🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JIME.92Apr10225734@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>In article <dfs.702929532@ro> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
>>   In <JIME.92Apr10103806@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>
>>   jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>>
>>   >Israel did _not_ acquire its land in the same way that that America
>>   >acquired its land.
>>   Wrong.
>>  ...
>>   Make no mistake, the U.S. gained its land by a war of conquest prosecuted
>>   by Europeans against North American Indians.  And the Europeans started the
>>   war.
>
>And the U.S. is to blame for European colonialism?  I think you have
>the cart before the horse there.

	Who do you think the Americans were? The indigenous population?? They
were the COLONISTS and/or the descendents of the colonists.


>
>>   >And in my admittedly insufficient reading, Jerusalem was free for
>>   >worship to all faiths under British rule.
>
>>   As it is today.  As it was NOT between 1948 and 1967.
>
>The claim I was responding to was that Jerusalem has only been free
>for religious worship under Israeli administration.  That claim was false.

	I made that claim, and true as I said it, it is false.  I should have
said since 1948.  My fault.

>
>>   >In fact, one of the early
>>   >Arab-Jew riots in the Palestinian Mandate started because the Jews,
>>   >who had been allowed to worship at the Wailing Wall (then owned by the
>>   >Arabs) wanted to set up a partition there.
>>
>>   I didn't know that the Arabs "owned" the Western (preferred term)
>>   Wall.  But anyway...
>
>Well, you learned something.  I try to learn things every day.  The
>Wailing Wall name is much more poetic, so it is the preferred term.
>Western Wall is ambiguous, as it refers also to German defences in
>WWII.  If you prefer the Arabic term, it is al-Buraq al-Sharif.
>

	I see that you have no trouble with Arabs owning Jewish holy places,
but you have lots of trouble with the Jews ruling over Arab holy places.

>>   This "partition" was to have been a partition to separate men from
>>   women, and was certainly not a building.  (Witness the partition there
>>   today - basically a small fence.)  This partition was used as an
>>   excuse by Arab leaders to incite violence against Jews.  I suggest you
>>   read the book "Israel: Roots and Routes" published by Steimatzky
>>   publishing house for some more history of that event.
>
>Perhaps you should also mention the fact that the British authorities
>nixed the partition idea.  On August 15, 1929, Zionists marched, raised
>their flag, and sang the Hatikvah, in violation of their demonstration
>permit.  They shouted "the Wall is ours" (or the equivalent in other
>languages).  On August 23, 1929, the Arabs, incensed by the Jews'
>threats against their property, began to loot the Jewish quarter, and
>attacked Jews who got in the way.  The Jews responded with hand
>grenades, killing Arabs.

	The Arabs who attacked the Jews didn't kill anyone???




						-Manu
>=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)


-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            
Do unto others before they do unto you.
"The future of the Arabs of Palestine was sacrificed to Egyptian politics"
						-Sir John Bagot Glubb