🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr10.015851.5558@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, ghassoun@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Hassoun) writes:

>I think the article above is an invaluable peace of information.
>It is quite long, but it tells you to what extent the media and
>consequently the brains of many generations are almost unnoticeably
>controlled by a concentrated minority of Jews.

You better retract this quick.  What you read was something from
the NAAWP, the National Association of White People, which is a white
supremicist organization closely affiliated with the KKK.  They probably
hate Arabs as much as they hate Jews.

It is classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.  But your willingness
to accept it indicates something about you.

>Soon after, and upon being confronted to the type of information about
>the Middle East written in the papers and shown on TV, i started to realise
>how biased is the information. I realised the difference between the general
>information level (regarding this arab-israeli conflict) of an average
>Parisien for example and an average citizen of Columbus, Ohio. Soon i realised
>that e.g. the New York Times is no match to Paris' Le Monde (regarding this
>issue). 
The New York Times has the most extensive Middle East converage of any
newspaper in this country.

>In Paris, people would
>confront you in the streets with very detailed questions reflecting well
>informed opinions while in Columbus (for example), people were full of
>curiosity but at the same time they were, most of the time, displaying an
>almost inacceptable degree of ignorance (regarding this matter again).

Columbus Ohio is a small town in the Midwest (I was born there).  
I would guess that the degree of ignorance about foreign affairs, compared
to New York or Paris is the same on any issue, not just the Mideast.

>The question of ``why so many Americans seem to be satisfied, regarding this
>issue, with a shaky level of information, while they seem to be zealous,
>commited, competitive, and mostly well informed in many other areas''
>remained unanswered for a very long time (was n't it Mr James Baker, who on
>a recent visit to the Holly Land metioned something to the effect of:`` Oh..
>the distances are so small''?!)

This is just false.  Americans in general are not well informed.  Many
Americans cannot answer simple questions like "Is the sun a star?"
"Why is it colder in the Winter?" and "What decade did the civil
war take place?"

>Here comes the article above to spot the lights on some reasons for this
>issue. Nothing wrong with Jews being successful (Good on them) but to
>use their success to hide relevant facts is an immoral act.

The article white-supremicist anti-Semitic propaganda.
The article preaches hate, it is not about facts.

>Unbiased, objective information is a necessary ingredient of the
>process of making a good judgement. In the past i used to say ``Why the
>h.. the American people (with all its tendencies towards, fairness, justice
>and righteous behaviour) why they don't see?'' and now i say, ``Give the
>American people the facts, ALL THE FACTS, and let them judge.

If you want unbiased, objective information, you should stop reading
white-supremicist propaganda as facts and realize it for what it is. 

>If it is possible to repost the article above another time, please do.
>May be some people did not have the chance to look at it. And most frankly
>i see it as a ``start of a new era'' (these are not my words aren't they).

The B-CPU people post it over and over again.  It proves the connection
that these people not only have to the hate groups associated with the IHR,
but other hate groups as well.

>It took James Baker 43 years (since the 1948 occupation of Phillistine)
>to realise that the distances in the disputed land are short..with a bit
>of luck it should not take more than another 43 years to realise that the
>land after all .. is a Phillistinian land!
Phillistinain?  Do you mean Palestinian?  
Do you think that all of Palestine is occupied?
Do all of you people who think that all of Israel is Palestine believe
white-supremicist anti-Semitic propaganda to be true?

>-- 
>George Hassoun
>University of Adelaide, EEE Dpt.
>Adelaide, South Australia
>email: ghassoun@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au      Phone:(08) 228 5468

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.

In article <1992Apr10.015851.5558@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> ghassoun@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Hassoun) writes:
>I think the article above is an invaluable peace of information.
>It is quite long, but it tells you to what extent the media and
>consequently the brains of many generations are almost unnoticeably
>controlled by a concentrated minority of Jews.


	Maybe you think the Holocaust never happened too.



>
>When i was in the United States (1986-1991) i was always perplexed
>by the general (not always publically manifested) attitude implying
>that arabs in most cases belong to a certain well defined category
>of people. ``You don't look like an arab'' was the most frequent reaction
>i used to get when first introduced to people.  ``As if arabs could be
>classified or categorised in one single shot'', i used to think. Soon i
>learnt that the idea does not affect appearance only, but it extends to
>behaviour, way of thinking, mentality and quality of attitude. In many
>cases i used to get this astonished face, as if what i'm doing is not
>part of the common expectations.

	Americans (as well as the rest of humanity) has always stereotyped
people who are different.  I don't condone this but don't blame the Jews
for it.  In fact the Jews themselves are often stereotyped.

>
>Soon after, and upon being confronted to the type of information about
>the Middle East written in the papers and shown on TV, i started to realise
>how biased is the information. I realised the difference between the general
>information level (regarding this arab-israeli conflict) of an average
>Parisien for example and an average citizen of Columbus, Ohio. Soon i realised
>that e.g. the New York Times is no match to Paris' Le Monde (regarding this
>issue). In Paris, people would
>confront you in the streets with very detailed questions reflecting well
>informed opinions while in Columbus (for example), people were full of
>curiosity but at the same time they were, most of the time, displaying an
>almost inacceptable degree of ignorance (regarding this matter again).

	a) The Middle East is very far from America and therefore most
Americans just don't know and they don't give a damn. Many Americans
don't even know what the major issues are in this country, let alone some
 far away land.   
	b) Many Americans don't even know where the Middle East is.
	c) France has a very large Arab population and is much closer to the
Middle East, and especially the North African nations.  Therefore the French
will be much more interested and knowledgable in this matter.


	Don't go blaming the Jews for American ignorance.


>
>The question of ``why so many Americans seem to be satisfied, regarding this
>issue, with a shaky level of information, while they seem to be zealous,
>commited, competitive, and mostly well informed in many other areas''
>remained unanswered for a very long time (was n't it Mr James Baker, who on
>a recent visit to the Holly Land metioned something to the effect of:`` Oh..
>the distances are so small''?!)

	Why would Israel or their supporters want to conceal the fact
that Israel is so small, especially when compared to the total land owned
by her Arab enemies? This would only strengthen their case for keeping the
West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan (and show how petty the Syrians are
being about the Golan).  

>
>Here comes the article above to spot the lights on some reasons for this
>issue. Nothing wrong with Jews being successful (Good on them) but to
>use their success to hide relevant facts is an immoral act.
>
They never seem to discuss how much worse Arab nations treat their fellow
Arabs than Israel does.  Kuwaiti atrocities against Palestinians are almost
never reported.

>Unbiased, objective information is a necessary ingredient of the
>process of making a good judgement. In the past i used to say ``Why the
>h.. the American people (with all its tendencies towards, fairness, justice
>and righteous behaviour) why they don't see?'' and now i say, ``Give the
>American people the facts, ALL THE FACTS, and let them judge.

	Yes, why don't they see?  Why don't they see that the Palestinians
who they feel sorry for support a terrorist group that has killed Americans
and taken them hostage?  Why don't they see the Palestinians send out 
children to fight the inifada, and that's why they get killed?  Why don't
they see that Israel acquired her land from the Arabs the same why America
acquired land from the Indians?  Why don't they see that Jerusalem has only
been free to people of all religions  under Israeli rule?  
	Let me guess...it's the Jewish owned media that is responsible.
 

>
>If it is possible to repost the article above another time, please do.
>May be some people did not have the chance to look at it. And most frankly
>i see it as a ``start of a new era'' (these are not my words aren't they).

	New era? Gimme a break.  Just another cycle of anti-semitic 
paranoia when people blame the Jews for all their problems.
	Wait wait, let me guess, you too had a video of how to grow weeds
in your backyard and the newspaper didn't do a story about it.

>
>It took James Baker 43 years (since the 1948 occupation of Phillistine)
>to realise that the distances in the disputed land are short..with a bit
>of luck it should not take more than another 43 years to realise that the
>land after all .. is a Phillistinian land!
>--

	Phillistianians no longer exist.  By your logic, half of the Arab
land should be Assyrian or Babylonian.

							-Manu

>George Hassoun
>University of Adelaide, EEE Dpt.
>Adelaide, South Australia
>email: ghassoun@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au      Phone:(08) 228 5468


-- 
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

In article <1992Apr10.082142.7808@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (manu) writes:
>   ...
>   Don't go blaming the Jews for American ignorance.

Absolutely.  We have only ourselves to blame.  If we wanted better
newspapers, we would get them.  Even a Jewish-dominated newspaper (if
such a thing exists) would be forced to provide its customers with
what they want.  Well, this is a bit simplistic, for newspaper
competition has really slacked off recently...

>   ...
>	   Yes, why don't they see?  Why don't they see that the Palestinians
>   who they feel sorry for support a terrorist group that has killed Americans
>   and taken them hostage?  Why don't they see the Palestinians send out 
>   children to fight the inifada, and that's why they get killed?  Why don't
>   they see that Israel acquired her land from the Arabs the same why America
>   acquired land from the Indians?  Why don't they see that Jerusalem has only
>   been free to people of all religions  under Israeli rule?  
>	   Let me guess...it's the Jewish owned media that is responsible.

I think that most Americans do know that the PLO is a terrorist group
that has killed Americans.  (I haven't seen an opinion poll on the
subject, though.)

As for the Palestinians sending their children out to fight the
intifada, and thus being solely responsible for their deaths, that is
a very one-sided view of the conflict.  You are spouting propaganda
there.

Israel did _not_ acquire its land in the same way that that America
acquired its land.  About 5% of the Israeli partition of the
Palestinian Mandate had been legally bought by Zionists.  The other
95% was ceded to the nascent Israel by the UN and the UK, partly
because it had always been promised to the Zionists, partly because
the UN wanted to find its own solution to the Jewish Question, and
partly because the Zionist terrorists were killing and murdering
Arabs, Brits, and a UN mediator.  The rest of Israel (about half) has
been acquired by conquest (in wars mostly started by the Arabs).  This
is not at all similar to the US, where the initial revolution was
fought as a war, not as a terrorist campaign, and where most of the
land acquired since 1798 was purchased peacefully (Louisiana Purchase,
Alaska, Gadsden Purchase) or joined voluntarily (Texas albeit after a
Texan rebellion against Mexico, Hawaii).

And in my admittedly insufficient reading, Jerusalem was free for
worship to all faiths under British rule.  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.  The Arabs resisted,
understandably so, as setting up essentially a building on their land
would be a step towards claiming ownership of the property.

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

In article <JIME.92Apr10103806@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# In article <1992Apr10.082142.7808@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (manu) writes:

# >	   Yes, why don't they see?  Why don't they see that the Palestinians
# >   who they feel sorry for support a terrorist group that has killed Americans
# >   and taken them hostage?  Why don't they see the Palestinians send out 
# >   children to fight the inifada, and that's why they get killed?  Why don't
# >   they see that Israel acquired her land from the Arabs the same why America
# >   acquired land from the Indians?  Why don't they see that Jerusalem has only
# >   been free to people of all religions  under Israeli rule?  
# >	   Let me guess...it's the Jewish owned media that is responsible.

# I think that most Americans do know that the PLO is a terrorist group
# that has killed Americans.  (I haven't seen an opinion poll on the
# subject, though.)
 
	I believe most Americans whose memory lasts longer than a 30
second news clip may know this.  Unfortunately, the percentage of
Americans that fit this set is rather small I am afraid.

# As for the Palestinians sending their children out to fight the
# intifada, and thus being solely responsible for their deaths, that is
# a very one-sided view of the conflict.  You are spouting propaganda
# there.

	It may be propaganda, it may even be one sided, but it is the
truth an it goes a long way in explaining a major portion of the
intifada.  This view would have to play a strong part of any
description that was not propaganda and was not one sided also.

# Israel did _not_ acquire its land in the same way that that America
# acquired its land.  About 5% of the Israeli partition of the
# Palestinian Mandate had been legally bought by Zionists.

	This figure is extremely misleading if not outright false.  If you
take the amount of land bought as a percentage of the amount of land
that was private (land that could be sold), it is much, much higher.
As it is I think your 5% figure should be 7% anyway (but this is
irelevent).

# The other
# 95% was ceded to the nascent Israel by the UN and the UK, partly
# because it had always been promised to the Zionists, partly because
# the UN wanted to find its own solution to the Jewish Question, and

# partly because the Zionist terrorists were killing and murdering
# Arabs, Brits, and a UN mediator.

	Not only was this not a reason, but for the most part it falls
flat on its face as a lie/untruth.

# The rest of Israel (about half) has
# been acquired by conquest (in wars mostly started by the Arabs).

	For this statement to be correct, you must agree then that those
lands are part of Israel.  At any rate, you seem to ignore that Israel
ceded the Sinai back to Egypt (and not for the first time I would like
to state).  Do you know what percentage of Israel was contained in the
Sinai?

# This
# is not at all similar to the US, where the initial revolution was
# fought as a war, not as a terrorist campaign,

	Funny, but I bet the Brits at the time thought it was a terrorist
campaign.  At any rate, this was a war, and the overwhelming majority
of the terrorism was (as it still is) commited by the Arabs against
the Jews.

# and where most of the
# land acquired since 1798 was purchased peacefully (Louisiana Purchase,
# Alaska, Gadsden Purchase) or joined voluntarily (Texas albeit after a
# Texan rebellion against Mexico, Hawaii).

# And in my admittedly insufficient reading, Jerusalem was free for
# worship to all faiths under British rule.

	Jerusalem may have been, but certain places outside of Jerusalem
were not.  At any rate, after Britain left, Jordan violated the truce,
expelled all Jews (who were not allowed to worship there until
Jerusalem was liberated) or killed them, and desecrated Jewish holy
sites.

# 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.  The Arabs resisted,
# understandably so, as setting up essentially a building on their land
# would be a step towards claiming ownership of the property.
 
	The way I heard it explained is that they rioted because the Jews
blew a Shofar (a ram's horn).  Either way, it is not a justification
for the massacre that occured.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu

In article <JIME.92Apr10103806@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.082142.7808@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (manu) writes:
>>   ...
>>   Don't go blaming the Jews for American ignorance.
>
>Absolutely.  We have only ourselves to blame.  If we wanted better
>newspapers, we would get them.  Even a Jewish-dominated newspaper (if
>such a thing exists) would be forced to provide its customers with
>what they want.  Well, this is a bit simplistic, for newspaper
>competition has really slacked off recently...
>
>>   ...
>>	   Yes, why don't they see?  Why don't they see that the Palestinians
>>   who they feel sorry for support a terrorist group that has killed Americans
>>   and taken them hostage?  Why don't they see the Palestinians send out 
>>   children to fight the inifada, and that's why they get killed?  Why don't
>>   they see that Israel acquired her land from the Arabs the same why America
>>   acquired land from the Indians?  Why don't they see that Jerusalem has only
>>   been free to people of all religions  under Israeli rule?  
>>	   Let me guess...it's the Jewish owned media that is responsible.
>
>I think that most Americans do know that the PLO is a terrorist group
>that has killed Americans.  (I haven't seen an opinion poll on the
>subject, though.)

>
>As for the Palestinians sending their children out to fight the
>intifada, and thus being solely responsible for their deaths, that is
>a very one-sided view of the conflict.  You are spouting propaganda
>there.

	I didn't say it was the sole reason.  It is not.  But the world
sees Israel as soley responsible and this is also one sided.

>
>Israel did _not_ acquire its land in the same way that that America
>acquired its land.  About 5% of the Israeli partition of the
>Palestinian Mandate had been legally bought by Zionists.  The other
>95% was ceded to the nascent Israel by the UN and the UK, partly
>because it had always been promised to the Zionists, partly because
>the UN wanted to find its own solution to the Jewish Question, and
>partly because the Zionist terrorists were killing and murdering
>Arabs, Brits, and a UN mediator.  The rest of Israel (about half) has
>been acquired by conquest (in wars mostly started by the Arabs).  This
>is not at all similar to the US, where the initial revolution was
>fought as a war, not as a terrorist campaign, and where most of the
>land acquired since 1798 was purchased peacefully (Louisiana Purchase,
>Alaska, Gadsden Purchase) or joined voluntarily (Texas albeit after a
>Texan rebellion against Mexico, Hawaii).
>

	1) Who did the US buy the land from?  Europeans, not American Indians.
The Indians were not pleased to see the white man take their land away.

	2) Hawaii was taken over from the Natives by foreign businessmen
and then they petitioned to be part of the US.

	3)  THe first two battles of the American revolution were fought by
two small bands of colonists that opened fire on the British soldiers.  I 
would bet that if the American revolution was transported to the 20th century
(politically), it would have been originally classified as a terrorist
campaign. 

>And in my admittedly insufficient reading, Jerusalem was free for
>worship to all faiths under British rule.  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.  The Arabs resisted,
>understandably so, as setting up essentially a building on their land
>would be a step towards claiming ownership of the property.
>

	But East Jerusalem was closed to Jews  under Arab rule.


								-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

jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.082142.7808@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (manu) writes:
>>   ...
>>   Don't go blaming the Jews for American ignorance.

>Absolutely.  We have only ourselves to blame.  If we wanted better
>newspapers, we would get them.  Even a Jewish-dominated newspaper (if
>subject, though.)

>Israel did _not_ acquire its land in the same way that that America
>acquired its land.  About 5% of the Israeli partition of the
>Palestinian Mandate had been legally bought by Zionists.  The other
>95% was ceded to the nascent Israel by the UN and the UK, partly
>because it had always been promised to the Zionists, partly because
>the UN wanted to find its own solution to the Jewish Question, and
>partly because the Zionist terrorists were killing and murdering
>Arabs, Brits, and a UN mediator.  The rest of Israel (about half) has
>been acquired by conquest (in wars mostly started by the Arabs).  This
>is not at all similar to the US, where the initial revolution was
>fought as a war, not as a terrorist campaign, and where most of the
>land acquired since 1798 was purchased peacefully (Louisiana Purchase,
>Alaska, Gadsden Purchase) or joined voluntarily (Texas albeit after a
>Texan rebellion against Mexico, Hawaii).

Whoa!  You can't be serious with this exculpation of the US territorial
acquisitions.  You haven't mentioned the indigenous people -- you
remember -- the Indians?  There isn't a single inch of American
territory that wasn't stolen -- by force or deceit -- from the previous
inhabitants.  Not to mention your distortions of the Revolutionary War,
which certainly had "terroristic" elements.  You also managed to miss
mention our "peaceful" acquisition of California, New Mexico, Arizon and
Florida.  You might also take a look at US imperialism -- take a good
look at the article in the most recent Atlantic written by Mark Twain
around the turn of the century in reference to US behavior in the
Philippines.  READ SOME HISTORY!  US behavior is no better -- in some
cases maybe worse -- than the Israeli, and not just two hundred years
ago: read something about the US gov. and the American Indian Movement
or the Black Panthers.  Read about the civil rights movement.

Sheesh.

--Jeff Frane

-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson

In article <1992Apr10.170451.3075@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   [Characterizing the rock-throwing youths in the intifada as solely
>    responsible for their own deaths at the hands of the Israeli soldiers]
>	    may be propaganda, it may even be one sided, but it is the
>   truth an it goes a long way in explaining a major portion of the
>   intifada.  This view would have to play a strong part of any
>   description that was not propaganda and was not one sided also.

No, it is merely propaganda designed to ease the consciences of the
occupationists.  (Are you one, by the way?)  There is plenty of blame
on both sides.

>   # Israel did _not_ acquire its land in the same way that that America
>   # acquired its land.  About 5% of the Israeli partition of the
>  # Palestinian Mandate had been legally bought by Zionists.
>
>	   This figure is extremely misleading if not outright false.  If you
>   take the amount of land bought as a percentage of the amount of land
>   that was private (land that could be sold), it is much, much higher.
>   As it is I think your 5% figure should be 7% anyway (but this is
>   irelevent).

Yes, you are right.  It should be between 7 and 8%, not 5%.  I erred.
This modified figure is not misleading at all, however.  Any
explanations you may wish to offer are merely spins on the simple
truth that the Zionists didn't buy much of what is now Israel.

>   # The other
>   # 95% was ceded to the nascent Israel by the UN and the UK, ...
>   # partly because the Zionist terrorists were killing and murdering
>   # Arabs, Brits, and a UN mediator.
>
>	   Not only was this not a reason, but for the most part it falls
>   flat on its face as a lie/untruth.

How so?  Do you mean to imply that the Zionist terrorism was
_completely_ ineffectual against the British?  Nonsense.

>   # The rest of Israel (about half) has
>   # been acquired by conquest (in wars mostly started by the Arabs).
>
>	   For this statement to be correct, you must agree then that those
>   lands are part of Israel.  At any rate, you seem to ignore that Israel
>   ceded the Sinai back to Egypt (and not for the first time I would like
>   to state).  Do you know what percentage of Israel was contained in the
>   Sinai?

0%.  The Sinai was never considered to be part of Israel by the world
community.  That was a trick question, funny huh.

>  ... the overwhelming majority
>   of the terrorism was (as it still is) commited by the Arabs against
>   the Jews.

Substantiate, please.

>   # And in my admittedly insufficient reading, Jerusalem was free for
>   # worship to all faiths under British rule.
>
>	   Jerusalem may have been, but certain places outside of Jerusalem
>   were not.

Backpedaling.  So Israel is _not_ the first power to administer
Jerusalem and allow freedom of religious expression.  What were these
"certain places"?
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

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.

>   >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.

>   >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.

>   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 Jewish demonstrations which brought on the violence were the
brainchild of Vladimir Jabotinsky, who had done much the same thing in
1920 and had served in jail for those crimes.

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

In article <1992Apr10.214732.9204@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>   Whoa!  You can't be serious with this exculpation of the US territorial
>   acquisitions.  You haven't mentioned the indigenous people -- you
>   remember -- the Indians?  There isn't a single inch of American
>   territory that wasn't stolen -- by force or deceit -- from the previous
>   inhabitants.
Please remember that my comments were in reply to a claim that the US
was formed in much the same way as Israel, a claim which you do not
discuss at all.  Your comments are thus pretty much out of scope.

Your view ignores the fact that the stealing was done by the European
colonial powers, not the US.  The stealing was done well before 1776
(much of it centuries before...).  How can you blame the US government
for that?

>   Not to mention your distortions of the Revolutionary War,
>   which certainly had "terroristic" elements.
Name some please.

>   You also managed to miss
>   mention our "peaceful" acquisition of California, New Mexico, Arizon and
>   Florida.
CA and most of NM and AZ were taken by the US by force of military
arms from Mexico in 1846-48.  The US pretty much conquored Mexico and
kept the pieces it wanted.  Southern NM and AZ were bought
peacefully from Mexico in 1854.  Most of FL was bought from the
Spanish in 1821, after we took it anyway in 1818.

Still, overall, most of the territory of the US was not given to us by
an international organization in the wake of an administering
authority backing out under the pressure of terrorists, and conquered
in an ensuing war.  That is how Israel was formed, and is not at all
how the US was formed.

>   You might also take a look at US imperialism -- take a good
>   look at the article in the most recent Atlantic written by Mark Twain
>   around the turn of the century in reference to US behavior in the
>   Philippines.  READ SOME HISTORY!  US behavior is no better -- in some
>   cases maybe worse -- than the Israeli, and not just two hundred years
>   ago: read something about the US gov. and the American Indian Movement
>   or the Black Panthers.  Read about the civil rights movement.

Notice please that the Philippines were given independence in 1946.
Now please explain what the Black Panthers have to do with territorial
imperialism.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

In article <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.  (stuff deleted.)

>This is not at all similar to the US, where the initial revolution was
>fought as a war, not as a terrorist action,....

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

Actually, if my understanding of the American revolution is correct,
the above statement is not very accurate.  The American revolutionaries
(herein referred to as ARs) did not have the manpower to wage conventional
war as defined in their day and age.  So they resorted to hit and run
tactics, small sniper teams, and definately used force against civilians
that they thought were collaberating with the British.  While these are
mostly accepted military practices now, they were not at the time.
Therefore, one could argue that the ARs practiced a limited form of
non-standard warfare, which people of the time could have called terrorism.

Also, remember that terrorism is nothing new.  It has been around for
thousands of years.  It is just that with bombs and timers, and a mass
media that can get reasonably accurate word of events to the majority
of the world in very little time, terrorism has become a much more
powerful tool for manipulating the population.  Unfortunately, there is
no technological solution as of yet.
-- 
                          | You have all the time from when you remove the |
     Martin F. Melhus     | card(s) from your hand until you put it (them) |
 mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu | on the pile to say "Last Card".  If you don't, |
                          | take your two. - Hidden texts, Book of MauMau. |

It looks like Jim Eggert's knowledge of history is deficient.

Most of the land taken by the U.S. in 1847, during the Mexican War was taken
by force from Mexico.  The U.S. forces were occupying Mexico City Sept.1847 and
Mexico, was forced to sign the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty by which Mexico
"ceded" California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Utah and Colorado,
and of course Texas (which was anexed before, and was the reason the war
started).

Get your facts straight before you post them.


Amnon Aliphas

In article <BMnJtM.18B@world.std.com> DSPWorld@world.std.com (Amnon Aliphas) writes:
>   It looks like Jim Eggert's knowledge of history is deficient.
>
>   Most of the land taken by the U.S. in 1847, during the Mexican War was taken
>   by force from Mexico.  The U.S. forces were occupying Mexico City Sept.1847 and
>   Mexico, was forced to sign the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty by which Mexico
>   "ceded" California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Utah and Colorado,
>   and of course Texas (which was anexed before, and was the reason the war
>   started).
>
>   Get your facts straight before you post them.
>
>   Amnon Aliphas

Please reread my posting.  Here is the paragraph to which you reply:

In article <JIME.92Apr10233057@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu wrote:
>> CA and most of NM and AZ were taken by the US by force of military
>> arms from Mexico in 1846-48.  The US pretty much conquored Mexico and
>> kept the pieces it wanted.  Southern NM and AZ were bought
>> peacefully from Mexico in 1854.  Most of FL was bought from the
>> Spanish in 1821, after we took it anyway in 1818.

It seems that your posting and mine are consistent.
What exactly are you taking issue with?

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

In article <1992Apr13.185652.17362@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>   Well, I can certainly blame the US for all the land-grabs taken after
>   1776, can't I? Which includes everything outside the 13 colonies. Hmmm,
>   that's quite a bit, don't you think?

The imperial land-grabs were well over by 1776.  England, France,
Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser extent the Netherlands had all
divided up the New World centuries before.  National boundaries
thereafter were decided by international wars between the resulting
New World states, and by land purchases.

>   I don't have any argument with the latter paragraph, but it has nothing
>   to do with what I orginally corrected you on.  It's possible to
>   criticize the formation and structure of Israel without distorting the
>   facts to make the US look like some shining light.
>
>   You still haven't mentioned the Indians.

Please remember that the new and improved US now has a thousand points
of light.  Much better than the single shining light of yesteryear. :-)

>   >Notice please that the Philippines were given independence in 1946.
>   >Now please explain what the Black Panthers have to do with territorial
>   >imperialism.
>
>   There's good reason to believe they were finally -- finally -- given
>   their independence to prevent large scale Filipino immigration to this
>   country.  And, anyway, so what!?  Just because 46 years later we got
>   around to it, we weren't imperialistic?

There is also good reason that Phillipine independence was always in
the works.  The US involved Filipinos in their government pretty much
from the start.  They got commonwealth status in 1935, and were then
self-governing.  The Japanese invasion sort of slowed things down.

A parallel case was Puerto Rico, also taken from the Spanish at the
same time.  They are also a commonwealth, and don't want independence.

>   Considering the way the US government invaded Indian land (you still
>   haven't mentioned the Indians, and you keep slipping away from that one)
>   annd the way they invaded black neighborhoods and dealt with Black Power
>   advocates, it has _a lot_ to do with imperialism.
>
>   I repeat: do not attack Israeli domestic policy by comparing it
>   unfavorably to US policy.  They BOTH SUCK!

Hmmm, putting down Black Power militarists constitutes imperialism?
Not quite.  That interpretation would require one to consider Watts,
Harlem, etc as colonies of Washington.  If that were really the case,
then Washington would be better off divesting, for these colonies are
hardly money making opportunities.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.185652.17362@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>>   Well, I can certainly blame the US for all the land-grabs taken after
>>   1776, can't I? Which includes everything outside the 13 colonies. Hmmm,
>>   that's quite a bit, don't you think?

You still persist in defining the US out of imperialism, and persist in
leaving the Indians out of the picture.  Yes, the French claimed
Louisiana and the US "bought" it -- but the fact is that the _occupants_
of that area were not French, they were Native Americans.  Throughout
the territory claimed to be US the indigenous people were harrassed,
uprooted and killed.  Does the Indian Removal Act ring a bell.  Does it
sound faintly familiar in today's world?

Why do you persist in discounting the presence of the Native Americans
throughout the West?  And why continue to assert that the US wasn't
behaving in an imperialistic fashion as the population moved west --
with the specific aid, frequently military, of the US Government?


>>   >Notice please that the Philippines were given independence in 1946.
>>   >Now please explain what the Black Panthers have to do with territorial
>>   >imperialism.
>>
>>   There's good reason to believe they were finally -- finally -- given
>>   their independence to prevent large scale Filipino immigration to this
>>   country.  And, anyway, so what!?  Just because 46 years later we got
>>   around to it, we weren't imperialistic?

>There is also good reason that Phillipine independence was always in
>the works.  The US involved Filipinos in their government pretty much
>from the start.  They got commonwealth status in 1935, and were then
>self-governing.  The Japanese invasion sort of slowed things down.

>A parallel case was Puerto Rico, also taken from the Spanish at the
>same time.  They are also a commonwealth, and don't want independence.

You need to read a little more history of the Phillipines, also Takaki's
excellent history of Asian-Americans, which covers the US attitude
toward the Filipinos.  Your assertion that Puerto Ricans don't "want
independence" is somewhat at variance with the facts.  A significant
minority of the population _do_ want independence, and an even larger
group want the priviliges of statehood.  And, in any event, it has
_nothing_ to do with the original imperialistic motivations of the US
Government.


>>   Considering the way the US government invaded Indian land (you still
>>   haven't mentioned the Indians, and you keep slipping away from that one)
>>   annd the way they invaded black neighborhoods and dealt with Black Power
>>   advocates, it has _a lot_ to do with imperialism.
>>
>>   I repeat: do not attack Israeli domestic policy by comparing it
>>   unfavorably to US policy.  They BOTH SUCK!

>Hmmm, putting down Black Power militarists constitutes imperialism?
>Not quite.  That interpretation would require one to consider Watts,
>Harlem, etc as colonies of Washington.  If that were really the case,
>then Washington would be better off divesting, for these colonies are
>hardly money making opportunities.
>--
Obviously you weren't around in the 1960s, or you would realize that a
lot of people living in Watts, Harlem, etc. _did_ consider themselves
--with plenty of reason--to be colonies.  And there is a great deal to
be said for maintaining a source of cheap labor.  But that's another
issue.

Anyway, WHAT ABOUT THE INDIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Jeff Frane

>=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson

In article <1992Apr14.214015.6724@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>   You need to read a little more history of the Phillipines, also Takaki's
>   excellent history of Asian-Americans, which covers the US attitude
>   toward the Filipinos.  Your assertion that Puerto Ricans don't "want
>   independence" is somewhat at variance with the facts.  A significant
>   minority of the population _do_ want independence, and an even larger
>   group want the priviliges of statehood.  And, in any event, it has
>   _nothing_ to do with the original imperialistic motivations of the US
>   Government.

You know as well as I that repeated referenda in Puerto Rico have
rejected any change from the present commonwealth status.  Certainly
an insignificant fraction of their population wants independence, and
another insignificant fraction wants statehood.  However in a
democracy the will of the people is determined by a majority vote.

>   Obviously you weren't around in the 1960s, or you would realize that a
>   lot of people living in Watts, Harlem, etc. _did_ consider themselves
>   --with plenty of reason--to be colonies.  And there is a great deal to
>   be said for maintaining a source of cheap labor.  But that's another
>   issue.

I remember the 1960s quite well.  It was a period of political
extremism, on both sides, where catchphrases were used as weapons of
class struggle, more than as accurate descriptions of reality.  The
word colony obviously does not apply to these neighborhoods, but was
used as an epithet for the racism and economic malaise they suffered
under (and still do).

>   Anyway, WHAT ABOUT THE INDIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I prefer the Yankees, myself.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.214015.6724@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>>   You need to read a little more history of the Phillipines, also Takaki's
>>   excellent history of Asian-Americans, which covers the US attitude
>>   toward the Filipinos.  Your assertion that Puerto Ricans don't "want
>>   independence" is somewhat at variance with the facts.  A significant
>>   minority of the population _do_ want independence, and an even larger
>>   group want the priviliges of statehood.  And, in any event, it has
>>   _nothing_ to do with the original imperialistic motivations of the US
>>   Government.

>You know as well as I that repeated referenda in Puerto Rico have
>rejected any change from the present commonwealth status.  Certainly
>an insignificant fraction of their population wants independence, and
>another insignificant fraction wants statehood.  However in a
>democracy the will of the people is determined by a majority vote.

I know that such referenda have occurred, with a great deal of
dissension and a lot of politicking.  Your dismissal of any of the sides
as "an insignificant fraction" is not only undemocratic, it's untrue.
My memory of the most recent voting is that about 25% of the population
wanted independence and another 25% wanted statehood (actually that
particular group was considerable larger, I think).  The tradeoff, of
course, is that statehood was tied up heavily with the fact that Puerto
Ricans speak Spanish and English is the national language of the US --
not an inconsiderable barrier.  Not to mention the loss of certain
economic protection, nor the influence on voting of the US corporations
using the island as a source for _very_ cheap labor.

Not that this has anything to do, of course, with your original
contention that the US hasn't acquired any land (or maybe it's "much"
land through imperialistic acquisition.  The fact that the Philippines
were eventually given independence and Puerto Rico commonwealth status
in not way negates their original acquisition.  A fact which you
continue to ignore.


>>   Obviously you weren't around in the 1960s, or you would realize that a
>>   lot of people living in Watts, Harlem, etc. _did_ consider themselves
>>   --with plenty of reason--to be colonies.  And there is a great deal to
>>   be said for maintaining a source of cheap labor.  But that's another
>>   issue.

>I remember the 1960s quite well.  It was a period of political
>extremism, on both sides, where catchphrases were used as weapons of
>class struggle, more than as accurate descriptions of reality.  The
>word colony obviously does not apply to these neighborhoods, but was
>used as an epithet for the racism and economic malaise they suffered
>under (and still do).

>>   Anyway, WHAT ABOUT THE INDIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>I prefer the Yankees, myself.
>--
Hmm, cute, Jim, but still...  Why does the US policy toward the
indigenous population -- of that area outside the original 13 colonies
-- not constitute imperialism?  It's a very simple question, and one you
continue to avoid by asserting that all US territory was acquired _from
European nations_ by "legitimate" means -- that is, war or purchase.

Frankly, it beats the hell out of me why you feel the need to portray US
policy as lily-white simply to criticize Israeli policy.  It simply adds
credence to the frequently-voiced opinion of Israelis that they are
being held to a higher standard than anyone else in the world.  It
betrays an astonishingly blinkered vision of history.

--Jeff Frane

-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson

In article <1992Apr15.201125.22068@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>   Frankly, it beats the hell out of me why you feel the need to portray US
>   policy as lily-white simply to criticize Israeli policy.  It simply adds
>   credence to the frequently-voiced opinion of Israelis that they are
>   being held to a higher standard than anyone else in the world.  It
>   betrays an astonishingly blinkered vision of history.

I do not portray US history as lily-white.  I have repeatedly
discussed wars of imperialism fought by the the US (Spanish-American,
Mexican-American, etc.).  I also do not think it is necessary to say
that A is white so that I can say B is not white.

However, I do not believe that arguing over historical injustices has
much operative value.  Present injustices, however, should be opposed.
(Sometimes they are caused by historical events, it must be noted.)
Further, I do not believe that historical injustices justify present
ones.  That argumentative tactic is oft-used by apologists for various
regimes.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)