Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Richard Baker wrote: In your opinion, are the European media more biased than the US media? In my opinion, the British media, at least, are considerably more balanced than those US news channels I see (CNN, Fox). I can't speak for newspapers though - I just read the (London) Sunday Times, New Scientist and sometimes the Economist. Fox News, IMHO, is a total waste of spectrum. They have the lunch-room TV at work tuned to it in such a way that you can't change the channel... On Friday, they spent 5 - 10 minutes every hour on a segment on the Laci Petersen case. The news: The judge placed a gag order, so there is no news, and not likely to be any for a while. They followed this with a segment called 80 seconds around the world, in which the top stories were: China is getting ready to launch a manned rocket, Some guy in India is giving away water to people around his neighborhood for free, and Some crocodiles in Brazil were captured for release into the wild who got stuck in a fountain. Don't even get me started on the topic of balanced political coverage. How they make any money with such crap goes a long way towards arguing against the notion that free market anything is automatically better. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
After the Dryfus affair, Zionism got its start. Modern Zionism started in Eastern Europe--specifically Russia in the late 19th C, where anti-semitism was most virulent--according to my source. The roots of Zionism actually predate the affair by at least a decade. See _A History of the Modern Middle East_ by Cleveland pp. 235-237. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Tamiya's M151A2 MUTT w/TOW ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped all but phrases of interest Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! kpentai maru Since no-one else has asked...what do these phrases/words mean? (Maru of course I know) Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
In a message dated 6/15/2003 6:30:13 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! kpentai maru Since no-one else has asked...what do these phrases/words mean? (Maru of course I know) Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know Maru :) Just a guess... phwit lamunkpelechis! = Please look for my teeth! William Taylor - (Well, it would on The Goon Show) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped all but phrases of interest Since no-one else has asked...what do these phrases/words mean? (Maru of course I know) Lenape, spelling I am unsure of, but then there are so many ways to properly spell in Lenape, I am sure I hit one of them with each word. Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! Oh...phooey underpants! kpentai maru -Do you understand me- maru like savvy? an afermative sersponse would be kpentul Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped all but phrases of interest Since no-one else has asked...what do these phrases/words mean? (Maru of course I know) Lenape, spelling I am unsure of, but then there are so many ways to properly spell in Lenape, I am sure I hit one of them with each word. Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! Oh...phooey underpants! ROTFLOL I got a garbled visual of the cartoon character 'Hong Kong Phooey' in dirty diapers... kpentai maru -Do you understand me- maru like savvy? an afermative sersponse would be kpentul Kpentul And Wakarimas* Maru *?sp; my roommate and I, while the miniseries Shogun was running back in the early '80s, used various Japanese phrases that we'd learned from the show; 'wakarimas' is my phonetic spelling of the word which, IIRC, means I understand (and 'wakarimaska?' meant 'do you understand?') :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite a reference on that? I know that there is a liberal contingent that is pro Palestinian (and a conservative one that is anti-Israel), but I think that Americans in general are very supportive of Israel. See: http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm Doug Unfortunately the one I want isn't up on the web anymore - or at least I can't find it. There was a Gallup poll on the subject that is referenced in: http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=1921 http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=6129 Also mentions the results from the poll. But: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2003/021803mideast.htm at least shows that Republicans are consistently more likely to favor Israel than Democrats, on every question in the poll, although it doesn't split it out by ideology. You can do it by opinion leaders as well. The National Review and the Weekly Standard are the two most important conservative magazines - both are massively pro-Israel, even though neither has any policy of enforcing an editorial line. It's just that the only conservative of any significance I can think of who is not strongly pro-Israel is Bob Novak. Maybe John McLaughlin too, I guess. Neither is exactly important. The most important liberal magazines are, well, The New Republic, which has moved to the center and is owned by Marty Peretz, so that's _extremely pro-Israel_, since Marty would fire anyone who disagreed with him (and has). But there's The Nation and Mother Jones - both violently anti-Israel, basically because it's fairly difficult to find a (non-Jewish) intellectual on the left who _isn't_ fairly pro-Palestinian. The New York Times editorial board consistently condemns Israel for defending itself. The Wall Street Journal Opinion page, by contrast, makes a better case for Israel than Israeli diplomats do. The strong sympathy of the right for Israel (and antipathy of the left) is one of those bizarre things in American politics where ideology is more important than self-interest (campaign finance reform was another). Jews _never_ vote Republican - but Republicans back Israel. Even Richard Nixon, violently anti-semitic though he was, strongly supported Israel, and Israel has never had a more supportive President than George W. Bush. The Democrats, on the other hand, despite receiving the Jewish vote, consistently put pressure on Israel to moderate its defense against the Palestinians. I think it has something to do with power. The left seems to feel, at some gut level, that anyone with power is always in the wrong. Israel has more power than the Palestinians, so they oppose Israel. The right is (too) comfortable with power, so the fact that Israel is a democracy becomes more important. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:08:02AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: At 01:48 PM 6/13/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What right did the UN have to tell Arabs how they would be governed, or to take away their homes? The land was under UN jurisdiction, that's what right. More importantly, WHO CARES? I do. As should anyone who is interested in a solution to the problem. As complex and difficult as the situation is, certainly any knowledge and understanding of the history of the situation, from the perspective of both sides, could be beneficial. Maybe you already know all the facts, but I don't. So, yes, I care. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:27 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? At 01:34 PM 6/13/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read Dan's statement from the perspective of native North Americans. Try that in your analogy. Dean I did. How many native Americans are alive in the US today? If the number is higher than a few hundred, then that's higher than the number of Jews there are currently living in, oh, every Arab country put together. I rather think that the number is, in fact, more than a few hundred. I remain in my belief that the situation is somewhat different, however grasping the attempts at moral equivalence. Well, Arabs did manage to get to a few thousand: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html Morocco 7,500 Tunisia 2,000 Yemen 800 Syria 250 Iraq 120 Egypt x 100 IIRC, There are approximately 3 million native Americans in the US today. CIA Factbook lists 'Amerindians' and 'Alaskan Natives' combined as 1.5% of the US population, but does not supply exact figures. I believe the number was more than 10 times that (30 million+) at some point last century. There are considerably more Native Americans in this country than there are Jews in Arab nations. More later. Must Sleep. :-) Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Gautam Mukunda wrote: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2003/021803mideast.htm at least shows that Republicans are consistently more likely to favor Israel than Democrats, on every question in the poll, although it doesn't split it out by ideology. Not in every question: Many world leaders have said they will not hold any meetings with political figures who deny the Holocaust. Yasser Arafat's number-two man, Mahmoud Abbas, has written a book claiming that there is no proof the Nazis killed six million Jews, and that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis may be less than one million. Should world leaders continue to meet with Mahmoud Abbas, or should they refuse to meet with him and treat him the same as others who deny or minimize the Holocaust? Continue Total 20.2 Rep. 20.6 Dem 17.3 Ind. 24.8 Refuse Total 64.0 Rep. 67.4 Dem. 64.9 Ind. 58.6 Should the United States continue to give $150 million of American taxpayers' money every year to Palestinian Arabs living in the territories of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Palestinian Authority? Yes Total 11.5 Rep. 10.9 Dem. 8.1 Ind. 18.6 No Total 76.7 Rep. 79.1 Dem. 78.9 Ind. 69.5 But the numbers are so close up and down the page that drawing the conclusion that conservatives are more pro Israeli than Liberals is very questionable. A more accurate statement would be that conservatives are _slightly_ more pro Israeli than Liberals. I think it has something to do with power. The left seems to feel, at some gut level, that anyone with power is always in the wrong. Israel has more power than the Palestinians, so they oppose Israel. The right is (too) comfortable with power, so the fact that Israel is a democracy becomes more important. I think one of the reasons Jews identify more with Democrats is that they can empathize with those elements of society to whom a voice has been denied, for obvious reasons. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
John Giorgis said: When it comes to discussing the situation in Israel/Palestine, there is very little serious reason, other than as a purelya cademic pursuit, to debate the history of the problem. So you don't think that understanding the origins of current problems as part of an attempt to avoid similar problems in the future is worthwhile? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:49 AM 6/13/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote: Yeah, but there have been Jews in that area since before recorded history and they made up a very large proportion of the population before the Israeli War of Independence. You know, I do sympathize with this point of view, but by those standards, the United States belongs to Native Americans, doesn't it? (or do you feel perhaps that because they lost the war(s), they lost their rights for the land? I'm curious about your opinion.) Actually, I would argue that the Native Americans have lost their rights to the United States because of a combination of the folllowing: Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! 1) The statute of limitations has expired. There's simply no way to turn back the clock to the injustice. Moreover, almost all people alive in the US today were simply born here - and did not choose to be born here, and indeed, have no record of having oppressed Native Americans. Good point. And I do agree with you on point (1), but not the general statment. As one of the official artisans of the Lenape I think I have the right to protest some of what you have said. 2) The Native Americans did not really achieve sufficient organization, with a few local exceptions, to claim nationhood in the modern sense, Not as a whole, but for a body of land as large as it is this was, and still is not common. Most countries are no larger than the teritory of lands controuled by the differnt tribes. In actuality (except for a few local exceptions) each tribe did have a very clear governemnt. In fact all of the tribes now do claim nationhood, even in the modern sense. We have an elected Chief, a Council, Judges, etc. The idea that the native americans did not have the idea of land ownership is a twist of the truth. While the concept was slightly differnt it was not completly forign. Most of the battles between the algonquin and their nigbors was specificaly about land. I am sorry to adress you directly John, but you seem to be working from grammer school teaching of the sort that went hand in hand with Gorge Washington and chery trees, (acomplished man that he was). I am sure that this is due to no fault of your own. Popular belief certainly agrees with point(2) and even popular education in some parts of the country. But you must understand that we (the Lenape we, the Algonquin we, and the Native American we) do not agree. thus designate a representative to receive reparations. We no-longer look different than you, we live among you, we may in fact be you. Still there are many nations. One day Tahkox the Turtle went to vist his friend Chikenemuk the Turky. The turtel lived by the muddy bank of the river. The turky lived by the ocean. The turtle was suprised and thrilled to walk in the sand which the turky had allways taken for granted. I like the pebbles you have here, said the turtle, they are so soft, not like the pebles we have in the mud at the river. I think when I go home I will take some of these pebbles with me to be my floor. oh will you? siad the turky who had explored more than the turtel. How will you get such a flooring back with you? He asked. I will carry it exlaimed the turtle. why look the largest is smaller than the tip of my tail. need I go on? 3) The ration of currently living Native Americans to available land is disproportionate. See above. Thus, in sort of an extension of #1, it would make no sense and resemble no sort of justice to give the Native Americans all of the United States. Oh it might be justice, but sense no. We did have Oklahoma once, we were all crammed inside. Where do you think all those indians went, where did they all hide? Down your genes of course, think about it twice. Stiking to treaties which declare soverenty might be nice. But then, we like the Union, it reminds us of the hourse. Jan kpentai maru = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 09:29 AM 6/14/2003 +0100 Richard Baker wrote: So you don't think that understanding the origins of current problems as part of an attempt to avoid similar problems in the future is worthwhile? Well, I hesitate to answer this question, since it is so clearly loaded, but basically my position is this: 1) I find the study of history to be a very valuable pursuit. 2) I think that the history of the Israel/Palestine problem is highly unlikely to be repeated in other conflicts in the future. 3) Debating the history of the problem to determine the relatively morality of the various sides in this conflict is a purely academic pursuit, since it has no relevance to determining a solution to the problem. Thus, people who insist upon this discussion of the history are fundamentally non-serious in the pursuit of a solution. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
John Giorgis said: 2) I think that the history of the Israel/Palestine problem is highly unlikely to be repeated in other conflicts in the future. Suppose some manner of Kurdistan were produced and various Turkish and Arab groups expelled or otherwise displaced. Wouldn't that be quite a similar situation? Weren't the ethnic realignments in the Balkans similar in some respects? Thus, people who insist upon this discussion of the history are fundamentally non-serious in the pursuit of a solution. I find this a pretty strange statement. Surely at worst, understanding the history is orthogonal to resolving the problem. To say that anybody who'd like to understand the origins of a situation is fundamentally non-serious about a solution is a nice rhetorical flourish, but not particularly fair. Rich, who thinks that probably sounds more confrontational than he'd planned, but whose young cousin just arrived and demanded help with homework so he's going to send it now rather than throw it onto the vast pile of draft emails. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 12:00 AM Subject: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites? At 07:49 AM 6/13/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote: Yeah, but there have been Jews in that area since before recorded history and they made up a very large proportion of the population before the Israeli War of Independence. You know, I do sympathize with this point of view, but by those standards, the United States belongs to Native Americans, doesn't it? (or do you feel perhaps that because they lost the war(s), they lost their rights for the land? I'm curious about your opinion.) Actually, I would argue that the Native Americans have lost their rights to the United States because of a combination of the folllowing: 1) The statute of limitations has expired. There's simply no way to turn back the clock to the injustice. Moreover, almost all people alive in the US today were simply born here - and did not choose to be born here, and indeed, have no record of having oppressed Native Americans. 2) The Native Americans did not really achieve sufficient organization, with a few local exceptions, to claim nationhood in the modern sense, and thus designate a representative to receive reparations. For example, the largest Native American group currently existant in the US today is the Navaho, but it doesn't really make much sense to give the Navajo North Carolina - or even Texas. 3) The ration of currently living Native Americans to available land is disproportionate. Thus, in sort of an extension of #1, it would make no sense and resemble no sort of justice to give the Native Americans all of the United States. H..Only after a massive war of repatriation against Canada, Mexico, all of Central and South America. xponent ALL Of It Maru rob G ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On 13 Jun 2003 at 23:00, Gautam Mukunda wrote: The New York Times editorial board consistently condemns Israel for defending itself. The Wall Street Journal Opinion page, by contrast, makes a better case for Israel than Israeli diplomats do. Yep - PR is where the cultural differences between Israel and the western nations really bites. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
IIRC, There are approximately 3 million native Americans in the US today. CIA Factbook lists 'Amerindians' and 'Alaskan Natives' combined as 1.5% of the US population, but does not supply exact figures. I believe the number was more than 10 times that (30 million+) at some point last century. There are considerably more Native Americans in this country than there are Jews in Arab nations. More later. Must Sleep. :-) Jon What's funny about this discussion: yes the US had a horrible history with native Americans, and still are messing up. (How many millions, billions, do we own them currently?) While I'm not calling reservations a model for the world, how many other countries have places within their own borders that are mostly free of government intervention, or at least have some different rules? The Amish and other sects here in PA, they aren't operating with impunity but for the most part they aren't part of this country. I don't know if they consider themselves Americans, I think they do. We aren't trying to kill them (cough Waco cough), they aren't trying to kill Americans. So it is funny that people point to the mid east and try and draw parallels to the US and native Americans. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 11:00 PM 6/13/03 -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite a reference on that? I know that there is a liberal contingent that is pro Palestinian (and a conservative one that is anti-Israel), but I think that Americans in general are very supportive of Israel. See: http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm Doug Unfortunately the one I want isn't up on the web anymore - or at least I can't find it. There was a Gallup poll on the subject that is referenced in: http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=1921 http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=6129 Also mentions the results from the poll. But: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2003/021803mideast.htm at least shows that Republicans are consistently more likely to favor Israel than Democrats, on every question in the poll, although it doesn't split it out by ideology. You can do it by opinion leaders as well. The National Review and the Weekly Standard are the two most important conservative magazines - both are massively pro-Israel, even though neither has any policy of enforcing an editorial line. It's just that the only conservative of any significance I can think of who is not strongly pro-Israel is Bob Novak. Maybe John McLaughlin too, I guess. Neither is exactly important. The most important liberal magazines are, well, The New Republic, which has moved to the center and is owned by Marty Peretz, so that's _extremely pro-Israel_, since Marty would fire anyone who disagreed with him (and has). But there's The Nation and Mother Jones - both violently anti-Israel, basically because it's fairly difficult to find a (non-Jewish) intellectual on the left who _isn't_ fairly pro-Palestinian. The New York Times editorial board consistently condemns Israel for defending itself. The Wall Street Journal Opinion page, by contrast, makes a better case for Israel than Israeli diplomats do. The strong sympathy of the right for Israel (and antipathy of the left) is one of those bizarre things in American politics where ideology is more important than self-interest (campaign finance reform was another). Jews _never_ vote Republican - but Republicans back Israel. Even Richard Nixon, violently anti-semitic though he was, strongly supported Israel, and Israel has never had a more supportive President than George W. Bush. The Democrats, on the other hand, despite receiving the Jewish vote, consistently put pressure on Israel to moderate its defense against the Palestinians. I think it has something to do with power. The left seems to feel, at some gut level, that anyone with power is always in the wrong. Israel has more power than the Palestinians, so they oppose Israel. The right is (too) comfortable with power, so the fact that Israel is a democracy becomes more important. I suspect a major reason that US conservatives back Israel is that a major component of US conservatives is the so-called Christian Right who are generally fairly fundamentalist Protestants who take the Bible seriously (if not literally), and so believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and the Holy Land was promised to them, and see the creation of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy and a sign of the end times. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Saturday, June 14, 2003, at 07:14 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I suspect a major reason that US conservatives back Israel is that a major component of US conservatives is the so-called Christian Right who are generally fairly fundamentalist Protestants who take the Bible seriously (if not literally), and so believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and the Holy Land was promised to them, and see the creation of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy and a sign of the end times. Good point. And support on that basis is quite different from supporting it for secular political reasons, or 'natural justice' or whatever. But how major a component of the American Right are the Christian Right really? I get the impression they spend a lot of money and energy lobbying and raising a stink but there aren't really that many of them. So they have a disproportionate amount of influence in American right-wing politics, and many politicians are just paying lip-service to their positions because it is easier than getting on their wrong side. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
In a message dated 6/13/2003 12:46:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What right did the UN have to tell Arabs how they would be governed, or to take away their homes? For whatever its worth; Palestine was part of the british empire after the breakup of the Otomen Empire. The Zionest movement began in ernest in the late 19th century in response to increasing virulent anti-sematism throughout Europe (with the notable exception of England which was very pro-jewish at the time). Theodore Herzel the father of modern zionism became a zionist because of the Dreyfus affair. Jews began to buy up as much land in Palestine as they could often with the financial support of wealthy Jews such as the English branch of the Rothschild family. The Jews bought as much land as they could. When the Britain promished the Jews a state they were not dividing a previously existent state they were giving the Jews part of the Land they controlled. Now you can argue that the British and then the allies had no right to do this but it was certainly not same as giving away part of a pre-existent country. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the Britain promished the Jews a state they were not dividing a previously existent state they were giving the Jews part of the Land they controlled. Now you can argue that the British and then the allies had no right to do this but it was certainly not same as giving away part of a pre-existent country. I think when trying to understand motivations of people involved, it is more realistic to think in terms of people's homes than in terms of a country. It seems clear that the Zionists did not buy ALL of the land proclaimed to be the Jewish State -- there were a number of Palestinian Arabs with homes on that land when the Jewish State was proclaimed. Almost everyone I know would feel wronged if someone suddenly declared, without consulting them, that their home was going to be part of a new religious state. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
In a message dated 6/13/2003 3:25:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I'm not Steve, but you're getting into what might be the single most contentious issue in all of historical research right now. I think one of Leon Uris's novels actually does a really good job of telling the story - unfortunately I can't remember which one. Exodus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 11:50 PM 6/13/2003 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Should the United States continue to give $150 million of American taxpayers' money every year to Palestinian Arabs living in the territories of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Palestinian Authority? Yes Total 11.5 Rep. 10.9 Dem. 8.1 Ind. 18.6 No Total 76.7 Rep. 79.1 Dem. 78.9 Ind. 69.5 It should be noted, however, that the above question is loaded and would not be considered for a scientifc survey. Referring to taxpayers money clearly makes the poll question ideological. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On 14 Jun 2003 at 21:10, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the Britain promished the Jews a state they were not dividing a previously existent state they were giving the Jews part of the Land they controlled. Now you can argue that the British and then the allies had no right to do this but it was certainly not same as giving away part of a pre-existent country. I think when trying to understand motivations of people involved, it is more realistic to think in terms of people's homes than in terms of a country. It seems clear that the Zionists did not buy ALL of the land proclaimed to be the Jewish State -- there were a number of Palestinian Arabs with homes on that land when the Jewish State was proclaimed. Almost everyone I know would feel wronged if someone suddenly declared, without consulting them, that their home was going to be part of a new religious state. There was nothing sudden about it - events leading up to it had been going on for half a century. Perhaps WW2 gave it a final push, but things were brewing WELL before that. Also, those peoples leaders had just REJECTED a plan which would have seem them get their own state. There are over a million Isralie Arabs. They cannot serve in the army but in all other ways are full citizens. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:14:52AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: There was nothing sudden about it - events leading up to it had been going on for half a century. Perhaps WW2 gave it a final push, but things were brewing WELL before that. Are you suggesting that because the Palestinian Arabs living there saw that lots of Zionists were moving in for some time, that they anticipated that they would be forced to either leave their homes or become part of another religion's state, and that therefore they did not feel wronged when it happened? Also, those peoples leaders had just REJECTED a plan which would have seem them get their own state. This suggests the Palestinian Arabs were opposed to leaving their homes or becoming part of a Jewish State. There are over a million Isralie Arabs. ^^^ Freudian slip? (joke) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On 14 Jun 2003 at 22:42, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:14:52AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: There was nothing sudden about it - events leading up to it had been going on for half a century. Perhaps WW2 gave it a final push, but things were brewing WELL before that. Are you suggesting that because the Palestinian Arabs living there saw that lots of Zionists were moving in for some time, that they anticipated that they would be forced to either leave their homes or become part of another religion's state, and that therefore they did not feel wronged when it happened? Uhh? The British STOPPED many of the Isralie immigrants. The *entire situation* was brewing, thanks to the British. And Israel's courts don't enforce a specifically Jewish law. The religious Zionists were a minority - most of the Zionists were driven by ideology (both the desire for a homeland and in some cases the communism ideology which founded the Kibbutz movement). Also, many of the Palestinian Arabs settled AFTER the British Mandate was established. And there are haunting tales of the War of Independence, such as the stand - and final slaughter after their surrender - of the defenders of the Etzion block, which critically delayed Arab offences. (and fell into the West Bank until the 6-day war). Also, those peoples leaders had just REJECTED a plan which would have seem them get their own state. This suggests the Palestinian Arabs were opposed to leaving their homes or becoming part of a Jewish State. Uhh? Oh, they didn't get to vote or anything. Their leadership *decided* And many fled because of Arab properganda. We've been over the ground of the refugees recently.. There are over a million Isralie Arabs. ^^^ Freudian slip? (joke) Dyslexic... As I said, I want a Palestian state in the region. But I want BOTH an Isralie and a Palestian state. I don't really consider that overly unreasonable. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect a major reason that US conservatives back Israel is that a major component of US conservatives is the so-called Christian Right who are generally fairly fundamentalist Protestants who take the Bible seriously (if not literally), and so believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and the Holy Land was promised to them, and see the creation of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy and a sign of the end times. -- Ronn! :) There are certainly some conservatives who back Israel for that reason. But it would be hard to argue that, say, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and (at a much lower level) myself are members of the Christian right. After all, the one thing we all have in common is that we're not Christian. From what I can tell, we all support Israel because Israel's a democracy (and that's important to us) surrounded by dictatorships that want to destroy it and kill all of its citizens dealing with terrorist groups that _also_ want to destroy it and all of its citizens. Given that outline it's fair to ask how, other than pure anti-Semitism (surely a good part of it) so many other people _don't_. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Andrew, We don't seem to be communicating. I am trying to look at the situation from the point of view of Palestinian Arabs living in the area that is now Israel, in 1948, and how they might have thought about what happened to them and their homes. You are now the 3rd person that apparently assumed because I am trying to understand their motivations, that I must be defending terrorism, or right of return, or whatever. I think it is possible to (metaphorically) put oneself into someone else's shoes without necessarily agreeing with their attitudes. And personally, it helps me to understand these sorts of things when I look at them from many different points of view. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 09:30 PM 6/14/03 +0100, William T Goodall wrote: On Saturday, June 14, 2003, at 07:14 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I suspect a major reason that US conservatives back Israel is that a major component of US conservatives is the so-called Christian Right who are generally fairly fundamentalist Protestants who take the Bible seriously (if not literally), and so believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and the Holy Land was promised to them, and see the creation of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy and a sign of the end times. Good point. And support on that basis is quite different from supporting it for secular political reasons, or 'natural justice' or whatever. But how major a component of the American Right are the Christian Right really? I get the impression they spend a lot of money and energy lobbying and raising a stink but there aren't really that many of them. That was probably not a good way of putting it. Whether they identify themselves as members of the Christian Right or not, a large number of Christians believe that Israel is specially blessed by God. (Based not on formal surveys, but on the views they express spontaneously in everyday conversations on current events.) And on another list today, someone I know posted a link to the following NPR story: NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagerty reports that some Christian Zionists believe the fulfillment of biblical prophecy is being threatened by the Bush administration's road map for peace in the Middle East. http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgDate=06/12/2003prgId=3 (His comment: Gee, I knew Bush was powerful, but more powerful than Jesus Christ?!) So they have a disproportionate amount of influence in American right-wing politics, and many politicians are just paying lip-service to their positions because it is easier than getting on their wrong side. Even if that's true, it means that politicians recognize that there is a large group of ordinary voters who feel that way. (FWIW, while I do believe that the scriptures say that the Jews are chosen of God, and I don't think there's anything Bush can do to derail whatever is truly prophesied (which is probably a lot less specific than some people believe), most mainstream Christians are of the opinion that anyone who believes as I do is going straight to Hell unless we hurry up and convert to a denomination they accept as true . . .) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 11:01:24PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Huh? I guess I don't know my Freud very well . . . The generally accepted spelling is Israeli, not Isra-LIE -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 12:14 AM 6/15/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 11:01:24PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Huh? I guess I don't know my Freud very well . . . The generally accepted spelling is Israeli, not Isra-LIE OK. I realized it was misspelled: I just wasn't looking for a double meaning . . . -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Why is it so hard to see there's a difference there? And how come the only people in the world outside of Israel who care about the difference live in the United States, and most of them are conservatives? Well, most American Jews care quite a lot about Israel, and most of us are not conservative (some of us are Conservative, but that's whole different row of pews...) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 10:26 PM 6/12/2003 +0100 Richard Baker wrote: So if one wished to create a science-fictional situation with the US in the position of Palestine, how would one do so? Maybe a bunch of Liberians started moving back to Delaware, and wanted to secede and form a separate State of Leni Lenape? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Rich, it's really very simple. If the Palestinians stopped fighting, and credibly demonstrated that they were willing to accept the existence of Israel, they'd get a state today. Would the Israelis be willing to give up all of their West Bank settlements at this point? Doug Who genuinely doesn't know. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:32 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? --- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, choose some other state. I was just trying to make people imagine how they might feel if a foreign Israel was set up in the Palestinian US. I'd imagine quite a lot of Americans would be rather upset about the whole thing, and try to expel it, and keep trying to do so for decades using whatever methods are available. Furthermore, many would continue trying to do so long after it became apparent that the destruction of the new state wasn't possible. (I'm not picking on America: the same thing would probably happen in Britain and many other countries too.) Rich Yeah, but there have been Jews in that area since before recorded history and they made up a very large proportion of the population before the Israeli War of Independence. You know, I do sympathize with this point of view, but by those standards, the United States belongs to Native Americans, doesn't it? (or do you feel perhaps that because they lost the war(s), they lost their rights for the land? I'm curious about your opinion.) And it is simply inconceivable that Americans, at least, would decide that the solution to the problem was genocide - while it is quite clear that the Palestinian groups - the PLO very much included - wish to finish what Hitler started. I'm too lazy to make a case out of it, but there's definitely an argument to be made that this is precisely what was done to the Sioux, the Apaches, the Navaho Oh, the methods may be different, but the goal and end result will be the same. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:58:45 +0100, Richard Baker wrote: Dan said: How about, over a period of years, the US is inundated by foreigners who look like they will drastically and permanently change the ethnic makeup of the US? No sci-fi needed. :-) Yes, but that's not really the same situation, is it? Can you imagine a separate sovereign Hispanic state forming on the territory of the United States and having a military so powerful that it's able to inflict repeated humiliating defeats on the forces of the federal government? I read Dan's statement from the perspective of native North Americans. Try that in your analogy. Dean ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:15 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? --- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but that's not really the same situation, is it? Can you imagine a separate sovereign Hispanic state forming on the territory of the United States and having a military so powerful that it's able to inflict repeated humiliating defeats on the forces of the federal government? Rich No, but I can't imagine us responding by trying to eliminate Hispanics all around the world either. Rich, it's really very simple. If the Palestinians stopped fighting, and credibly demonstrated that they were willing to accept the existence of Israel, they'd get a state today. If the Israelis stopped fighting, we'd have another six million dead Jews. Which is approximately 50% of the world's population and the entire Jewish population of Israel. (Gautam may have known that, but I thought the 'irony' worth posting.) :( Why is it so hard to see there's a difference there? Because a largely underdog-sympathetic media in Europe has framed this as a poor, defenseless arab people fighting against an all-powerful jewish state. In your job, you must read the international media, no? And how come the only people in the world outside of Israel who care about the difference live in the United States, This is a good question. I haven't seen a single logical answer posted to either the Culture list or by any of our European members that explains why they think Palestinian terrorism is appropriate. Answering 'They have no choice' is simply not an answer that justifies the murder of innocent civilians or unarmed children. There is *always* a choice involved when you decide to strap a bomb on your body and go kill innocents. and most of them are conservatives? I don't agree with this. I am a somewhat middle-of-the road conservative, and I haven't met a single New York liberal who thinks the jewish population in Israel should be wiped out or that the Palestinian terrorism isn't horrible. In my opinion, you cannot judge all liberals or democrats by articles you read in the papers or hear on talk shows. Nor can you judge most Democrats' opinions by their leaders' agendas in much the same way most Republicans' opinions cannot be judged by every word that falls from our President's mouth. You live here. Do you think the New York Post speaks for every Republican? Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Richard Baker wrote: Julia said: The thing is, Texas has more to lose by leaving the US than it has to gain, and most of us understand that. The parallel doesn't quite work. Okay, choose some other state. I was just trying to make people imagine how they might feel if a foreign Israel was set up in the Palestinian US. I'd imagine quite a lot of Americans would be rather upset about the whole thing, and try to expel it, and keep trying to do so for decades using whatever methods are available. Furthermore, many would continue trying to do so long after it became apparent that the destruction of the new state wasn't possible. (I'm not picking on America: the same thing would probably happen in Britain and many other countries too.) If you want to think up an analogy, try something like: USA loses a war in a big way. After much political maneuvering and a few terrorist-style attacks and perhaps an uprising or two, the victors, whomever they are, decide that some the lands ceded at the end of the Mexican War rightfully belong to Mexico, as they are part of the Mexican homeland, and return them. Now can you say that the people who used to have USA citizenship would happily become Mexican citizens? Would they leave for other parts of the USA? or would they turn to other, um, less politically acceptable methods, even if it seems that there's no hope of returning to the situation as it was before the land transfer? -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Jon said: Because a largely underdog-sympathetic media in Europe has framed this as a poor, defenseless arab people fighting against an all-powerful jewish state. In your opinion, are the European media more biased than the US media? In my opinion, the British media, at least, are considerably more balanced than those US news channels I see (CNN, Fox). I can't speak for newspapers though - I just read the (London) Sunday Times, New Scientist and sometimes the Economist. This is a good question. I haven't seen a single logical answer posted to either the Culture list or by any of our European members that explains why they think Palestinian terrorism is appropriate. I haven't seen anything posted in either place in favour of Palestinian (or any other) terrorism either. Unless it was posted by Jeroen, in which case I might have missed it because I seldom read anything he writes now. In my opinion, you cannot judge all liberals or democrats by articles you read in the papers or hear on talk shows. Nor can you judge all Europeans in such a way. How many Europeans do we have left here anyway? Is it just three? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:06:24AM -0500, Steve Sloan II wrote: Instead, Europe decided to pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. Steve, I was wondering if you could give a capsule summary of that transfer. I don't know much about it, but I have wondered how it occurred. Most importantly I'd like to know exactly when, how, and by whom were individual Palestinians evicted from their homes and their land. If you have a good reference on the web, that would be helpful, too. Did it happen before the 1948 war? Did Britain go in an kick Palestinians out of their homes? Did it occur during the first Middle-East War? If so, how did the Israelis have the resources to go house to house to evict the Palestinians while fighting off virtually all the other Middle-Eastern countries? Or was it more of a scorched earth sort of thing, the Palestinians fleeing because their land and homes were in the middle of a war zone? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:06:24AM -0500, Steve Sloan II wrote: Instead, Europe decided to pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. Steve, I was wondering if you could give a capsule summary of that transfer. I don't know much about it, but I have wondered how it occurred. Most importantly I'd like to know exactly when, how, and by whom were individual Palestinians evicted from their homes and their land. If you have a good reference on the web, that would be helpful, too. Did it happen before the 1948 war? Did Britain go in an kick Palestinians out of their homes? Did it occur during the first Middle-East War? If so, how did the Israelis have the resources to go house to house to evict the Palestinians while fighting off virtually all the other Middle-Eastern countries? Or was it more of a scorched earth sort of thing, the Palestinians fleeing because their land and homes were in the middle of a war zone? From what I've seen from many sources, after the war was won by Israel, the Arab countries urged the Arabs in Israel to leave so that they may destroy Israel with impunity. Most left, but some stayed. The ones that stayed and their descendants are now about 20% of the population, IIRC. The ones that left were kept in refugee camps as a means of putting political pressure on Israel and highlighting the injustice of Israel's existence. It was felt that, if the Palestinians were integrated into Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, etc. societies, the push to eliminate Israel would lose some momentum. I think this is a reasonable assumption, but not a reasonable action. Having said that, I have no doubt that there were instances of Jewish injustice against Arabs. But, the fact that Arabs who stayed ended up as citizens of Israel indicates that there was at least some effort to treat Arabs reasonably. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Would the Israelis be willing to give up all of their West Bank settlements at this point? If they did, would all of the Palestinians then quit calling for the annihilation of all Jews? Would they give up their attempts to claim Jerusalem? One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that groups such as Hamas do not object to the occupation - they object to Israel's very existence. If you read their official position documents, it's very clear that they have no intention of stopping until there is no more Israel. A Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, living in peace with Israel, is completely unacceptable to them. This is not, in my opinion, an argument against a Palestinian state. However, until that state (or its rudimentary proto-government, the current Palestinian Authority) demonstrates BOTH a will AND a capability to subjugate Hamas (the way the nascent Israel stifled the Stern Gang and the Irgun) it will be almost impossible for that Palestinian state to be created. Which is precisely why Hamas is doing what it is doing (other than the joy they get from massacreing helpless Jewish - and other - civilians): they DON'T WANT PEACE. It's an open question whether the PA - or even some Israelis - want peace, but it is blindingly clear that Hamas definitely doesn't. Hamas wants chaos and suffering, hoping that it will lead to more and more Palestinians being desperate enough to follow them. They WANT Israeli attacks and repression. They think it will lead to their desired outcome. Until Hamas is destroyed, either by Israel or by the PA, there's no hope for peace. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Thanks, Dan. On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:19:09PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: From what I've seen from many sources, after the war was won by Israel, the Arab countries urged the Arabs in Israel to leave so that they may destroy Israel with impunity. Most left, but some stayed. The ones that stayed and their descendants are now about 20% of the population, IIRC. So, would it be correct to say there was a mass exodus of Palestinians after (and possibly during) the 1948 war, due mostly to fear and uncertainty about whether their homes would be attacked (by either Arabs or Israel)? If that is a fair assessment, then I have another question. Were any (or most) of the refugees able/permitted to return to their homes a year or so later, when their fear and uncertainty had subsided? If they were not permitted, who stopped them? If they were permitted, then why didn't they soon return when they saw that their homes in Israel seemed moderately safe and attractive compared to the refugee camps? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
The same goes for Israel. Shortly after WWII, the least unfair solution probably would have been taking a good-sized chunk of land from Germany to form a Jewish homeland, while negotiating with the Middle East world to get them visitation rights to their holy sites. Instead, Europe decided to pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. It's too late to change that decision now. The best we can do now is try to get a decent two-state solution to work. You're ignoring the Balfour Declaration and the fact that there was a nascent Israel in Palestine - 1948 didn't just happen out of thin air. You're also ignoring the fact that the UN declared a partition in 1947, but the Arabs said no. There should have been a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but as always the Arabs and Palestinians refused anything other than total victory (from their point of view). Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:39:33PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're ignoring the Balfour Declaration and the fact that there was a nascent Israel in Palestine - 1948 didn't just happen out of thin air. You're also ignoring the fact that the UN declared a partition in 1947, but the Arabs said no. What right did the UN have to tell Arabs how they would be governed, or to take away their homes? The only thing close to fair I can come up with is if the residents of the area voted whether to form a state of Israel, and if the vote passed (maybe it would be necessary to require a super-majority to pass), then the new government should offer to pay a fair price for the homes and land of anyone who didn't want to be part of Israel. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
In a message dated 6/13/03 1:39:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that is a fair assessment, then I have another question. Were any (or most) of the refugees able/permitted to return to their homes a year or so later, when their fear and uncertainty had subsided? If they were not permitted, who stopped them? If they were permitted, then why didn't they soon return when they saw that their homes in Israel seemed moderately safe and attractive compared to the refugee camps? They have not been permitted to return, and the Arabs have never wanted them to return. The Arabs have intentionally kept them in the camps (which they have deliberately kept in as appalling condition as they can) in order to have a reason not to recognize Israel (We can't recognize Israel until the refugee problem is solved - ignoring the fact that they themselves are responsible for the refugee problem in the first place) and so they have a ready-made excuse for their own political stagnation - whenever their domestic populations get pissed at all the repression and corruption, they can say, Everyone boo Israel! and hope that their people will be distracted from their own abysmal internal situations. The Palestinians have got to be the worst governed and worst led people in the world. They have been betrayed by their own leaders and their so-called Arab brothers almost without cessation for the last half century. I can't think of anything that has ever been done in their name that has not turned out to be a total disaster for them. The tragedy is, they have so much in common with Israelis - and so little in common with the rest of the Arabs. In fact, a lot of Arabs hate Palestinians, they fear and mistrust them. (Remember what happened in Kuwait in 1991.) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
In a message dated 6/13/03 1:46:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What right did the UN have to tell Arabs how they would be governed, or to take away their homes? The land was under UN jurisdiction, that's what right. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
From: Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:06:24 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: You know, I do sympathize with this point of view, but by those standards, the United States belongs to Native Americans, doesn't it? (or do you feel perhaps that because they lost the war(s), they lost their rights for the land? I'm curious about your opinion.) For both issues... it's too late. I wish early American settlers hadn't done such horrible things to the native Americans, but it's too late to change that. The best we can do now is try to get the survivors integrated into American society and economy, without destroying their traditions -- something the Bureau of Indian Affairs has done a lousy job of so far. *general agreement* Have you seen either of Chris Eyre's recent films: Smoke Signals or Skins? The same goes for Israel. Shortly after WWII, the least unfair solution probably would have been taking a good-sized chunk of land from Germany to form a Jewish homeland, while negotiating with the Middle East world to get them visitation rights to their holy sites. Instead, Europe decided to pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. It's too late to change that decision now. The best we can do now is try to get a decent two-state solution to work. I'm unsure this solution would have satisfied the Jews of that time. For hundreds of years, they had prayed that Jerusalem would be returned to them. I'm unsure 'visiting rights' would have satisfied them. Jon _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:48:08PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/13/03 1:46:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What right did the UN have to tell Arabs how they would be governed, or to take away their homes? The land was under UN jurisdiction, that's what right. That doesn't sound fair to me, unless the residents of the land voted to put it under UN jurisdiction. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:47:24PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/13/03 1:39:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that is a fair assessment, then I have another question. Were any (or most) of the refugees able/permitted to return to their homes a year or so later, when their fear and uncertainty had subsided? If they were not permitted, who stopped them? If they were permitted, then why didn't they soon return when they saw that their homes in Israel seemed moderately safe and attractive compared to the refugee camps? They have not been permitted to return, and the Arabs have never wanted them to return. The Arabs have intentionally kept them in the camps (which they have deliberately kept in as appalling condition as they can) in order to have a reason not to recognize Israel (We can't recognize Israel until the refugee problem is solved So, are you saying that the Arab states in the region were actually holding the Palestinians prisoner in the refugee camps, forcibly preventing them from returning to their homes? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:10:44PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/13/03 2:04:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, are you saying that the Arab states in the region were actually holding the Palestinians prisoner in the refugee camps, forcibly preventing them from returning to their homes? More or less. They couldn't go to Israel, Why, specifically, could they not go to Israel in, say, late 1949 or 1950? Were they forcibly prevented? By whom? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
It's kind of late to worry about that now. I have trouble reconciling that statement with someone who has an interest in understanding history. Come one, how many subjugated peoples in the entirety of world history got to vote on who ruled them? They had never voted to be part of the Ottoman Empire, either, so what right did the Ottoman Turks ever have to rule them? That sounds like a Gautam-style argument! I don't understand. It's actually a recognition of history. Things we wouldn't do now were done in the past. But we can't go back and undo every single act of injustice that ever took place anywhere. All we can do is understand them. The facts are, the Arabs did not vote for the partition in 1947, but they did not vote for the splintering of the Ottoman Empire into Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., either They did not vote for anything, ever. They are still not allowed to vote for anything important. They could have had a Palestinian state in 1947. They refused. Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip from 1948 to 1967. Why didn't they proclaim a Palestinian state in those territories during that period? They could have and nobody could have stopped them. So even if the creation of Israel was a monstrous injustice, which I do not for a second think, was the only possible solution to that to be to hold out, if necessary forever, waiting for the perfect solution (perfect in Arab extremists' minds, note) rather than take some admittedly less than perfect interim step? Israel was willing to take whatever the UN gave them in 1947; the Arabs held out for everything. How come the Arabs never get any blame for this? I repeat my point, that the Palestinians have been utterly betrayed at every moment in their sorry history by those who claim to speak for them. If only they would realize this and make true peace. They could have a state tomorrow if they would really do this. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
In a message dated 6/13/03 2:16:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why, specifically, could they not go to Israel in, say, late 1949 or 1950? Were they forcibly prevented? By whom? By that point, I think, the Israelis wouldn't let them back (neither would the Arab countries). And before you start bitching about Israel, keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arab countries were expelled from those countries too and were taken in by Israel - where they instantly became citizens. As I said, not one Arab country has ever permitted the Palestinian refugees in their countries to become citizens. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, most American Jews care quite a lot about Israel, and most of us are not conservative (some of us are Conservative, but that's whole different row of pews...) Tom Beck Yeah, but if you worked out the percentages, it will still be most. I do wonder if, at some point, the difference between the left and right on Israel might cause you to reevaluate some of your views on politics. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would the Israelis be willing to give up all of their West Bank settlements at this point? Doug If not for security concerns, yes, absolutely (I think). There's a small fringe of the Israeli population that wants to annex the West Bank and the Gaza Strip permanently, but they're a very small fringe. They're holding onto the areas right now for the very sensible reason that if they let go, the government that would take over would be an active sponsor of terrorism with the stated agenda of eradicating Israel. Would _you_ want a country on your border that wanted to destroy you and thought a reasonable tactic was brainwashing people into committing suicide using explosives next to kindergartens? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:06:24PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand. That makes two of us. But I wasn't interested in a rationalization of bad behavior, which is what I thought I was getting. I said it seemed unfair. You seemed to disagree and gave examples of similar poor behavior. I don't dispute that there was a lot of unfairness in the world at that time and historically. Do you dispute that the treatment of the people living in that region was unfair? Because it sounded to me like you WERE disputing it. Anyway, I am trying to get a clear a picture as I can. I believe if I were in the position of the Palestinians we were discussing, I would think it was unfair. Also, please don't assume that by making this statement I am in any way implying that I think Palestinians should be given right of return. If and when I do have something to say about that, it will be spelled out clearly. It's actually a recognition of history. Things we wouldn't do now were done in the past. But we can't go back and undo every single act of injustice that ever took place anywhere. All we can do is understand them. Yes, I think we are in complete agreement. I am looking for understanding. They could have had a Palestinian state in 1947. They refused. Who specifically refused? The Arabs living in Israel and Palestine? Or do you mean Arabs, collectively, signified by the attack of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon? Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip from 1948 to 1967. Why didn't they proclaim a Palestinian state in those territories during that period? I suppose because the leaders of those countries were still trying to bring about Israel's destruction, and the Palestinan refugee situation seemed to them to help their cause. could have and nobody could have stopped them. So even if the creation of Israel was a monstrous injustice, which I do not for a second think, was the only possible solution to that to be to hold out, if necessary forever, waiting for the perfect solution (perfect in Arab extremists' minds, note) rather than take some admittedly less than perfect interim step? I have no idea what the solution would be. I'm just trying to understand the situation and history. Israel was willing to take whatever the UN gave them in 1947; the Arabs held out for everything. How come the Arabs never get any blame for this? I am confused by the ambiguous phrase the Arabs. Who, specifically, do you want to have more blame? I repeat my point, that the Palestinians have been utterly betrayed at every moment in their sorry history by those who claim to speak for them. If only they would realize this and make true peace. They could have a state tomorrow if they would really do this. Yes, I read your point the first time. It does not seem inconsistent with the facts that I know. But it also doesn't sound like a feasbile solution at the present time. Dan convinced me last year with some survey results that a significant fraction (was it 70%, Dan?) of the population of historic Palestine is in agreement with the general attitude and policies of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The same goes for Israel. Shortly after WWII, the least unfair solution probably would have been taking a good-sized chunk of land from Germany to form a Jewish homeland, while negotiating with the Middle East world to get them visitation rights to their holy sites. Instead, Europe decided to pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. It's too late to change that decision now. The best we can do now is try to get a decent two-state solution to work. OK, this is one of those irritating cliches that people keep repeating. How _did_ Europe pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. Did European troops do any fighting in the Israeli War of Indpendence? No. Did European countries give diplomatic support? No - Harry Truman forced the European countries to recognize Israel. Arms and weapons? Not really - Ben-Gurion had to go through phenomenal hoops to smuggle weapons into what would become Israel. Israel was established in pretty much the same way that most countries are established - a local population fought a war of independence. In many ways it wasn't that different from us in 1776 - except, of course, that the British didn't intend to kill every American colonist, as the Arabs _did_ and _do_. Israel doesn't depend on Europe for protection. It doesn't even depend on the US for protection, although the US doesn't hurt. Israel is an independent state because the people of Israel are willing to do whatever it takes to make it and keep it that way. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:08:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/13/03 2:16:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why, specifically, could they not go to Israel in, say, late 1949 or 1950? Were they forcibly prevented? By whom? By that point, I think, the Israelis wouldn't let them back (neither would the Arab countries). And before you start bitching about Israel, Did I bitch about Israel? When? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:04:50PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: local population fought a war of independence. In many ways it wasn't that different from us in 1776 - except, of course, that the British didn't intend to kill every American colonist, as the Arabs _did_ and _do_. Israel doesn't depend on Europe for protection. I think the best analogy I've heard so far was Native Americans = Palestinians. Although I would formulate an alternate history where the migrants from Asia to North America never became isolated from Asia, and so most of the western and midwestern states were populated by more powerful Native American civilizations than actually existed. Then the Pilgrims arrived and began trying to establish their colony, and the Native Americans wanted to kill them all, and were possibly powerful enough to do it. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:06:24AM -0500, Steve Sloan II wrote: I was wondering if you could give a capsule summary of that transfer. I don't know much about it, but I have wondered how it occurred. Most importantly I'd like to know exactly when, how, and by whom were individual Palestinians evicted from their homes and their land. If you have a good reference on the web, that would be helpful, too. Did it happen before the 1948 war? Did Britain go in an kick Palestinians out of their homes? Did it occur during the first Middle-East War? If so, how did the Israelis have the resources to go house to house to evict the Palestinians while fighting off virtually all the other Middle-Eastern countries? Or was it more of a scorched earth sort of thing, the Palestinians fleeing because their land and homes were in the middle of a war zone? Well, I'm not Steve, but you're getting into what might be the single most contentious issue in all of historical research right now. I think one of Leon Uris's novels actually does a really good job of telling the story - unfortunately I can't remember which one. My best guesstimate of the slowly evolving historical consensus based on the revisionist work of the new generation of Israeli historians, who tend to be fairly critical of the earlier, very pro-Zionist interpretations, goes something like this: The Jews of the Middle East were a very large (some say majority) of the population of the area, despite the fact that their emigration to the region was extremely tightly restricted by the British, who did not similarly restrict Arab emigration. David Ben-Gurion was the most prominent leader (among many, including Begin, who was considerably more radical) of the Jewish forces opposing British rule of what was then called Palestine. In 1948 as British control over the area was steadily weakening (due to British weakness following the Second World War, among other things) Ben-Gurion and his fellows declared independence and the foundation of the state of Israel. The British basically chose not to get in the way (any longer). The surrounding states immediately declared war on Israel and invaded, calling on all Arabs in the region to leave until they could be repatriated behind the victorious Arab armies. The hot question is, of course, how many left voluntarily and how many left out of fear of Jewish attacks. Recent Israeli scholarship argues that the Irgun (Ben-Gurion's group, IIRC) has a pretty good record with regards to the Arab residents, while some of the more radical groups definitely did not. There was at least one massacre of innocent Arab residents in a village, and this certainly contributed to a general climate of fear among the Arab residents. On the whole, however, it does seem that most left voluntarily. At no point did Jewish forces engage in an ethnic cleansing campaign of forcing people out of their homes. Israeli sources have traditionally (until the past 10 years or so) argued that all the Palestinians left voluntarily, Arab ones that they were all forced out (conveniently ignoring the Arab governments urgings that they leave). Israel is a free society where academic dissent is encouraged and the open discussion of ideas is as easy as it is in the United States. Every Arab country is an autocratic police state. You tell me which one you think has more credibility :-) At any rate, the Arab governments invaded with armies that were quite well equipped and trained by Western forces. They were met by a lightly armed force that was largely made up of guerrilla who had fought the British. No one in the world had any doubt that the outcome would be a swift and certain Arab victory. Apparently no one told Ben-Gurion that, though. In what still ranks, to my mind, as one of the handful of most extraordinary military feats in human history, the Jewish forces successfully repulsed the Arab attacks, eventually doubling the size of the state of Israel, before a cease-fire was imposed by outside forces. Eliot Cohen's marvelous book _Supreme Command_ has a history of Ben-Gurion's efforts before the war to rebuild Irgun into a force capable of defeating the inevitable Arab attack. It was a remarkable achievement - he essentially held a several-month-long seminar on what Irgun would have to be, figured it out, then rebuilt it. Cohen believes that Ben-Gurion ranks with Lincoln and Churchill as among the greatest strategists in the history of democratic states. Steve Rosen (one of my profs at Harvard) believes that Lincoln might well be the finest strategist _ever_. I agree with that assessment - but Ben-Gurion isn't far behind and had, if anything, a more difficult task. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In your opinion, are the European media more biased than the US media? In my opinion, the British media, at least, are considerably more balanced than those US news channels I see (CNN, Fox). I can't speak for newspapers though - I just read the (London) Sunday Times, New Scientist and sometimes the Economist. I think so, yes. Take a look at Anne Applebaum's excellent article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42230-2003Jun10.html on the extent to which European perspectives on the US are distorted - then think about how much worse it must be for Israel. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is approximately 50% of the world's population and the entire Jewish population of Israel. (Gautam may have known that, but I thought the 'irony' worth posting.) :( I did, which is why I chose the number. and most of them are conservatives? I don't agree with this. I am a somewhat middle-of-the road conservative, and I haven't met a single New York liberal who thinks the jewish population in Israel should be wiped out or that the Palestinian terrorism isn't horrible. Yeah, but I don't think there are many people in Europe who think that the Jewish population in Israel should be wiped out - although there _are_ many who don't seem to have much of a problem with Palestinian terrorism. But the opinion poll statistics suggest - quite strongly - that, if you're not Jewish the single most accurate predictor of sympathy for Israel is being a conservative. Just compare The Nation's take on Israel to National Review's and you tell me which one you feel more comfortable with. In my opinion, you cannot judge all liberals or democrats by articles you read in the papers or hear on talk shows. Nor can you judge most Democrats' opinions by their leaders' agendas in much the same way most Republicans' opinions cannot be judged by every word that falls from our President's mouth. You live here. Do you think the New York Post speaks for every Republican? Jon No, but according to every poll I've seen, Republicans are much more sympathetic to Israel than Democrats are. There's an interesting question of why that is, and a further one of how long it will be before that fact makes American Jews vote Republican more often, but that does seem to be the way the numbers work. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read Dan's statement from the perspective of native North Americans. Try that in your analogy. Dean I did. How many native Americans are alive in the US today? If the number is higher than a few hundred, then that's higher than the number of Jews there are currently living in, oh, every Arab country put together. I rather think that the number is, in fact, more than a few hundred. I remain in my belief that the situation is somewhat different, however grasping the attempts at moral equivalence. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, but there have been Jews in that area since before recorded history and they made up a very large proportion of the population before the Israeli War of Independence. You know, I do sympathize with this point of view, but by those standards, the United States belongs to Native Americans, doesn't it? Well, which native Americans are you talking about? The ones who were there when the first colonists came? The ones who were wiped out by the ones who were there when the first colonists came? The ones who were wiped out by the ones who were wiped out by the ones who were there when the first colonists came? (or do you feel perhaps that because they lost the war(s), they lost their rights for the land? I'm curious about your opinion.) What happened to the Native Americans was one of the great tragedies of human history. Anyone who denies that is a fool. But it's also no different than any number of Native American tribes did to other Native American tribes either - and anyone who denies that is so lost to political correctness that they're a lost cause. Take a look at how the Aztecs used to behave some time. The question of who has a right to the land is so confused that at this point it's an argument that's pretty much solely brought up by people who want to excuse someone who is, _right now_, as opposed to 300 years ago, doing or planning on doing something barbarous to somebody. Moral standards have changed. What happened _then_ was not thought to be wrong by many people at all. We know better now. And it is simply inconceivable that Americans, at least, would decide that the solution to the problem was genocide - while it is quite clear that the Palestinian groups - the PLO very much included - wish to finish what Hitler started. I'm too lazy to make a case out of it, but there's definitely an argument to be made that this is precisely what was done to the Sioux, the Apaches, the Navaho Oh, the methods may be different, but the goal and end result will be the same. Jon I don't think there is much of one, because you can still find Sioux, Apaches, and Navajo all over the place. The colonists did a lot of very bad things. They did _not_ set out to kill every Native American in the Western Hemisphere - because if they had set out to do so, they would have succeeded. So even if you pretend that moral standards in the seventeenth century and those in the twenty first are somehow equivalent, it's _still_ not the same thing. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Thanks for the summary, Gautam. That was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I imagine it would have taken me weeks or more to obtain that information by my own research. And _Supreme Command_ sounds interesting, I'll add it to my to read list. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the summary, Gautam. That was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I imagine it would have taken me weeks or more to obtain that information by my own research. And _Supreme Command_ sounds interesting, I'll add it to my to read list. My pleasure. I daresay I made at least a couple of mistakes, though - it's been at least a couple of years since I looked at the issue in detail. I imagine that someone here will correct me if I did. _Supreme Command_ almost made me cry. Largely because when I was tossing around potential dissertation topics, one of my two favorites was trying to draw general principles on democratic leadership in wartime based on Lincoln, Churchill, and Ben-Gurion. Cohen added in Clemenceau and wrote the book - coming to the exact same conclusions that I think I would have. Damn it. I kept reading it and going I could have written that! It really is marvelous, though. Be warned, it might improve your opinion of Bush :-) The Iraq campaign might as well have used _Supreme Command_ as a textbook on how civilians control militaries. Bush was seen reading it soon after it came out, probably not by coincidence, and Cohen himself is quite influential within the Administration. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My pleasure. I daresay I made at least a couple of mistakes, though - it's been at least a couple of years since I looked at the issue in detail. I imagine that someone here will correct me if I did. In fact, I caught one myself. Substitute Hagannah for Irgun. Oops. Gautam = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:27:55PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In your opinion, are the European media more biased than the US media? In my opinion, the British media, at least, are considerably more balanced than those US news channels I see (CNN, Fox). I can't speak for newspapers though - I just read the (London) Sunday Times, New Scientist and sometimes the Economist. I think so, yes. Take a look at Anne Applebaum's excellent article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42230-2003Jun10.html on the extent to which European perspectives on the US are distorted - then think about how much worse it must be for Israel. I think she blames a fair amount of the distorted view that many Europeans have for America on Bush's arrogance and poor diplomacy: Partly, and more legitimately, it comes from ill-judged decisions by the administration, such as the refusal to call the Guantanamo Bay captives prisoners of war, which happens to be what they are. At the moment, prospects for change are slim. The administration's stunningly inept diplomacy in Europe isn't doing much to improve matters, nor is the low-level arrogance that still drips out of the White House and the Pentagon. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think she blames a fair amount of the distorted view that many Europeans have for America on Bush's arrogance and poor diplomacy: Which I don't necessarily disagree with - but it also doesn't _begin_ to explain the insanity of asking if Americans are being arrested for criticizing Bush. I mean, seriously, how far removed from reality do you have to be before that seems plausible to someone? Heck, I work with plenty of Europeans, and I've seen the same thing myself. For all the cries about American ignorance of Europe, the reverse actually seems to be the case at least as often, if not more so. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
I suppose because the leaders of those countries were still trying to bring about Israel's destruction, and the Palestinan refugee situation seemed to them to help their cause. That's hardly a defense, as I'm sure you're aware. We're going to let you suffer indefinitely and ruin countless lives because we want to commit genocide. I am confused by the ambiguous phrase the Arabs. Who, specifically, do you want to have more blame? Geez, I mean the Arabs. The leadership of the Arab countries. I don't know how much more specific I can be. There weren't any polls or elections at the time as to who wanted what. The leadership of the new Israel accepted the UN partition plan; the Arab leaders, who represented the Arab countries at the UN, rejected it. And no, they were not the elected representatives of their peoples. The only democracy that has ever existed in the Middle East is Israel. Unfortunately, if you DID have free elections in a lot of the Arab countries, they probably WOULD want to continue the war against Israel. Which is not a defense of either elections or of war. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On 13 Jun 2003 at 11:06, Steve Sloan II wrote: Jon Gabriel wrote: You know, I do sympathize with this point of view, but by those standards, the United States belongs to Native Americans, doesn't it? (or do you feel perhaps that because they lost the war(s), they lost their rights for the land? I'm curious about your opinion.) For both issues... it's too late. I wish early American settlers hadn't done such horrible things to the native Americans, but it's too late to change that. The best we can do now is try to get the survivors integrated into American society and economy, without destroying their traditions -- something the Bureau of Indian Affairs has done a lousy job of so far. The same goes for Israel. Shortly after WWII, the least unfair solution probably would have been taking a good-sized chunk of land from Germany to form a Jewish homeland, while negotiating with the Middle East world to get them visitation rights to their holy sites. Instead, Europe decided to pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. It's too late to change that decision now. The Umm? At the turn of the century, there were roughly EQUAL Jewish and Arab populations in Israel. It was AFTER the Mandate for Palestine was handed to the British that there was an Arab majority thanks ENTIERLY to the British immigration policies. Note as well that over 80% of the Mandate became what is now Jordan... Note also that at the time of the Declaration of Independence, the Arabs rejected the partition plan which the Jews accepted. The Arabs lost. That cannot be forgotton either. Now, I don't see how a true Zionist cannot understand and agree with the Palestian desire for a Homeland, but it must not be at the expense of Israel's security. Andy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:16:13PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Which I don't necessarily disagree with - but it also doesn't _begin_ to explain the insanity of asking if Americans are being arrested for criticizing Bush. It does sound rather out of touch. As much as I dislike Bush's policies on justice and civil rights, I wouldn't accuse him of that. But I regularly read The Economist, and I don't see much obvious distortion there. I don't listen to BBC radio, but I do read BBC news articles about world events. I haven't seen any obvious distortion in the top news stories on the BBC website. Heck, I work with plenty of Europeans, and I've seen the same thing myself. I'm not sure its fair to equate the opinions of a BBC reporter to those of the general European population. I would expect a BBC reporter to be in touch with what is going on in America. I wouldn't necessarily expect the same from any European (have you ever watched daytime television in America? I've had a bad cold for going on 48 hours now and I've been watching -- there are an amazing number of out of touch people on these talk shows) [Unless, of course, you are talking about Europeans whose JOB it is to know accurately what is going on around the world. If so, disregard what I wrote] -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I regularly read The Economist, and I don't see much obvious distortion there. I don't listen to BBC radio, but I do read BBC news articles about world events. I haven't seen any obvious distortion in the top news stories on the BBC website. _The Economist_ is very conservative and famous for its excellent coverage of American issues. As for the BBC, well, I think we're going to have to disagree on that one. Andrew Sullivan (among many others) has covered bias on the BBC pretty well - you might want to check out his web page www.andrewsullivan.com [Unless, of course, you are talking about Europeans whose JOB it is to know accurately what is going on around the world. If so, disregard what I wrote] Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, Europeans who I would think of as my counterparts in Europe - so not professionals in the subject (as I am not) but not people you would expect to know little or nothing about the US either :-) = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 05:52 PM 6/13/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: (have you ever watched daytime television in America? I've had a bad cold for going on 48 hours now and I've been watching -- there are an amazing number of out of touch people on these talk shows) If by talk shows you are referring to the Jerry Springer¹ genre, those people are not only out of touch when it comes to current events but seem for the most part to be out of touch with reality . . . ;-) _ ¹To be fair, I think the only time I have seen more than a snippet in passing of that show was the day I was in Atlanta and my alternator decided to crap out, forcing me to spend two or three hours in a Pep Boys waiting room where the TV was tuned to that channel and turned up loud enough that it was impossible to ignore while I tried to read some of the magazines I had purchased earlier. Every time I hear a preview of one of those shows, though, I have to wonder where they dig up these people. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Gautam Mukunda wrote: OK, this is one of those irritating cliches that people keep repeating. How _did_ Europe pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. That was the impression I got from the last list discussion about this. It was probably a false impression. In that message, I really should have stuck to the actual point I was trying to make -- that Israel exists now, and there's no way to give the Palestinians sole occupation of that land without moving or murdering millions of people, so we should make the best of the current situation. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 07:49 AM 6/13/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote: Yeah, but there have been Jews in that area since before recorded history and they made up a very large proportion of the population before the Israeli War of Independence. You know, I do sympathize with this point of view, but by those standards, the United States belongs to Native Americans, doesn't it? (or do you feel perhaps that because they lost the war(s), they lost their rights for the land? I'm curious about your opinion.) Actually, I would argue that the Native Americans have lost their rights to the United States because of a combination of the folllowing: 1) The statute of limitations has expired. There's simply no way to turn back the clock to the injustice. Moreover, almost all people alive in the US today were simply born here - and did not choose to be born here, and indeed, have no record of having oppressed Native Americans. 2) The Native Americans did not really achieve sufficient organization, with a few local exceptions, to claim nationhood in the modern sense, and thus designate a representative to receive reparations. For example, the largest Native American group currently existant in the US today is the Navaho, but it doesn't really make much sense to give the Navajo North Carolina - or even Texas. 3) The ration of currently living Native Americans to available land is disproportionate. Thus, in sort of an extension of #1, it would make no sense and resemble no sort of justice to give the Native Americans all of the United States. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 01:48 PM 6/13/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What right did the UN have to tell Arabs how they would be governed, or to take away their homes? The land was under UN jurisdiction, that's what right. More importantly, WHO CARES? When it comes to discussing the situation in Israel/Palestine, there is very little serious reason, other than as a purelya cademic pursuit, to debate the history of the problem. The truth of the matter is that the *only* solution, right or wrong, is the creation of a viable, secure, and Jewish State of Israel, alongside a viable, sovereign, and Arab State of Palestine. Whether Israel had or had not a right to form itself, anyone who is fundamentally serious about this discussion must surely recognize that Israel has a right to exist ow.Likewise, Israel may or may not have had a right to build settlements in the occupied terrirtories, but obviously Israel cannot keep the West Bank and Gaza as non-sovereign colonies forever. Thus, when Palestinians fail to talk about a two-State solution, producing a viable Jewish State, they are demonstrating their fundamental non-seriousness in pursuing a solution to the current troubles. And if the Palestinians are going to be fundamentally non-serious, I see no reason as to why the US should pressure Israel to be serious about these discussions unilaterally. It takes two to tango, and the sooner that the Palestinians realize that every terrorist attack brings them one-step further from independence, the better for everyone. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 03:06 PM 6/13/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I repeat my point, that the Palestinians have been utterly betrayed at every moment in their sorry history by those who claim to speak for them. If only they would realize this and make true peace. They could have a state tomorrow if they would really do this. Indeed, if Ghandi were reincarnated as a Palestinian, Palestine would be a member of the United Nations within three years max. Can you just imagine a peaceful protest of thousands of Palestinians, sitting down on the roadway leading into Israel, where they are blocked from their jobs? It is one of the sad tragedies of history that the Palestinians have no Ghandi, only a craven and corrupt Yasser Arafat. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 01:36 PM 6/13/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that groups such as Hamas do not object to the occupation - they object to Israel's very existence. Indeed, it is worth noting that Hamas reacted to an Israeli leader dismantling settlements (for the first time?) by. sending suicide bombers to blow themselves up! I think that it is utterly clear that for peace to exist between Israel and Palestine, Hamas must be destroyed. It is the only way. I think that it is a huge gambit to try and destroy Hamas from outside at this moment in history, but they do have a shot. Hussein is no longer bankrolling the bombers, Iran is embroiled in troubles of its own, a major US force is sitting in Iraq, Arab governments are talking tough on terrorism, and even Yasser Arafat himself has just publicly renounced terrorism. Thus, all the cards are in place for pace - if the terrorists can simply be pushed out of the way. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 11:06 AM 6/13/2003 -0500 Steve Sloan II wrote: For both issues... it's too late. I wish early American settlers hadn't done such horrible things to the native Americans, but it's too late to change that. The best we can do now is try to get the survivors integrated into American society and economy, without destroying their traditions -- something the Bureau of Indian Affairs has done a lousy job of so far. Actually, the BIA has been negatively productive that is, if the BIA had simply done *nothing*, Native Americans would be better off today that they currently are.It is really truly sad to consider just how bad the BIA is as a federal agency, and how powerless we've seemed to correct it. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: OK, this is one of those irritating cliches that people keep repeating. How _did_ Europe pay its debt by giving the Jews somebody else's land. That was the impression I got from the last list discussion about this. It was probably a false impression. In that message, I really should have stuck to the actual point I was trying to make -- that Israel exists now, and there's no way to give the Palestinians sole occupation of that land without moving or murdering millions of people, so we should make the best of the current situation. Sorry - I wasn't jumping on you, but I hear people say that all the time (Dan M. does, I think) and I've never figured out why anyone thinks that. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
At 01:34 PM 6/13/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read Dan's statement from the perspective of native North Americans. Try that in your analogy. Dean I did. How many native Americans are alive in the US today? If the number is higher than a few hundred, then that's higher than the number of Jews there are currently living in, oh, every Arab country put together. I rather think that the number is, in fact, more than a few hundred. I remain in my belief that the situation is somewhat different, however grasping the attempts at moral equivalence. Well, Arabs did manage to get to a few thousand: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html Morocco 7,500 Tunisia 2,000 Yemen 800 Syria 250 Iraq 120 Egypt x 100 JDG - Still not a whole lot. ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Gautam Mukunda wrote: If not for security concerns, yes, absolutely (I think). There's a small fringe of the Israeli population that wants to annex the West Bank and the Gaza Strip permanently, but they're a very small fringe. They're holding onto the areas right now for the very sensible reason that if they let go, the government that would take over would be an active sponsor of terrorism with the stated agenda of eradicating Israel. Would _you_ want a country on your border that wanted to destroy you and thought a reasonable tactic was brainwashing people into committing suicide using explosives next to kindergartens? No and I have no sympathy for Hamas or its methods. Doug Or any other terrorists, for that matter. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is approximately 50% of the world's population and the entire Jewish population of Israel. (Gautam may have known that, but I thought the 'irony' worth posting.) :( I did, which is why I chose the number. and most of them are conservatives? I don't agree with this. I am a somewhat middle-of-the road conservative, and I haven't met a single New York liberal who thinks the jewish population in Israel should be wiped out or that the Palestinian terrorism isn't horrible. Yeah, but I don't think there are many people in Europe who think that the Jewish population in Israel should be wiped out - although there _are_ many who don't seem to have much of a problem with Palestinian terrorism. But the opinion poll statistics suggest - quite strongly - that, if you're not Jewish the single most accurate predictor of sympathy for Israel is being a conservative. Just compare The Nation's take on Israel to National Review's and you tell me which one you feel more comfortable with. In my opinion, you cannot judge all liberals or democrats by articles you read in the papers or hear on talk shows. Nor can you judge most Democrats' opinions by their leaders' agendas in much the same way most Republicans' opinions cannot be judged by every word that falls from our President's mouth. You live here. Do you think the New York Post speaks for every Republican? Jon No, but according to every poll I've seen, Republicans are much more sympathetic to Israel than Democrats are. There's an interesting question of why that is, and a further one of how long it will be before that fact makes American Jews vote Republican more often, but that does seem to be the way the numbers work. Can you cite a reference on that? I know that there is a liberal contingent that is pro Palestinian (and a conservative one that is anti-Israel), but I think that Americans in general are very supportive of Israel. See: http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Where are the European hypocrites?
Hamas is now threatening foreigners in Israel. It has warned them to leave. Obviously, they have no intention of giving a shit who is killed in their attacks - Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, foreigner - it's all the same to them. So where are those scumbag European handwringers who scream whenever Israel does anything that happens to hurt a Palestinian? Does anyone think a single one of them will raise their voice even the tiniest bit to say, Um...that's not very nice of Hamas and we wish they would refrain from indiscriminately bombing? Of course not. If it's not necessarily anti-Semitism to criticize Israeli actions (and I certainly don't think it necessarily is), then what is keeping these filth from criticizing Hamas equally? Now *THAT* I am convinced certainly IS anti-Semitism. (And no semantic games, please, about how the Arabs are themselves Semites. We all know what anti-Semitism means.) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:07 AM Subject: Where are the European hypocrites? If it's not necessarily anti-Semitism to criticize Israeli actions (and I certainly don't think it necessarily is), then what is keeping these filth from criticizing Hamas equally? Now *THAT* I am convinced certainly IS anti-Semitism. (And no semantic games, please, about how the Arabs are themselves Semites. We all know what anti-Semitism means.) This is probably the wrong place to get an argument on this. If you want one, I think you will see a lot of people on Culture that will blame Sharon for the Hamas actions. ;-/ Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:07 AM Subject: Where are the European hypocrites? If it's not necessarily anti-Semitism to criticize Israeli actions (and I certainly don't think it necessarily is), then what is keeping these filth from criticizing Hamas equally? Now *THAT* I am convinced certainly IS anti-Semitism. (And no semantic games, please, about how the Arabs are themselves Semites. We all know what anti-Semitism means.) This is probably the wrong place to get an argument on this. If you want one, I think you will see a lot of people on Culture that will blame Sharon for the Hamas actions. ;-/ Bush certainly wasn't happy with the Israelis taking the action they did. There is no easy solution. If there were easy solutions to this sort of thing, would The Troubles have lasted so long? But I think that there is going to be no road to true peace until Arafat dies peacefully in his sleep. (Death by any other means might make a martyr of him, which is the last thing that the Palestinian and Israeli people need, at least that is the conclusion I come to in my limited reading of the situation.) So I wish Arafat a peaceful death, when his time comes. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
*raises hand sheepishly* Rich, who wonders if there aren't also American hypocrites; and who further wonders what might happen if a heavily armed state of foreign nationals was sudddenly formed in, say, Texas. And who actually thinks that the Palestinian terrorist organisations are descpicable even though the Palestinians themselves have a point. GCU European Hypocrite ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is probably the wrong place to get an argument on this. If you want one, I think you will see a lot of people on Culture that will blame Sharon for the Hamas actions. ;-/ Dan M. Well, sure. I mean, does this surprise you? There are plenty of people who blame the US for Castro's actions. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:26 AM Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:07 AM Subject: Where are the European hypocrites? If it's not necessarily anti-Semitism to criticize Israeli actions (and I certainly don't think it necessarily is), then what is keeping these filth from criticizing Hamas equally? Now *THAT* I am convinced certainly IS anti-Semitism. (And no semantic games, please, about how the Arabs are themselves Semites. We all know what anti-Semitism means.) This is probably the wrong place to get an argument on this. If you want one, I think you will see a lot of people on Culture that will blame Sharon for the Hamas actions. ;-/ Bush certainly wasn't happy with the Israelis taking the action they did. That's fair enough. Sharon's immediate strong reaction played into Hamas's hands...especially since it missed its target and killed civilians. It made the US's job brokering peace a lot harder. But, in principal, its hard for me to object to targeting the leaders of a group that deliberately kills civilians as a means to stop any peace short of the destruction of Israel. It is easy for me to oppose, in principal, the actions of those leaders. So, I'll agree that Sharon's actions were not helpful. It would be much better for the US to insist that continued refusal to crack down on the militants would stop the peace effort, and that is is meaningless for the Palestinian leadership to say its bad without arresting the perps and keeping them in jail for more than a token week. Then, if the killings don't stop, attacking Hamas in a slightly more targeted manner would be acceptable. There is no easy solution. No, but its easy to see what the solution must be. It needs to be close to the plan that was on the table in 2000. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Richard Baker wrote: *raises hand sheepishly* Rich, who wonders if there aren't also American hypocrites; and who further wonders what might happen if a heavily armed state of foreign nationals was sudddenly formed in, say, Texas. And who actually thinks that the Palestinian terrorist organisations are descpicable even though the Palestinians themselves have a point. It's happened, but it's enough of a minority and not concentrated enough geographically to do much more than kill a few people, if even that, and get a few people who were ambivilent about law enforcement to have a little more sympathy for them (since they're the ones who've had to deal with it when it's happened). The thing is, Texas has more to lose by leaving the US than it has to gain, and most of us understand that. The parallel doesn't quite work. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Julia said: The thing is, Texas has more to lose by leaving the US than it has to gain, and most of us understand that. The parallel doesn't quite work. Okay, choose some other state. I was just trying to make people imagine how they might feel if a foreign Israel was set up in the Palestinian US. I'd imagine quite a lot of Americans would be rather upset about the whole thing, and try to expel it, and keep trying to do so for decades using whatever methods are available. Furthermore, many would continue trying to do so long after it became apparent that the destruction of the new state wasn't possible. (I'm not picking on America: the same thing would probably happen in Britain and many other countries too.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:42 PM Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? Julia said: The thing is, Texas has more to lose by leaving the US than it has to gain, and most of us understand that. The parallel doesn't quite work. Okay, choose some other state. I was just trying to make people imagine how they might feel if a foreign Israel was set up in the Palestinian US. I'd imagine quite a lot of Americans would be rather upset about the whole thing, and try to expel it, and keep trying to do so for decades using whatever methods are available. Furthermore, many would continue trying to do so long after it became apparent that the destruction of the new state wasn't possible. But, that's not quite fair, because that's not exactly what happened. There has been a strong Jewish presence in the Middle East for years. IIRC, Baghdad was about a third Jewish during the first part of the 19th century, for example. After the Dryfus affair, Zionism got its start. By 1948, there were a number of areas where Jews were in the majority. Things were complicated because GB promised Palestinian to both Jews and Arabs. Things were also complicated because, after WWII, many Jews did not think they had much of a future in continental Europe and decided to walk to the Holy Land. Given that, a reasonable 20th century American solution would be to have a United States of Palestine, with states that had high concentrations of Jews in some states and a high concentration of Arabs in another. I think the US is bad example, because the US is willingly becoming multi-ethnic, when it could have stopped the trend many times. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Dan said: But, that's not quite fair, because that's not exactly what happened. So if one wished to create a science-fictional situation with the US in the position of Palestine, how would one do so? Do you think it would require an alien Israel? And then how far in the future would it have to be set to be plausible? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, choose some other state. I was just trying to make people imagine how they might feel if a foreign Israel was set up in the Palestinian US. I'd imagine quite a lot of Americans would be rather upset about the whole thing, and try to expel it, and keep trying to do so for decades using whatever methods are available. Furthermore, many would continue trying to do so long after it became apparent that the destruction of the new state wasn't possible. (I'm not picking on America: the same thing would probably happen in Britain and many other countries too.) Rich Yeah, but there have been Jews in that area since before recorded history and they made up a very large proportion of the population before the Israeli War of Independence. And it is simply inconceivable that Americans, at least, would decide that the solution to the problem was genocide - while it is quite clear that the Palestinian groups - the PLO very much included - wish to finish what Hitler started. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? Dan said: But, that's not quite fair, because that's not exactly what happened. So if one wished to create a science-fictional situation with the US in the position of Palestine, how would one do so? Do you think it would require an alien Israel? And then how far in the future would it have to be set to be plausible? How about, over a period of years, the US is inundated by foreigners who look like they will drastically and permanently change the ethnic makeup of the US? No sci-fi needed. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Gautam said: Yeah, but there have been Jews in that area since before recorded history and they made up a very large proportion of the population before the Israeli War of Independence. Isn't that rather like saying that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was kinda okay because there were lots of Christians in the Middle East for centuries before the First Crusade, and overlooking the fact that the impetus behind the Kingdom came from an influx of Christians from far afield backed by the military might of a distant superpower? (Also, by my count there have only been four Israeli prime ministers - Rabin, Netanyahu, Barak and Sharon - who were born in the territory of what's now Israel. Ben Gurion, Shamir and Peres were born in Poland; Sharet, Eshkol, Meir and Begin in the USSR. This, if nothing else, suggests to me that the balance of power and influence in Israel is held by those not from the territories, and also that this is changing with time.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Dan said: How about, over a period of years, the US is inundated by foreigners who look like they will drastically and permanently change the ethnic makeup of the US? No sci-fi needed. :-) Yes, but that's not really the same situation, is it? Can you imagine a separate sovereign Hispanic state forming on the territory of the United States and having a military so powerful that it's able to inflict repeated humiliating defeats on the forces of the federal government? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Where are the European hypocrites? Dan said: How about, over a period of years, the US is inundated by foreigners who look like they will drastically and permanently change the ethnic makeup of the US? No sci-fi needed. :-) Yes, but that's not really the same situation, is it? It isn't the same situation for a number of reasons. The Jews were there a log time because the Palestinains Can you imagine a separate sovereign Hispanic state forming on the territory of the United States That's not the same either. Its more as if France ruled Texas, during which time the Hispanic in Texas grew. France promised all of Texas to both the Anglos and the Hispanics. At the last minute, a partition plan based on majority population by county was developed. Immediately, all of the the rest of the US went to the aid of the Anglos in Texas, vastly ougunning and outmanning the Hispanics. Somehow, the Hispanics survived, and ended up with a part of Texas. They were attacked several more times; always outgunned and outmanned. Finally, they grew strong enough to have a military superiority over the much larger number of Anglos. The reality is that when Israel was granted independence, everyone expected them to lose. My understanding is that they would be expected to be grateful to Western powers who intervened to stop total genocide when the lost. Instead they won, creating the present situation. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Richard Baker wrote: Julia said: The thing is, Texas has more to lose by leaving the US than it has to gain, and most of us understand that. The parallel doesn't quite work. Okay, choose some other state. I was just trying to make people imagine how they might feel if a foreign Israel was set up in the Palestinian US. I'd imagine quite a lot of Americans would be rather upset about the whole thing, and try to expel it, and keep trying to do so for decades using whatever methods are available. Furthermore, many would continue trying to do so long after it became apparent that the destruction of the new state wasn't possible. Thing is, in the US, Texas is probably the *best* state for your example. It just isn't anywhere extreme enough for what you're trying to get at. (I'm not picking on America: the same thing would probably happen in Britain and many other countries too.) What are your thoughts, opinions and feelings on N. Ireland? From where I sit, that might be a better parallel, at least in terms of the whole tit-for-tat, or WHOMP-for-tat, thing that I'm seeing with respect to the Palestinians and Israelis. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
