julian Kossoff and Lindsay Schusman in:    Jewish Chronicle, London, 22. Dec. 1989     Leading Israeli author and cultural commentator, A.B. Yehoshua,    launched a ferocious attack on diaspora Jewry at a Zionist Youth    Council meeting in North London, last week.     The diaspora, he claimed, "was the cancer connected to the main    tissue of the Jewish people". He was scathing about its failure to    act before the Holocaust.      [ deleted for bravity ]      Jewish values in Israel embraced every aspect of daily life,    unlike in the diaspora, where Jews had no responsibility for the    country they lived in, he said.     He warned that modern Hebrew, a unifying force for the Jewish    people, would have to struggle for its future, especially in    literary circles. It faced fierce competition from the English    language.     -------------------------------------------------------------------------  So?  --Amos
From: Center for Policy Research <cpr> Subject: Zionists reject non-Jews. News   Ethiopian Jews and not-quite Jews  The Israeli press has published items about Ethiopian  Jews waiting in camps in Addis Ababa for immigration to  Israel, who are dying of starvation. The following are  excerpts from an interview with the former general  director of the JDC project for development and welfare  of Ethiopian Jews, Kobi Friedman (Hadashot, 21 April  1993), who has stated that "there are people dying in  Addis Ababa, but they are converts to Christianity":  "Hadashor published the item about the dying Jews after  viewing a video tape filmed last week in Adis Ababa.  How do you know that they are actually converts to  Chritianity ?  "If there are Jews on the tape, then I don't know what to  say. I am speaking from experience when I say that those  who remained in Ethiopia are Christians. I know that  there have previously been things published in the press  by interesting parties, and there is no connection  between them and reality."  "What interested parties ?"  "Ethiopian immigrants who want their Christian relatives  to come here."  "What to you recommend that Ethiopian children in Israel  do, when their parents and the rest of their relatives  remain in Ethiopia ?"  "I ask if it is the job of the State of Israel to bring in the  40 relatives who stayed in Ethiopia. Well, my answer is  that it is not. It would be a better solution, economically  as well, for that young man to buy a one-way ticket to  Ethiopia and reunite with his family there."
In article <1993May14.131657.24550@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfeygin@unicorn.eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes: >       Actually Judea and Samaria are proper geographical names, just like  >       Asia Minor or Lake Michigan.  ...  Another name for this region is Cis-Jordan.
In article <1993Apr27.203456.9605@Virginia.EDU> ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") writes:  >	The Jews that were stranded on the polish border since >no country accepted them are like the arabs stranded on the >lebenese border. No trials, no hearing, just expulsion based on >guilt due to race.   Not due to race.  Due to membership in an organization which publically proclaimed it would destroy the state which expelled them -- and furthermore kill a large segment of the citizens of that state, based on race.
@> 	A few things about the University. It is more fun than some may @> admit. Partying does go on and it has consistently been ranked @> one of Playboy's top party schools. ...
Well i'm not sure about the story nad it did seem biased. What I disagree with is your statement that the U.S. Media is out to ruin Israels reputation. That is rediculous. The U.S. media is the most pro-israeli media in the world. Having lived in Europe I realize that incidences such as the one described in the letter have occured. The U.S. media as a whole seem to try to ignore them. The U.S. is subsidizing Israels existance and the Europeans are not (at least not to the same degree). So I think that might be a reason they report more clearly on the atrocities. 	What is a shame is that in Austria, daily reports of the inhuman acts commited by Israeli soldiers and the blessing received from the Government makes some of the Holocaust guilt go away. After all, look how the Jews are treating other races when they got power. It is unfortunate.
Steve Birnbaum writes:  >>  This is actually the law that David Irving >> will hopefully be found guilty under due to his denial of the Holocaust. >> It's too bad that this useless "Centre for Policy Research" isn't in Canada. >> It'd set a nice precedent to how the law applies in Cyberspace.  In article <1993Apr27.005619.8351@Virginia.EDU> ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") responds:  >	Well canada is wrong.   Talk about generalizations.  Indeed, you DO sound quite immature.  >If it was in the US the ACLU would have >made sure that such repressive laws are found unconstitutional.  What?  The ACLU fighting against an anti-hate law?  You mean that the ACLU would support gay-bashing, racial discrimination and anti-semitic violence?  Thanks, Andi, for reminding us that the constitution preserves our rights to such fun activities.  >Do you think the Church didn't find Galileo's perception of the >universe offensive.  Probably, but Galileo happened to be right.  Jews are offended by the Holocaust deniers, too.  The Revisionists, who deny that history even happened, happen to be wrong.
ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") writes:  >	Virginia.edu is true to its founding father, Thomas >Jefferson the author of the bill of rights, in allowing freedom >of speach. Sorry you guys in israel have a hard time with the >concept.  Jefferson was not the author of the Bill of Rights.  My history books aren't here, but Jefferson might have been in the group that did not think that enumerating rights was necessary. Cheers, Steve
arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:   >  >                      Yigal et al, sue ADL >   Why do you title this "News you will miss" ?  There have been at least three front-page stories on it in the L.A. Times.  I wouldn't exactly call that a media cover-up.   > js >    ___Samuel___ Mossad Special Agent ID314159 Media Spiking & Mind Control Division Los Angeles Offices
Anas Omran has claimed that, "the Israelis used to arrest, and sometime to kill some of these neutral reporters."  The assertion by Anas Omran is, of course, a total fabrication.  If there is an once of truth iin it, I'm sure Anas Omran can document such a sad and despicable event.  Otherwise we may assume that it is another piece of anti-Israel bullshit posted by someone whose family does not know how to teach their children to tell the truth.  If Omran would care to retract this 'error' I would be glad to retract the accusation that he is a liar.  If he can document such a claim, I would again be glad to apologize for calling him a liar.  Failing to do either of these would certainly show what a liar he is.
In article <1993Apr29.020537.4923@das.harvard.edu>, adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:  |> In article <C66IqC.99K.1@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes: |>  |> >organization by trying to distribute Nazi propaganda.  Furthermore, |> >you attempt to rationalize this through crude stereotyping by pointing  |> >to the WTC bombing, in which Arab-Americans had no involvement. |>  |> 	Huh?  Mohamed Salimeh was perhaps a Korean?  How do you claim |> arab-americans had no involvement in the WTC bombing? |>  |> 	Ok, his involvement is alleged by the FBI, which doesn't seem |> to reliable these days.  But honestly, there is a pile of evidence |> pointing to them, and it seems those 5 were involved. |>  |> 	This does not mean that all arab-americans were involved, nor |> should they be blamed for it, but denying that there were some |> arab-americans involved sounds sorta silly to me. |>  |> Adam  I don't think any of the suspects were Americans. Consequently, they could not be Arab-Americans.