----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: A clue to understand USA


JM:
You (someone who, it must be recalled, has never been shy in sharing his, 
um,. er, what's the right word.... ah, "musings" with the list) wrote an 
incoherent message trying to make a point about the US-Israel relationship 
with such examples as the development of the A-bomb and of financial 
derivatives.

MM:
Incoherent? Didn't you say you understood my point. (JM: "I think I 
understand the point you are trying to make now" 1/10). John, you are 
inconsistent all the way!

JM:
On top of everything else, that message was prefaced by the title "A clue to 
understand USA", a heading that one must say was a wee bit portentous and 
more than a little disappointing given the "musings" that it prefaced. And 
it was one of many posts that you have made about Israel and Palestine in 
the last few weeks, so complaining about the length of my one response 
strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

MM:
I was intentionally circumventing and suggesting the similarity between US 
and Israel before soemone can see the true reason why US is supporting 
Israel. I was afraid of saying bluntly that both countries are created on 
the same original sin of capturing someone's land and almost annihilating 
the original inhabitants. I was hoping that someone, maybe you, would notice 
where I was pointing to indirectly.

JM:
My lengthy response was an effort to put US policy in the region and towards 
Israel in particular into some historical perspective - that is, it was an 
effort to address the question that you had repeatedly raised over the 
preceding two weeks - and was pitched at a level that a general reader with 
passable knowledge of the post-WWII history of the Middle East could grasp. 
My own feeling about the discussion up to that point was that it was 
languishing in what historian's sometimes term an "empirical vacuum"; once 
the facts are established, one can debate various ways to interpret them, 
but when the facts are unknown or are simply wrong (Alan), then intelligent 
debate suffers.

MM:
You always seem to assume people are not as knowledgeable as you are. On the 
other hand, what you are saying is always someone's interpretation of the 
facts. Reading others' thoughts are affecting you too much and you seem to 
assume what you read are always correct. Think, John., think.

JM:
As for your current question, which appears to be about the UN resolution 
(though I am sure I will learn shortly from a subsequent e-mail that this is 
not it at all; you keep shifting the ground of the debate, Minoru, and it is 
rather me who should be asking you to exercise some discipline and focus), 
once again, the short answer is: Go to Wikipedia, or go to a library, and 
read something about it yourself. It should be abundantly clear from my 
messages that several factors influenced Truman's decision to support the 
partition resolution: (1) Lobbying by US Jewish organizations; (2) Truman's 
sympathy for the Jews, due to his own Christian beliefs and the Shoah; and 
(3) Truman's own political fortunes. For Christ's sake, next thing you will 
be asking me to read you "Run Spot Run"! This is ridiculous. Read something 
about the issue for yourself, I wouldn't have to pitch it at this level if 
you put in some effort.

MM:
I don't have any disagreement with your three points (1) - (3). The problem 
with you is that you have not clarified the discrepancy between the 
statement above and your original statement about Truman's act (you stated 
originally: "Truman supported the creation of the state of Israel"). You 
seem to be avoiding the answer to my question:  did Truman did or did not 
support the creation of the state of Israel?

JM:
You now also seem to be blaming Truman for the problem of "terrorism" in the 
Middle East.

MM:
I am not blaming as I explained in my previous post. I will reiterate my 
statement, "it was a silly act to allow the establishment of the state of 
Israle in the land which belong to other people" once you admit you meant 
truly what you said originally "Truman helped ..."

JM:
Sorry if that is overly pedantic for you, but I would bet others find it 
relatively concise and to the point. And I will gladly debate it with them 
if they wish.

MM:
You are free to bet whatever you wish. I don't care what other think. You 
seem to be always relying on what other people think. In my view,  you are 
pedantic, meaning that you are not thinking on your own and you say 
something refering to someone's rendition of the fact and refer to another's 
rendition when you are criticized.

JM:
As for another one of your questions the other day, namely why I write posts 
to the list, well, you guessed it, Minoru, I am using Not Honyaku as a forum 
to make friends and influence people. Someone in the Obama campaign did in 
fact read my posts here, and invited me down to DC last week to nosh with 
Barry over a game of one-on-one.

MM:
Congratulations, John. You finally may find a job. Or, is it going to be a 
job?

JM:
But seriously, Minoru, there are three explanations for why I write my posts 
to the list. I will let you choose one:

MM:
I don't care for what reasons you post here, although I suppose your motive 
may be similar to mine. I am just having fun doing this. Nothing more. I 
don't have much sympathy to Jews or Palestinians.

JM:
Well, there we have it. I suppose I have once again exceeded my allotted 
word count, but then again, you are not moderating the list, Minoru, nor are 
you my schoolmarm, so your opinion about this is just that, another one of 
your opinions. For my part, I would appreciate it if you toned down your 
posts. They seem to be seething with various forms of envy and resentment. 
Not good for the soul, Minoru.

MM:
There is no allotment and I am not a moderator as you guessed right. (I see 
you are right sometimes.) I generally hate moderators. Do I envy you? Why? I 
feel some resentment for you for not being more concise and avoiding my 
straightforward questions. Not good for the soul? Yeah, you may be right on 
that one too.


Minoru

p.s. I normally don't respond to every bit, but I decided to do so, just 
once, for fun. It is a great joy for not having to apologize anybody, as I 
know no body is forced to read this through. Hooray for no moderators!


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Persons posting messages to not_honyaku  assume all responsibility for 
their messages. The list owner does not review messages prior to posting, 
and accepts no responsibility for the content of messages posted.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to