Conference taveng::bagels

    Ahlan,
        Seems from what I have been able to gather from radio, TV and
    the papers that there are several factors that have sparked the
    latest outburst. Although it was ignited by the accident between
    a truck driven by an Israeli and a Paelstinian driven bus it was
    really the excuse to start this.
    Items which seemed to contribute to it are (in no special order)
    * Anniversary of the UN declaration on the Partition 
    * The recent Amman conference which did not pay any attention to
      Palestinian goals (it was primarily centered on trying to reconcile
      Iran and Iraq.
    * The recent terrorist attack with a delta plane
    
    Although one should deplore any casualty, to date if we are to trust
    the medias the rate is astonishigly low if there is as much unrest
    as is portrayed. Also, the protestors seem to be much younger and
    are not deterred by tear gas or rubber bullets. Although troops
    are under strict orders as to when to fire, and the casualty list
    bears this out (see Korea, South Africa etc...) there comes a time
    when pelted with stones and gasoline bottles when firing back is
    the only way out.
    
    It should also be noted in passing that those who claim that the
    unrest is DUE to the occupation and the lack of civil liberties,
    that whilst those territories where under Egyptian control (from
    1948-1967) we never heard of ANY civil liberties and if such an
    unrest were to have taken part the caualties would be in the hundreds.
    Not an excuse, but certainly worth considering. 

Marrhaba,

Just what the hell are those kids trying to prove.  Sticks and stones are
no match against an army.  I sympathize with them, but they(falestinian)
must sit down and start talking logically.  I know that they have lost
love ones and had properties destroyed, but the only way out is to reason
with the people and get somewhat of a peace settlement to end this hatered.

I would like to see peace before everything tumbels down on all of us.  If
people do not realize what they lost upto now then there will never be an
end to killing, terrorists act and etc..

I know that there are people willing to make things happen but they need a
voice and plenty of protection.

We are at a point where we fear our own brothers as much as the enemies.  All
this caused by selfishness.  There is room for everyone .

    Bismahlah, perhaps this is a place where we can start dicussing
    it.

    Greg,  as much as I agree with your assessment of the loss of life,
    etc., I can't see continuation of the status quo as any solution.
    The (beginning-to-get-to-be) tired excuses of outside agitation
    from the PLO doesn't seem to hold any water now in the present
    situation.  Something innovative has to be done soon.
    
    David

We must try to develop a communcation line that deals with the issues at
hand.  Such things include land, housing, food, most of all protection.

Lets look at this in a democratic way or at least try to.  
The people (falestinian) are dam tired and angry of not finding a solution
to end this bitter struggle.  We as people would like to be able to walk
talk and sleep with out wondering who will be next to die in the family.

Can you picture a land that is shared by more than one religous and is able
to live free?  Well, I can and I know there are plenty of others who feel
that land can be shared without having to go to such tactics as murdering,
terrorizing and to bring out shame that need to be put to rest.

People want to see change in that area, so come on and stop bring the PLO
into this.  There are people who are willing to make it happen with the
proper protection from the people who today govern the land and are willing
to sacarifice.   Let us make work for all.

    
    
    Re. .2:
>   no match against an army.  I sympathize with them, but they(falestinian)
                                                                -----------
    Was that a Freudian slip ?
    
    Cb.

Re. David's note

>    Greg,  as much as I agree with your assessment of the loss of life,
>    etc., I can't see continuation of the status quo as any solution.
>    The (beginning-to-get-to-be) tired excuses of outside agitation
>    from the PLO doesn't seem to hold any water now in the present
>    situation.  Something innovative has to be done soon.
 Greetings David, it wasn't meant as an excuse. If I remember Sultan's original
note, he wanted some information on what is happening over there and how
it started. My reply thus simply gave an account to the best of my knowledge.

 Re. Sultan's note:

>We must try to develop a communcation line that deals with the issues at
>hand.  Such things include land, housing, food, most of all protection.
Agreed.

>Lets look at this in a democratic way or at least try to.  
>The people (falestinian) are dam tired and angry of not finding a solution
>to end this bitter struggle.  We as people would like to be able to walk
>talk and sleep with out wondering who will be next to die in the family.

Again I agree. However throughout the 1948-1967 period, when we never heard
of any Palestinian aspirations except as excuses to be used by "fellow"
Arab states to distract attention from internal Arab issues, time and again
these "confrontation" states refused ANY international aid to relocate and
house Palestinian refugees. The reason was that if they were provided decent
housing, food etc... they could no longer be considered refugees nor used
as pawns by respective Arab governments as they saw fit. It was and continues
to be in their interest to keep matters boiling. When you try and talk to
any "Falestinians" they are either too scared or whatever to take their
destiny in their own hands and rather rely on "the true representative of
the Palestinian People" the PLO or other splinter groups. Who do we talk
to that won't be assasinated tomorrow? The people like Issam Sartawi don't
last and provide an easy scapegoat for Arafat to send out as hot air balloons
without personally taking the initiative. The latter has taken so few steps
forward and so many backward that one still has no clue as to whether 242
is de facto de jure or what goes on in his mind. All of this is done in
order to delicately balance internal Arab politics and where the PLO currently
has its base (you don't bite the hand that feeds you) and has NOTHING to
do with the Palestinians actually living in the "occupied" territories.

>Can you picture a land that is shared by more than one religous and is able
>to live free?  Well, I can and I know there are plenty of others who feel
>that land can be shared without having to go to such tactics as murdering,
>terrorizing and to bring out shame that need to be put to rest.
Ah yes, Lebanon used to be one... . The trouble with that reasoning is that
according to the Koran, a Muslim cannot be ruled by anyone but a Moslem,
and Israel was created as home for Jewish people. Let's look at it sensibly.
The Arab States comprise over 20 sovereign nations, spreading from the Atlantic
to the Indian Ocean. Israel comprises roughly 20,000 square kilometers.
The Gaza strip and the West Bank are not viable economically nor politically
as INDEPENDANT entities. They have no natural resources, geographically
it would pose the same problems as existed when there was an East and West
Pakistan (which led to Bangladesh and we know how economically and politically
stable that is). The key must be some sort of federation with Jordan, which
after all is close to 80% of Palestine as was defined under the British
Mandate. King Hussein has tried to get out of this mess not because he loves
Israel any more than Assad does, but because he sees time running out. A
whole generation of Israelis has been born since 1967, building in the West
Bank for Israelis is accelearting so that any return and any boundaries
that existed "artificially" (I may point out that when Jordan annexed Jerusalem
and the West Bank in 1948, nobody decried that!) is becoming so blurred
that it may be impossible to restore anything to anyone. For us, the
demographic factor is an immense problem. So you're right time is running
out yet noone has the vision of Sadat nor the courage to come out and say,
as you have, this has gone on long enough let's do something about this.

This could be a good forum to air divergent views, as if we are not able
to discuss this WITHIN a single company, then the reason these problems
exist become easier to accept.
                                                                       

re:.6

-< FALESTINIANS>-  All capital letters please


Hey Cb.  This is the correct spelling.   I am surprised at you.  How long

have you lived there and not knowing how to pronounce-< FALESTINIANS>-  

correctly.

\Sultan

P.s  

lets keep Sigmunds theories out of this okay!!

< RE: Note 406.8 by HARRY::SAADEH >

    Sorry for my ignorance, but why isn't the PLO named FLO then?

    Shukran,
    /Nitsan

re:-1


I think because PHALESTINE(is pronounced Falestine) my good friend.  

I am glad to see the people at DIGITAL ISRAEL participating in this note.

Come on.. Lets get some issues out and try to put a rest to this violence.

---------------


The PLO has had a bad reputation.  But do not blame all the FALESTINIAN for

what a few bad guys has done.  Not all of us want to live with a bad mark on

are cards.

Shalom and HAPPY CHANUKAH

\Sultan

    
    Well Sultan, we're waiting...

    A few bad guys?  PLLLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSE.

Tell me why in the hell are they using real amunition on young boys
and girls.


Did they run out of rubber bullets or what's the story.

From the little info I pick up from the TV, all I see
is kids in the street throwing stones.


Why the real AMooo????   There are more ways to settle the unrest then
taking a tanks a killing woman and firing on kids that do no even know
what the meaning of the word freedom is.


Let sit and talk,  you have the money(shakel), and the arms and most of
the land what else is left.   Please us reason..


\Sultan

    Iron bars, rocks, knives --- these too can kill.  They can even
    kill soldiers with guns loaded with real ammo just as easily as
    they can kill a peacful citizen.  I guess that when rubber bullets,
    tear gas do not work, other measures are considered.
    
    Yes, there is dispair, a feeling of impotence on the part of much
    (or some) of the Arab population.  These feelings ignite 
    furious gestures.  Faced with distructive, seemingly nihilistic
    fury, with whom can one reason.  I get the uncomfortable feeling
    that the only ones content with the current situation are the leaders
    of some Arab nations and the terrorists (who inflict tragedy on
    individuals and gain nothing to their ends). It is against these
    that the fury of the people should be directed.
    
    Herb

I do not think that the riots are caused from impotencey.

Please,   The government of Isreal has moooore intelligence then any other
country in the Middle East.

Do not tell me that there are incapable of finding the trouble makers and
taking care of them.  I do not understand why they do not excerise this
masive intelligence that they have and weed out the rotten guys.

I do not think that it would be to much trouble.  Leave the kids who want
to learn and be educated aloone.  They want to provide for there families 
and they chose education over terrorist act etc...


Tanks, Guns , other vicious tactics have no place amongst young teenagers.

Use your intelligence and weeeed out the guilty like a democratic society.

\Sultan

>I do not think that it would be to much trouble.  Leave the kids who want
>to learn and be educated aloone.  They want to provide for there families 
>and they chose education over terrorist act etc...

    The kids who want to learn are not taking part in riots. Right?
    
>Use your intelligence and weeeed out the guilty like a democratic society.

    How do you suggest they do this? What 'weeding out' methods would
    be acceptable to you? 
    
  
    Malcolm

reply to: < Note 406.15 by HARRY::SAADEH "Will there ever be peace over there" >

>Do not tell me that there are incapable of finding the trouble makers and
>taking care of them.  I do not understand why they do not excerise this
>masive intelligence that they have and weed out the rotten guys.

	They do exactly that, many times.  When they do so, they're
	charged with discrimination, arbitrariness, brutality, ...
	Do you think that the rotten guys "go" willingly?
	They know that they have a big PR edge on the Israelis.  All they
	have to do is put up a nasty fight when the Army comes,
	and the Western (and some of the Israeli!) press will
	instantly be on the Army's case...
>
>I do not think that it would be to much trouble.  Leave the kids who want
>to learn and be educated aloone.  They want to provide for there families 
>and they chose education over terrorist act etc...
>
	I couldn't agree more! Let the ones who want to go to school,
	care for their families, etc., alone. Encourage them!
>
>Tanks, Guns , other vicious tactics have no place amongst young teenagers.

	I agree, but -- let's see -- the "trouble makers", how shall we 
	"weed them out?"

	In the disturbances this week, less than one KM inside 'Aza (from the
	Israeli checkpoints), groups of kids were setting up their own 
	roadblocks, with burning tires, concrete, etc.  (This is
	presumeably to show that _they_ control the roads, no?)
	Then the kids hid in the immediate areas around their roadblocks.
	When the Israeli soldiers came to dismantle those roadblocks,
	the kids attacked them -- with rocks, broken bottles, and sticks, to
	be sure, but they attacked them. This happened several times.
	And, this is happening on "school days" -- those kids should be 
	in school, no? What should the soldiers do?  Smile at the kids?  
	Please -- I would like to see people talk also, but make
	a positive suggestion, for handling this one series of incidents. 

	Several teenagers were also running amok with rocks and
	bottles _inside_ a hospital.  The soldiers removed them,
	forcibly (do you really think they'd go nicely?).  [So the
	Boston Globe ran a picture of angry Israeli soldiers "abusing"
	the kids...]  Do you have a positive suggestion?  Who were
	the troublemakers here? How should the soldiers have handled it
	better?

	Where's the pressure from _inside_ the Arab community for
	them to go "back to school?"

	A former mayor of 'Aza was interviewed on "All Things Considered"
	(National Public Radio) last evening.  His opinion is that
	negotiation is useless; (I can't exactly quote him, but
	he said:) the only thing that will work now is the Israelis
	giving in to all the demands of the kids (_his_ word -- kids!).

	You know, it's hard to know WHAT to do.  I must tell you about
	an interesting experience I had this past June.  I was
	just east of Sh'chem (Nablus), near Har Grizim.  I was
	fascinated to see a large, new development of homes (just off
	the road connecting Sh'chem and Yericho).  There are about
	300 or 400 homes, as I recall.  They're mostly finished, but
	construction has stopped.

	These homes were built for the Arabs in the "camps" in the
	region of Sh'chem. I discovered that they were partly financed by the
	Israeli government and partly financed by King Hussein; built
	by the Israelis. And, they're decent houses.

	Not one home is occupied.

	Why? 

	I asked around a little.  I have some friends in the Shomron
	who have some friends among the Arabs in Sh'chem.  I asked them
	(Arabs and Jews).  Seems there's a major problem:  There
	are, IN FACT, threats that if Arabs _do_ occupy the homes, "there
	will be trouble from outside [of Israel]", and these folks seem 
	to have genuine fear of it.

	Is the PLO object here to get people settled, or denigrate the
	Government?

	"Worn out" excuses?  Maybe. It seems pretty real here.	

$set / flame = on
	This does not - in any way -  excuse the local terrorism on the 
	part of the Arabs, but:

	To be fair, I do think that the Arabs in the Shomron and 'Aza are
	in a bit more of a bind than necessary, partially caused
	by the Government.  I think the Government made a
	serious mistake by not directly annexing the Shomron and 'Aza,
	as they did Golan.  I think that this leaves the Arab residents
	in a bind:  if they do cooperate with
	the Israelis, and the Shomron, etc., is later ceded to any
	of the Arab states, they are in a rather bad position.  And
	if they don't cooperate with the Israelis, they are also in
	a bad position. [The best example I can think of, because it's
	easily visible, is that of the Druzim.  The Druzim
	fully cooperate with the Israelis -- as they do with any
	government they live under -- except in the Shomron, where
	they're apparently "sitting on the fence".]

	Then, the PLO comes in to the Shomron and "stirs the pot" every so 
	often. What a great stew...

	Yes, we should talk now.  But "talking" does not include the freedom
	to consider "any Israeli, anywhere, a legitimate target".

	I guess that I will be really, really ready to talk when it is 
	legitimate, and normally EXPECTED FROM WITHIN ARAB COMMUNITIES, that
	when ARABS misbehave, that community is willing to take
	ownership, and decry it.  Arabs in leadership positions should 
	publicly decry the violence in 'Aza (and elsewhere - 
	whenever and wherever it occurs.).  They should 
	publicly cooperate with the Israelis -- in taking a strong leadership 
	stance and effective action _against_ the violent behavior. Loudly 
	and strongly criticize the violence -- and loudly and strongly work 
	within the Arab community to get the kids back in school, etc.

$set /flame=off

/don feinberg

    Here is a question on a side issue:
    
    Almost invariably, when I see a report of a Palestinian attack against
    Israelis, it is called "terrorism", even when, as in the recent
    hangglider incident, military personnel are the ones being attacked,
    and the attacker knows he will surely be killed, or captured.  However,
    when Israelis attack Palestinians, even when civilians are clearly
    going to be casualties, these attacks are not called "terrorism".  And
    everyone acts as though even "real" terrorism, such as planting bombs
    in public places, was something totally foreign to Israeli tactics,
    no one remembers the 1940s at all, and consequently the Israelis
    are presented as vastly morally superior to the Palestinians.  I
    understand the U.S. media behaving in this fashion, American
    knowledge of history and foreign affairs being what it is(n't), but I
    am curious as to why Israeli spokespeople, such as the U.N. Ambassador
    do this.  Does he actually believe it, or is it a conscious propaganda
    number?
    

Re: .17
        >What should the soldiers do?  Smile at the kids?  
        >Please -- I would like to see people talk also, but make
        >a positive suggestion, for handling this one series of incidents. 

        >[So the Boston Globe ran a picture of angry Israeli soldiers
        >"abusing" the kids...]  Do you have a positive suggestion?  Who were
        >the troublemakers here? How should the soldiers have handled it
        >better?

    My positive suggestion is to handle it humanely, and not like this:
    
    On the network nightly news, I saw film of two separate incidents in
    which several Israeli soldiers surrounded a lone Palestinian who was on
    the ground, and beat and kicked him, and in one case spat on him.  I
    could tell that these were separate incidents because the backgrounds
    were different.  According to the N.Y.Times, U.N. officials reported an
    incident in which Israeli soldiers tied a Palestinian youth to the hood
    of their jeep and drove around that way.  And it took how many days for
    someone to decide to use water cannon instead of live ammunition?
    Even when they shoot live ammunition into the air, instead of at
    people, people can be harmed.  I remember a recent incident in which
    a child inside a house was killed in this way.  No one seems to
    remember Newton, I guess.

                             

    I'm sometimes quite embarassed at the behavior of the people that
    I belong to...
    
    We've heard about Israeli army officers taking a Gazan child and
    tying him to the bumper of their jeep to use as a shield.  We've
    heard about firing live ammo into crowds to break up protests. 
    Etc.  And the response from our side of the fence (.17 et al) is
    usually the tired old chestnut that Ay-rabbs are basically a bunch
    of terrorists and the PLO is stirring them up and if we killed all
    the PLOniks and the other Arab governments stopped trying to make
    trouble then the Arabs in the occupied territories would be docile
    servants.
        
    Anyone watch the PBS series on Apartheid in South Africa this week?
    
    Lessee, if Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza then there'd be
    an Arab majority within 20 years.  If they voted...  Nah, even Jan
    Smuts gave only _rich_ blacks the vote, before his successors took
    it away from all non-whites.
    
    Gaza, btw, is one of the world's few unclaimed territories.  Egypt
    had it 1948-67, but didn't take it back, and Israel never claimed
    it either.  Hence Gazans have no nationality.  Of course it was
    the ancient Philistia, so they're technically P(h)alestinians, the
    Israeli euphemism "South Syrian" being entirely inappropriate.

    Somebody has to come up with a better solution than military occupation
    or annexation.  I think we all know what it is but the Israeli right
    wing and their supporters won't think about it.
         fred

    re: .18-.20
    
    Have either of you considered what the reactions of the Eygptian
    and Jordanian armies would have been to the demonstrators?
    
    The PR machinery of the Arab side has successfully conditioned the
    world into thinking that Middle Eastern history began in 1967. 
    In all reports and articles i ever read in the Western press, I
    never see one iota of balance in reporting on the territories.
    
    Granted that the situation is reaching a point where something other
    than riot control has to be done, but Israel ia actually distinguished
    as being more of a relatively benign occupier than other countries.
    I wouldn't take stories such as the strapping of an Arab youth to
    a jeep at face value, investigate it further if you can.
    
    re: .18
    
    I demand the same morality from the Arabs as I do Jews.  It's the
    press that has made the assumption that they are morally inferior
    through their implications.
    
    Were we supposed to have sympathy for the terrorist on the hanglider?
    Would calling him a "commando" make you feel any better? 
    
    David     

    Re: .21
    Whether Israel is a more benign occupier than, say, South Africa,
    I don't know.  Morals are not relative, so I think this point
    is immaterial.  What is clear is that appalling abuses are being
    committed by the Israeli troops.  Still photographs, as mentioned
    in a preceeding note, can certainly lie.  Extensive film clips of
    people being beaten are something completely different.  Although
    all I know about the jeep incident is that it was witnessed and
    condemned by the U.N. observers, I have heard that the incident
    of the Shin Beth agent trying to kill fleeing demonstrators while the
    army made no attempt to stop him was investigated and
    substantiated by the Israeli government.
    
    It's the Israeli spokespeople and some segments of the American
    press who feed this business of "moral inferiority" by referring to
    the Palestinians as "terrorists" even when they are engaged in
    purely military actions.  Yes, I would feel better if the hangglider
    pilot were called a commando.  That's what he was.
    

We are getting more and more news clips on what is going on.  Let me say

that it is a disgrace to call ISRAEL a somewhat democratic society.  What

the army troops are doing is terrorism in its fullest extent.  How you call

the army that is shooting at childhren defending themseleves.  You have riot

gear use it use it.  There is no reason to carry out acts against 10, 11 and 12

year old kids.  I agree that they are causing you problems but please people.

I hope you don't start another Sabra and Sha etila masacare.  You are definetly

heading in that direction.


About that hanglider that flew from S. Lebanon into a near by Isreali army post.

Surely you cannot call that a terrorist act.  Then everything that the Isrealis

did in Lebanon would have to be classified as a terrorist act.  You do know that

there are angry people out there in the arab countries who are very very upset

at what you(Isreali government) let happen in Sabra and Sha etila camps.

Definition of Terrorism ='s what happened  at Sabra and Sha etila.

Terrorism is .not. kids throwing stones at army men in riot gear caring enough
                                        weapons to over take the WEST BANK

Shalom,
Sultan

   In reply to Karen's note:
>...  What is clear is that appalling abuses are being
>    committed by the Israeli troops.  Still photographs, as mentioned
>    in a preceeding note, can certainly lie.  Extensive film clips of
>    people being beaten are something completely different.  Although
>    all I know about the jeep incident is that it was witnessed and
>    condemned by the U.N. observers, I have heard that the incident
>    of the Shin Beth agent trying to kill fleeing demonstrators while the
>    army made no attempt to stop him was investigated and
>    substantiated by the Israeli government.
Excuse me but having worked at the UN for 10 years, you'll forgive my laughter
at the "impartiality" of UN observers. I will further point out that YOUR
police didn't exactly handle the Philadelphia incident with tact. Hell they
nearly burned a whole suburb down, the SLA incident and Patty Hearst was
another magnificient example of American restraint, where in order to get
4 people out of a house in California an Army division was called in! No
wonder your "liberation" of that "large" island nation in the Carribean produced
such a swell of patriotism!
Following Viet Nam, Watergate, Nicaragua and other enlightened exercises of 
American justice I feel just a little unconfortable with Americans and 
especially the impartial US news agencies (remember the CBS figures of 500,000 
killed or homeless in the invasion of Lebanon?) giving their holier than thou 
message.

>    It's the Israeli spokespeople and some segments of the American
>    press who feed this business of "moral inferiority" by referring to
>    the Palestinians as "terrorists" even when they are engaged in
>    purely military actions.  Yes, I would feel better if the hangglider
>    pilot were called a commando.  That's what he was.
Their military actions are still far and few between...

In reply to Sultan's note:

>We are getting more and more news clips on what is going on.  Let me say
>that it is a disgrace to call ISRAEL a somewhat democratic society.  What
>the army troops are doing is terrorism in its fullest extent.  How you call
>the army that is shooting at childhren defending themseleves.  You have riot
>gear use it use it.  There is no reason to carry out acts against 10, 11 and 12
>year old kids.  I agree that they are causing you problems but please people.
>I hope you don't start another Sabra and Sha etila masacare.  You are definetly
>heading in that direction.
And what do you do with these 10-12 year olds, who as you say, should be
in school but instead are throwing rocks and gas bombs?

>About that hanglider that flew from S. Lebanon into a near by Isreali army post.
>Surely you cannot call that a terrorist act.  Then everything that the Isrealis
>did in Lebanon would have to be classified as a terrorist act.  You do know that
>there are angry people out there in the arab countries who are very very upset
>at what you(Isreali government) let happen in Sabra and Sha etila camps.
Are they? Well how angry are they at Pres. Assad for eliminating the Moslem
Brotherhood and the rest of the town of Hamma? What about the 10,000+
Palestinians killed/arrrested/deported by King Hussein? Need we continue?
Where was the world press with their moral outrage? Where were the enlightened
intellectuals during 1976 and 1982 in Lebanon? How conforting to hear the
Pope talk about the land of Jesus, yet with is own Christians dying in Lebanon
never lifted a finger, so as "not to endanger" Christians in Arab lands (a
comfortable feeling for a multireligious solution...

>Definition of Terrorism ='s what happened  at Sabra and Sha etila.
See above. Furthermore, I'll have you know that the perpetrators of that
were ARABS, Christian ARABS. Our fault was in letting them through our Army
checkpoints, an inquest was held at the request of the Israeli people! Show
me an Arab country where that can happen? Let the Syrians try and take Assad
and his cabinet to court for Hammah, let the Yemenites take their government
and the Egyptian military to court for a war of genocide during the 60's,
who worries about the Kurds in Iraq...


What I see as disturbing is that consistently MORE is asked of Israel than
of other nations. We have to come to realise that we are a nation as others,
and should not, though perhaps in a utopia it could be true, be judged on
a superior moral plane. When faced with 300 killed in some nation during
political unrest we shrug and say "well what do you expect?". When three
people are killed in Israel or the occupied territories it's front page
news in all papers despite the fact that more people are killed in New York
city due to violent crimes! I am disturbed and tired of this double standard.
I was hoping for a discussion with Sultan on his proposals and his views
for a settlement. So far he has echoed the newspapers of the world, thrown
a few rocks into some pond of discord but has yet to come up with any proposal.
Live in peace and let children go to school; yet 10 year olds throwing rocks
is acceptable. If that is acceptable then order becomes chaos and world
public opinion will the cry "See you can't even maintain law and order!".
In other words, you can't win, you can't break even and you can't get out
of the game...

 re:.23
    you,sultan talk about repression, what about the jews in arab countries
    that have been persecuted for years. its's a shame that those fine
    arab states,(they really are a real beacon of light unto the world)
    don't have a free press so we could learn their fate. yes i'm talking
    about those fine arab countries that threw out 900,000 jews from
    their place of birth, without even a pot to  pee in. would you 
    believe that these fine arabs confiscated all belongings of these
    jews and even moved into their homes. these jews, as you well know
    were absorbed and now make up the majority of israel. in perspective
    the arabs in the west bank have more opportunity than any arab in
    living in any arab country. anyway you look at it the arabs in the w.b
    and gaza have nothing but a cakewalk compared to the brutality the
    jews have been dealt in arab lands. so sultan, don't preach here
    about democracy,spare us from that sanctimonious garbage. you haven't
    a leg to stand on.
    
    as far as the unrest that's going on. this is nothing new arabs
    have been rioting and murdering jews for years, long before there
    was a west bank or gaza even long before there was a jewish state.
    in the 20's and 30's arabs ruthlessly murdered jews in progroms
    in jaffa , hebron and other areas, and let's not forget that pro
    nazi swine the mufti of jerusalem, who openly collaborated with the
    nazis. what was the arab excuse then.they don't need any look at lebanon
    or any arab country for that matter. if you want a settlement you
    had better look over to your brothers, because they are scared of
    making a move because fellow arabs on the w.b threaten any "moderate"
    arab that wants to talk. so until your enlightened brothers come
    with a descent representative that doesn't like to kill babies and
    women, i think the arabs in the w.b are going to have a lot of frustrating
    days ahead. remember there would not have been a w.b if your fellow
    arabs did not get greedy and try to take the whole thing.
    
    by the way sultan what is the definition of p(f)lalesinian. i know
    the official definition according to the U.N. is anyone born in
    israel 2 years before the creation of the state. i assume this includes
    the multitudes of arabs tha migrated from surrounding arab countries
    to take advantage of the better living conditions brougth about
    by the existing jews already inthe state. let us not forget that
    during much of this time, the british white paper was put into effect,
    jews were restricted from entering the country while arabs were
    migrating in full force. the way it looks to me there were alot
    of arabs that misplaced alot of jews. one last thing, according to
    the peel commission, a commission set up by the british, the majority of so
    called p(f)alestinians, originally migrated from surrounding arab
    states. so much for the palestinians as an indigenous people. a good
    book that counters this garbage is "from time immemorial"
    by joan peters.
                 
    

       Re .24's reference to 10-12 year old children.
       
       I really like Greg's idea that if 10-12 year old children
       are not in school they are fair game for shooting by soldiers
       or police.  
       
       It may not be working in Israel, but it sure would solve
       the truancy problem here in Rochester, NY. (In case it's needed:
       :-) )
       
       --Julian 

       
       >I really like Greg's idea that if 10-12 year old children
       >are not in school they are fair game for shooting by soldiers
       >or police.  
    
	I don't think(in fact I know) that Greg was implying that 10-12 year
	olds are fair game for shooting.  This is a misinterpretation on your
	part.

	re: .22

	When I commented that Israel was a rather benign occupier in comparison
	to other countries, I wasn't talking about South Africa.  The 
	constant linking of South Africa to Israel is a calculated policy 
	to further delegitimize Israel's existence.  There is not one point
	of commonality between the settlement of the land by Jews in Israel,
	and the Afrikaners in South Africa.  Contrary to popular belief there
	has ALWAYS been a Jewish community in the land of Israel, despite
	the Babylonian exile, etc.

	David  

I feel strongly that all Falestinian do want to live in peace.  You must

give them the opportunity to govern there own destiny.  I do not think that

you are being fair in in bring other Arab countries to try to legitimize your

point.  The people in the WB and Gaza want to live in peace and to raise there

childhren to love.  That is the way I was brought up.  Please do not try to say

that everyone is a trouble maker, Because if that was the case then there is no
 
way in hell you could live as citizens in that region as you do today.


The people of the WB and other areas do not want to live like dogs.

A peacefully settlement will come when the ISrael government deals with

the people of WB, and not with Egypt or Jordan.  WHat the hell does these two

countries have to do with the destiny of the Falestinian people.

Like I said earlier there are people who want to see changes and you as a 

government must provide enough protection as to see those changes come about.

Do not give this excuse about us killing babies and women.  There are bad guys

in every nation on this earth.  But do not let that stop u from starting a

peacefull resolution to the issues at hand.


\SULTAN

    I must say that I feel somewhat sorry for Sultan and that I admire
    him for consistently presenting his point of view in this (to him)
    hostile conference.  He is terribly outnumbered and it seems that
    he is being pelted from every side.  But perhaps his naivitee ought
    to be addressed.
    
    Everyone, EVERYONE wants to live in peace.  Arafat too wants to
    live in peace.  The problem arises when when group's idea of 
    peace is based upon the destruction of another group.  Yes, the
    people of the WB and of Gaza want to live in peace.  Can you imagine
    the consequences of the fulfillment of this wish on the state and
    people of Israel?  
    
    In any struggle where one side wants peace and the other side wants
    victory, the side wanting victory will prevail.  It should be quite
    clear that those attempting insurrection in the teritories want
    victory.  The problem is that the target of their anger is misdirected.
    

    It's sorta entertaining, in a rerun sort of way.
    
    Every time Israel is called to task for doing something bad, its
    "no fault" supporters retort is, "{Arabs | Americans | Russians} 
    are bad too."  
    
    Does the presence of sin elsewhere absolve the sinner?
    
    Sounds like a fellow on trial for burglary and assault.  His defense
    is that he's not so bad, why in the same jail he's being held in
    there are people charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault,
    so he's really quite a nice guy by comparison.
    
    Sorry, I don't buy it.  Do The Right Thing isn't purely relative.
    I don't think that the rabbis would say that it's okay to break
    the Commandments so long as others break more of them.

    re: .30
    
    No one is trying to absolve Israel of any sins it has committted.
    All I want is some balance in assessing the situation.  Criticism
    is fine as long as it remains a two-way street.
    
    David

    re: 30
    
    Do you think that the Israeli military is acting sinfully in protecting
    the State and its people?
    
    How would you apply a doctrine of moral absolutism in the current
    situation?

Re. .27       

>       >I really like Greg's idea that if 10-12 year old children
>       >are not in school they are fair game for shooting by soldiers
>       >or police.  
>    
>	I don't think(in fact I know) that Greg was implying that 10-12 year
>	olds are fair game for shooting.  This is a misinterpretation on your
>	part.
                              
       
Is this a misinterpretation?  Read the original note exerpted below:
       
================================================================================
Note 406.24                  The Riots and Unrest!!!                    24 of 32
MOSSAD::GREG "My god, it's full of stars..."         84 lines  23-DEC-1987 04:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
.
>.....  How you call
>the army that is shooting at childhren defending themseleves.  You have riot
>gear use it use it.  There is no reason to carry out acts against 10, 11 and 12
>year old kids.  I agree that they are causing you problems but please people.
>I hope you don't start another Sabra and Sha etila masacare.  You are definetly
>heading in that direction.
And what do you do with these 10-12 year olds, who as you say, should be
in school but instead are throwing rocks and gas bombs?

       
       
       The final two lines above seem to me to be saying that no other Israeli
       response is acceptable.  I honestly do not see how you can arrive
       at any other interpretation.  Please explain where my error
       is coming from.                 
                              
       
       --Julian
       

    There sure is alot here to address   8^{).

    First off, I join the "We think Israel is wonderful" camp.  But, like
    the U.S. it is a qualified wonderful.

    Second, I think Israel is making a big, big mistake using so much
    force in this situation.  (I also criticize U.S. policy when it is
    similar.)  In this situation, Israel must be judged harshly.  To be
    fair, so should all governments in the mideast.  And so should the
    U.S. media for its unbalanced coverage.  (Everybody's guilty   8^{).

    Third, I think that the current situation is the result of previous
    mistakes which let the tension get this high in the first place.

    The third point is the one which was probably least avoidable.
    It is also the one which prevents any chance of peace in the
    mideast.

    Many Palestinians are indeed opposed to the PLO (ie: Sultan).
    The Israeli government (particularly Likud) has been dealing with
    them as though all Palestinians support the PLO.  As long as they
    are dealt with in this way, and as long as the government fails
    to protect Arab moderates there is no way that a majority will
    openly oppose the PLO.

    Assuming that Israel can deal with the moderates, what do they want?
    And what does the majority of Palestinians want?  Peace?  A Palestinian
    state separate from and independant of Jordon and Israel?  Where should
    this state be?  Should all of the land owned by Palestinians at the
    time of the partition be returned to them?  What about all of those
    who were tenants on Turkish and Syrian owned land?

    Without some answers to these questions, there is no basis for discussion.

    Sultan, you may wonder why I bring up Jordon.  Jordon is very important
    to the situation and any discussion about it.  Jordon occupies the
    vast majority of Palestine.  The majority of Palestinians currently
    live in Jordon.  One might say, therefore, that Jordon IS a(the)
    Palestinian state.  But, understandably, many Palestinians are
    not too thrilled with the idea of moving to Jordon or being
    governed by Jordan  8^{).

    Gavriel

Re .27


>	The 
>	constant linking of South Africa to Israel is a calculated policy 
>	to further delegitimize Israel's existence.  There is not one point
>	of commonality between the settlement of the land by Jews in Israel,
>	and the Afrikaners in South Africa.  


       I don't think the issue is about the settling of Israel by Jews.
       People can agree with Israel's right to exist without agreeing
       with the way it is acting towards the non-Jewish people who live
       in territory acquired in 1967. The linking with the Union of SA
       refers to the relationship between the way Israel rules the west
       bank and SA's system of Apartheid. Items that bring this
       comparison to mind include, two classes of citizen, one class of
       people becoming dependent on menial labor done by the other
       class, unequal application of laws, friction between the classes,
       etc. 
       
       Israel has a serious problem here, denial is not the way to
       handle it.

    Re: .24
    
    I think U.S. policy in Nicaragua, Grenada, Viet Nam, etc. sucks
    eggs.  I think U.S. foreign policy in general sucks eggs.  I think
    the Reagan administration's stupidity is matched only by its ignorance.
    Now can I say that 4 or 5 Israeli soldiers beating a boy who looks
    to be about ten years old with billy clubs sucks eggs?  That keeping
    a people under military occupation for 20 years sucks eggs?
    
    signed,
    
    an equal opportunity protestor
     

    RE: .36
    
    Karen, some humans (literally) also suck eggs, as do some other
    non-human animals.
    
    And you certainly can say that 4 or 5 Israeli soldiers beating a
    boy who looks to be about ten years old with billy clubs sucks eggs.
    In fact, you seem already to have said it.
    
    Now, do you have a proposal to address the problem of the Palestinians?
    
      Alan

    re:.37
    
    You know and I know that the Likud believes that the only way to
    address Palestinians is the status quo or something terribly like
    it (hence the allusion to the RSA).  We won't go into what their
    allies on the extreme right believe.
    
    Nit-picking the details of the solution is not appropriate in this
    topic, but suffice to say the Labor coalition has been a lot more
    willing to face reality.

    Re: .37
    
    Yes:  during the riots, treat people like human beings.  Then, here
    is my own personal peace plan (borrowed heavily from "A Palestinian
    State:  The Implications for Israel" by someone or other at Tel
    Aviv University, and "The Question of Palestine" by Edward Said
    of Columbia University and a member of the Palestinian Council):
    
    1.  A state for the Palestinians, comprised of the West Bank and
    Gaza.  According to Said, the PNC has said this is acceptable.
    
    2. Jerusalem accessable to all, details to be worked out.  The Tel
    Aviv book goes into painful detail about this, but I've forgotten.
    
    3. The Palestinians rule themselves, Jordan doesn't run things.
     They certainly don't want to exchange one foreign country's rule
    for another's.  They have a right to their own state.  They
    nearly universally say the PLO is their representative.  Before
    someone says "We aren't going to deal with a terrorist oprganization",
    please consider this:  That is a policy with zero benefit to Israel.
    Supposing the British had said, "We're staying here until hell freezes
    over, because we know that the Israeli government will contain
    terrorists."  What would have happened them?  More bloodshed,  More
    misery.  In the end, the same result.
    
    4.  Security restrictions on the Palestinian state, such as no standing
    army, etc.  Up to the U.N. to enforce.
    
    5.  Big bucks dumped into the Palestinian state, probably mostly
    from the U.S., and perhaps from other Arab countries. (The Saudis
    still seem to have money to burn.)  Whether this would take the
    form of reparations to individuals for lost land, or, more likely,
    something more global, the intent would be to beef up the economy,
    living conditions, etc. to make the state more viable.
    
      
    

    Re: .39
    
    I forgot.... the Israelis who have moved into the occupied territories
    and glommed onto that land, have to move out.
    

re .24, .26, .27, and .33
    
    	I agree that .26 is a misinterpretation of .24.  The error is
    one of logic:

.26>           I really like Greg's idea that if 10-12 year old children
.26>       are not in school they are fair game for shooting by soldiers
.26>       or police.  
.26>       
.26>       It may not be working in Israel, but it sure would solve
.26>       the truancy problem here in Rochester, NY. (In case it's needed:
.26>       :-) )

    	The problem is that not *all* 10-12 year olds who are not in school
    are throwing rocks at soldiers.  I wonder how restrained the police
    response would be in Rochester if a large gang of kids started building
    roadblocks, burning tires, and throwing rocks at anybody nearby.

-----
    
    	Now, back to the substance of this discussion:
    
    	I sometimes wonder what the world would find acceptable in
    this situation.  Should the soldiers put down their rifles and throw
    rocks back??  It's just not clear what is being condemned by the
    world at large:  The occupation, the use of force, the use of deadly
    force, the use of force [deadly or not] against children, or what?
    
    		David

    
    >1.  A state for the Palestinians, comprised of the West Bank and
    >Gaza.  According to Said, the PNC has said this is acceptable.
    
    Yes, we've all heard this before.  But has anybody asked them if they
    are ready to erase the paragraph from their charter which lays claim
    to ALL of Palestine?

    >2. Jerusalem accessable to all, details to be worked out.  The Tel
    >Aviv book goes into painful detail about this, but I've forgotten.
    
    Jerusalem IS accessible to all, probably more accessible than it ever 
    has been.  If this is a reference to the old demand of the Catholic church
    to "internationalize" Jerusalem, than forget it.  All that entailed 
    was control for Rome.

    >3. The Palestinians rule themselves, Jordan doesn't run things.
    >They certainly don't want to exchange one foreign country's rule
    >for another's.  They have a right to their own state.  They
    >nearly universally say the PLO is their representative.  Before
    >someone says "We aren't going to deal with a terrorist oprganization",
    >please consider this:  That is a policy with zero benefit to Israel.
    >Supposing the British had said, "We're staying here until hell freezes
    >over, because we know that the Israeli government will contain
    >terrorists."  What would have happened them?  More bloodshed,  More
    >misery.  In the end, the same result.
    
    I can agree with most of what you say here.  I'm not against the idea 
    of a Palestinian state, but not one under the rule of it's present
    political leadership which hasn't changed one iota from that of Haj
    Amin Husseini (the originator of the "drive the Jews into the sea"
    quote).  If you are going to tell me that there are "moderates" in the
    PLO leadership than the only moderate that comes to my mind is 
    Dr.Issam Sartawi, who paid for his moderation with his life.

    >4.  Security restrictions on the Palestinian state, such as no standing
    >army, etc.  Up to the U.N. to enforce.
    
    Up to the U.N. to enforce this??  Didn't they do such a great job of
    restraining Nasser in '67?!  The fox guards the chicken coop.

    >5.  Big bucks dumped into the Palestinian state, probably mostly
    >from the U.S., and perhaps from other Arab countries. (The Saudis
    >still seem to have money to burn.)  Whether this would take the
    >form of reparations to individuals for lost land, or, more likely,
    >something more global, the intent would be to beef up the economy,
    >living conditions, etc. to make the state more viable.
    
    Ah yes, the permanent solution, throw dollars on it.  Who will monitor
    the flow of this money, will it be channeled to it's intended destination
    or will it be used for other activities? (You know, the kind that the 
    U.N. is supposed to be monitoring?)

    What provisions have you made for free access to Judea and Samaria for
    Jews?  After all, although it's a political liability for Israel, we do
    have some claim to the land, for that is where most of our history began.
    I'm not lobbying for settlements, but for unrestricted access to holy and
    historical places, travel without passports, etc.

    David
      
    

    If the PLO sympathizers are not allowed to negotiate with and represent
    their supporters among the Palestinians -- and their supporters
    appear to be a majority -- then there is no one to negotiate with.
    
    Hmmm, the Germans negotiated "peace" with Patain and Quisling because
    the majority didn't support them.  Now the South Africans have set
    up "Vidkun" Buthelezi as their pet "black moderate", even though
    it's quite obvious that Mandela and the ANC have more support.
    
    No, I don't see a difference.
    
    My copy of Tanach notes that Canaanites lived in the area west of
    the Jordan River before there were Hebrews there.  And history notes
    that there were always non-Hebrews west of the Jordan. Exclusive claim
    to "Judea and Samaria"?  Mr. Roark's plane will land first, Tatoo.
    Coexistence may be tough but it's a darn sight better than the alternative.

    Re: .42

    I think there are a number of evidences of moderate members of the PLO who
    would accept the West Bank + Gaza + some provision for Jerusalem and
    punt the idea of ever regaining control of all of Israel/Palestine.  In
    addition to Said's mention of people supporting this, and numerous
    Palestinians (lawyers, etc.) quoted on the news lately, there's
    the article in the Times about (I'm quoting from fuzzy memory) a group of
    university professors, somethings, and somethings, within the PLO
    who have put together a plan similar to what I mentioned in the first
    sentence.

    Surely in the entire world we can come up with a monitoring body that can
    ensure no standing army, money spent for hospitals, etc.  (If the U.S.
    hadn't subsequently lost all the credibility that it gained with the Arab
    world after the Israeli/British attack on Egypt, we could have done it,
    sigh.)  The point I was trying to make was, the monitoring body should
    not be Israel, because I am sure that having Israel directly interfering
    in the sovereignty of Palestine would be intolerable to the Palestinians
    after all these years of military occupation,
    
    Well, if you want access to the West Bank without passports, etc., are you
    willing to extend that to the Palestinians who want to visit their
    ancestral homes in Israel?

	From "The Militant" December 25, 1987, New York, New York

	Palestinian protesters defy repression

	BY HARRY RING

		Responding to murderous repression by Israeli occupation forces,
	Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are fighting back on
	an unprecedented scale.

		In Gaza, the United Nations relief director described the
	the situation as "a popular uprising."

		He said every town and refugee camp in the area was affected
	by the mounting rebellion, adding that many older Palestinians were
	joining in the fight that had been mainly waged by the youth. Lawers
	and other professionals are helping to demonstrations. Women are
	breaking up concrete and filling shopping bags with chunks for
	protesters.

		Israeli occupation forces have been doubled and are trying to
	crush the rebellion with unrestrained savagery.

		On December 15 troops stormed a hospital in Gaza City, killing
	two Palestinians. UN officials at the hospital said some 20 others
	were beaten and dragged off to prison camp. Nurses and doctors were
	beaten.

		The Israeli troops acted to disperse several hundred
	Palestinians who had gathered at the hospital where a dead teenager
	had been brought in, along with others wounded at a protest
	demonstration.

		UN staff people told reporters they had seen Israeli solders
	tie Palestinian youth to the hoods of army jeeps and use them as
	"shields" while advancing against demonstrators in refugee camps.

		In the first week of protests, which erupted December 8, at
	least 12 Palestinians had been killed and more than 200 wounded.

		The current wave of demonstrations were touched off when an
	Israeli army semitrailer truck slammed into two vans carrying
	Palestinian laborers, killing four and injuring seven. 

		In the face of truncheons, tear gas and deadly gunfire, the
	Palestinians have barricaded the streets with burning tires.

		General strikes have gripped Gaza City and the main towns of
	the West Bank. Those who commute to jobs in Israel have stayed home.
	Demonstrators have defiantly wave the banned Palestinian national
	flag and posters of Yassir Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation
	Organization.

		At Gaza hospital, one reporter was told by a wounde youth,
	"It's them or us!"

		And from a mosque across the street from the hospital, a
	loudspeaker exhorted, "Young people, go at them, Don't back down!"

		An estimated 1.4 million Palestinians live under the Israeli
	military regime in Gaza Strip and West Bank. Another 645,000 live in
	Israel itself. The state of Israel was carved out of the Palestinian
	homeland in 1947. Gaza and the West Bank were seized by the Israeli
	regime in its June 1967 war against Arab neighbors.

		For 20 years Israel has continued the grim pretense that the
	occupation of the two seized territories is "temporary."

		Encouraged by the government, some 60,000 Israeli settlers
	have helped themselves to the choicest spots in both territories.
	Many of these are racist, gun-toting vigilantes.

		The military rules the territories with an iron fist.
	Palestinian have virtually no rights. There is dentention without trial
	and deportation into exile.

		Before the present confrontations, more than 4,000 Palestinians
	were in prison in the West Bank alone.

		Palestinian land is subject to seizure, strikes, and
	demonstrations are illegal. Political parties are banned.

		Both areas are bitterly impoverished. In Gaza, more than
	half the population still lives in the wretched "refugee" camps
	administered by the UN.

		There is very little industry in either area and Palestinians
	are forced to look for work in Israel where the constitute a lucrative
	pool of low-paid labor.

		Until the present struggle, up to 120,000 West Bank workers
	commuted to Israel daily. In the Gaza Strip the estimated number
	ranges up to 60,000.

		
		Despite the repression, the resistance to Israeli occupation
	has grown steadily in recent years.

		The PLO commands broad popular support in both territories
	and, as the present fierce struggle so dramatically testifies, there
	is deep support for the demand for withdrawal of the Israely forces,
	and independent Palestinian rule.

		And the bloody repression gives added weight to the PLO's
	overall objective --- the dismantling of the Israeli state and its
	repacement by a democratic, secular Palestine where Arab and Jew
	alike will live in equality.

	From "The Militant" January 1, 1988, New York, New York, USA

	Palestine freedom fight rocks Israeli occupation

	BY HARRY RING

		A historic new stage in the fight for Palestinian liberation
	opened when hundreds of thousands of Arabs living within Israel
	staged a massive general strike in solidarity with the embattled
	people of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

		The Jerusalem Post, a major Israeli paper, described the
	development as "the first stages of a civil uprising."

		All sectors of the Israeli economy were hit by the general
	strike.

		In the port city of Haifa, a reported 10,000 of the city's
	12,000 Palestinian workers stayed off the job.

		Virtually all of the 140,000 West Bank and Gaza Strip residents
	who commute to jobs in Israel stayed home.

		The Palestinians who are counted on to operate Israeli sewing
	machines, remove garbage, wait on tables, dig ditches, and lay bricks
	were not there.

		Throughout the Galilee area, where most Palestinians in Israel
	live, every thing was shut down.

		In one town, Umm al Fahm, 3,000 demonstrators blocked a main
	highway. Cops responded with tear gas. The Palestinian sector of
	Jerusalem was described as almost empty.

		In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where a general strike was
	already in progress, Palestinian youth blocked major highways, bringing
	everything to a halt. Two days before Christmas, Bethlehem was reported
	as looking like a ghost town.

		"I can't remember that kind of thing ever happening before,"
	a worried Israeli official said.

		For 40 years, Palestinians in Israel have been a victimized
	minority. When the United Nations carved up Palestine in 1947, handing
	the greater part to Zionist settlers, those Palestinians who were not
	driven out became second-class, at best, in their homeland.

		They suffer racist abuse and job discrimination. A Palestinian
	earns 67 cents for every dollar paid an Israeli.

		They are denied decent homes, schools, and health care. The
	Palestinian infant mortality rate is double the Israelis'.

		The Gaza Strip and West Bank, seized by Israel in its 1967
	war against Arab neighbors, Palestinians live under military rule and
	are denied all basic rights.

		People are jailed without charges. Political "undesirables"
	are deported.

		Political movements, including the Palestinian Liberation
	Organization, which enjoys majority support, are banned. Antioccupation
	strikes and demonstrations are illegal.

		Economic development has been thwarted. Denied land and without
	industry, large numbers of Gaza Strip and West Bank workers must
	commute to Israel for jobs. As with immigrant workers in apartheid
	South Africa, they must be out by sundown. It's illegal to stay
	overnight.

		A majority of Gaza Strip residents still dwell in UN-operated
	"refugee" camps. An Israeli study described health conditions as
	"catastrophic."

		The oppression has spurred implacable resistance. The jailings
	and deportations have not quelled the political resistance. The
	truncheons, tear gas, and gunfire have not stopped the strikes and
	demonstrations.

		The present battle in the occupied territories erupted December
	8. The spark came when a big army semitrailer used for hauling tanks
	slammed into two vans carrying Palestinian workers back from Israel.
	Four of them were killed and seven injured.

		Four thousand people in the area attended a funeral for the
	victims. The protest rapidly spread.

		The bloody Israely response has resulted in scores dead,
	several hundred wounded, and countless jailings. This has stiffened
	the resistance, with women and older men rallying behind the youth,
	who defy the volleys of gunfire in the cause of Palestinian liberation.

		The first area of Israel proper to be hit by protest was the
	city of Jerusalem.

		Israel had grabbed East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.
	But unlike the West Bank and Gaza, East Jerusalem was annexed directly
	into Israel, despite international objection.

		Now, on December 19, Palestinian youths struck hard and fast.
	Tires, garbage bins, anything available was used to build flaming
	street barricades. Police attacks were answered with volleys of rocks.

		Windows were smashed at four Israeli banks. At Barclay's,
	computers were smashed and records destroyed.

		The fire is spreading to neighboring Arab countries.

		In Lebanon, three days of protest in December were climaxed
	with a demonstration of 25,000 in the port city of Sidon, a frequent
	target of Israeli jet bomber raids.

		And, December 21, Shiite Muslim guerrillas launched an attack
	on the Israeli-organized South Lebanon Army. A guerrilla radio declared
	the attack "a salute to our struggling brothers in the occupied land."

		The government of Egypt, the only Arab regime to submit to an
	Israeli "peace" pact, deemed it necessary to lodge five protests in
	eight days against Israeli repression.

		The Egyptian ambassador to Israel explained, "You can't imagine
	the reaction of the Egyptian people when they see the pictures on
	international television."

		The Israeli regime has no difficulty calculating the damage
	caused by the media's even partial depiction of its efforts to stamp
	out rebellion.

		One press account said Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was
	weighing a decision to bar the media from the Gaza Strip.

		This coincided with an Israeli TV program that showed a man
	in civilian clothes taking careful aim with an Uzi submachine gun and
	firing into the backs of retreating protesters.

		The man was discovered to be a member of Shin Bet, Israel's
	notoriously lawless secret security force.

		If Shamir should decide to bar the media, he would be following
	the example of the South African regime with which Tel Aviv is so
	closely allied.

    Re: .41
    
    >    It's just not clear what is being condemned by the
    >    world at large:  The occupation, the use of force, the use of deadly
    >    force, the use of force [deadly or not] against children, or what?
        
    Let me make a run at what I think "the world" has been thinking:

    First, they saw hair-raising instances of brutality by Israelis
    against individual Palestinians, some of whom were children.

    Then, they realized that potentially lethal methods of crowd
    control were being used when far less dangerous ones are known.

    Then when the Defense Minister is asked about this, he says something
    like "Our soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong" and starts muttering
    about how they're protecting themselves from terrorists.  People
    say, "Is he for real, or what?"  Heaven only knows where Peres
    is, out of the country apparently, and all the Israeli
    government spokespeople interviewed on tv act like they don't have a
    clue as to why anyone would object to what's going on, and they don't
    intend to even consider in the slightest the tiniest hint that
    there might be something wrong.

    So, says the world, no wonder there hasn't been any progress
    towards peace -- all the Israeli government people have completely
    closed minds;  it doesn't look like they even think the
    Palestinians are human.  (cut to film of little boy being beaten
    up.  Insert film of kangaroo trials.  Insert film of Sharon moving
    into Muslim quarter -- remember the massacres;  can you say "war
    criminal"?)

    Start to think about how incredibly similar all this seems to South
    Africa (right, as someone pointed out before, this has nothing to do
    with anybody's claim to the land).  Begin to wonder what we can do
    to help.  This is what leads even extreme conservatives like James
    Kilpatrick, for example, to start to talk about blocking U.S. aid to
    Israel until some concrete progress is made towards peace.  That's an
    incredible turnaround in the state of U.S. opinion.

    Here are a couple of quotes (reproduced without permission) from
    Said's "The Question of Palestine".  You may recall that Said is
    a member of the PLO's PNC:
    
    "On occasion after occasion the PLO stated its willingness to accept
    a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.  Two meetings of
    the National Council, in 1974 and again in 1977, committed the whole
    national community to this idea, and with the idea, an implicit
    recognition of Israel as a neighbor."
    .
    .
    "I do sympathize with, I understand as profoundly as I can, the
    fear felt by most Jews that Israel's security is a genuine protection
    against future genocidal attempts on the Jewish people.  But it
    is necessary to remark that there can be no way of satisfactorily
    conducting a life whose main concern is to prevent the past from
    recurring.  For Zionism, the Palestinians have now become the
    equivalent of a past experience reincarnated in the form of a present
    threat.  The result is that the Palestinians' future as a people
    is mortgaged to that fear, which is a disster for them and for Jews."
    
    

	from "The Militant", 1 January, 1988, New York, New York, USA

	How Israel provokes Palestinian outrage

	BY FRED FELDMAN

		Thousands of people in the Gaza Strip, one of the parts
	of Palestine that was conquered by Israel in 1967 and remains under
	military rule, are defying murderous gunfire and beatings to demand
	that the Israely occupiers get out.

		Examples of the kind of oppression that prokes this outrage
	can be found in a typical issue of Al Fajr (The Dawn), a Palestinian
	weekly based in occupied East Jerusalem and published in both Arabic
	and English. The following descriptions are based on reporting from
	the December 13 issue of the Engish-language edition of that paper.

		For Arab farmers of a village near Jericho, the Israeli
	occupation means drought and catastrophic decline of their banana,
	vegetable, and other crops.

		Al-Ouja's irrigation problems began in 1979 when Israeli
	authorities dug three wells nearby to supply water to the Israeli
	Jewish settlements being set up on confiscated Arab land. These wells
	depleted water from the nearby spring, which dried up completely in
	1985. Under the circumstances, low rainfall this year had disasterous
	results.

		While the villagers have not been permitted to dig new wells,
	the nearby Israely Jewish settlements have swimming pools and bumper
	crops. The government disolved a local agricultural society that
	attempted to provide loans and other help to the Arab farmers.

		Preventing drought relief for Palestinians is part of the
	Israeli government's policy of forcing Arabs off the land so that it
	can be turned over to Israeli settlers. Plans are underway to divert
	half the ground water in the occupied Jordan Valley area to Jewish
	settlements.

		On December 6 nearly 1,000 troops and police stood guard as
	the government began cofiscation of the Palestinian-owned Jerusalem
	Electric Co., over the opposition of both company administration and
	and the union. The company has provided electricity for 70,000 Arabs.

		The company's operations, beginning with the supply of
	electricity to Jewish settlements, are being turned over to the Israeli
	Electric Corp. The Israeli authorities claimed the takeover was to
	insure service and enforce payment of debts --- many of them stemming
	from cofiscatory taxes and other discriminatory moves imposed on the
	Arab-owned business.

		The takeover is linked to plans to establish more Israeli
	Jewish settlements on land now belonging to Arabs in the area covered
	by the Palestinian firm.

		The workers struck for three days in protest against the
	takeover of the electric company, which is expected to lead to many
	layoffs.

		On December 9, for the thrird time in recent months, the
	Israeli authorities destroyed a Moslem mosque in the Arab township
	of Rahat. About 200 cops and other government forces, with dogs and
	horses, moved into town.

		Local residents were ordered to remain in their homes while
	police took down a tent that people in the community were using for
	religious services. They cofiscated copies of the Koran, the sacred
	book of Moslem religion, and other religious books, as well as
	loudspeakers used to call the people to prayer.

	Forced confession
		
		Abdel Aziz Jarrar was arrested October 21 and thrown into
	Jenin Prison. He was charged with membership in Fatah, one of the
	leading groups in the Palestine Liberation Organization. When he
	denied the charge, the authorities set out to get a confession from
	him.

		"The interrogators forced me to lie on a table with my hands
	tied behind my back," Jarrar said, "They put several bags on my head
	and closed my mouth and nose until I felt I would suffocate."

		Jarrar said that four or five "interrogators" held his legs
	and hands while they struck his genitals. This was repeated three
	times, for several minutes at a time. Fearing he would be killed,
	Jarrar gave the torturers the confession they demanded. He has now
	repudiated it.

		A few weeks earlier, another Palestinian died while under
	interrogation at Jenin Prison.

		On December 10, Al Fajr reports, Palestinian journalists
	held a news conference to protest the order placing Radwan Abu Ayyash,
	head of the Arab Journalists' Association, under administrative
	detention for six months. Soldiers broke into his house at night and
	siezed him.

		The practice of administrative or "preventive" detention
	allows the authorities to jail people for long periods without charges
	or trial.

		The law authorizing this practice was imposed by the British
	cplonial rule of Palestine, and continued when the Israeli regime
	took over in 1948.

		The Israeli government attempted to justify the attack on
	freedom of the press by portraying Ayyash as a "senior Fatah activist."

		On December 11, for the third time in two months, the Arabic
	edition of Al Fajr was banned by the Israeli authorities.

RE: -1

Boy, that "Militant" is full of it!

Al-Ouja: I was there a few months ago - they have water coming 
out of their ears.  This includes at least two Arab owned and 
operated water-park type facilities (water slides, pools etc.)

Arab Electric Co.: Their concession for all Arab sections 
was renewed a few days ago.  The Jewish neighborhoods were 
connected up to the Israel Power Co. in lieu of debts which
the Arab company wasn't paying and the  fact that their level of 
service was lousy. (my kid kept getting sent home from school 
because no power/heat/light)

RE. a previous "Militant" entry stating that ALL parts of the 
economy were affected by the strike.  I'm right here and that's 
just a plain lie.

Don't get me wrong - there are many big problems and given the
current local and world-wide REALITIES (emphasis on the word 
REAL)  few serious solutions.  My point is just that the 
"Militant" looks like a low-grade garbage wrapper.

    re: "the militant"
    
    The militant is low-grade garbage wrapper just as you describe it
    Alan, I should know my political activist career began in my teens
    as a "Trot" with the socialist worker's party, of which the militant
    is the party organ.
    
    The trots and other marxist organizations in this country, at least
    were, composed of many Jews who wouldn't admit to being Jewish.
    You see Lenin's theory was that the Jews are not a distinct
    nation/race,and therefore Zionism is nothing but a bourgeois,
    chauvinistic ideology, which then is "anti-internationalist".  I'm
    not making any of this up, it's all in black & white in Lenin's
    "the Jewish question".  This short book was a compilation of responses
    to the members of the Jewish bund, who were members of the first
    revolutionary coalition in the soviet Union.
    
    Therefore painting political pictures in the colors that you believe
    in naturally fits into the whole ball of wax.  The "democratic,
    secular state of Palestine" is but a piece of this puzzle.  I ought
    to know about this, I espoused it myself during a self-hate period
    of my life in which the trotskyist view of life suited me.
    
    So you see we Jews have no right whatsoever to the land, and we
    would just be nice and "democratic" about it we'd better pack up
    and leave.  The irony is that those who would deny one people's
    claim to Israel would just as soon deny the other's if it suited
    their particular ideology.  
    
    P.S.: It's good to see some response from TAVland, let's have some
    more!
    
    David

Please tell me why you(Israel) are putting so much preasure on families

to move_out.  There is enough land for everyone to live on without being

so dam greedy.  Why cut off water supply needed for the farmers to make

a living and feed their woman and childhren.  I think you(Israel) have 

taken enough from the starving people of West_Bank camps.  Stop torturing

the innocent and use your inteligence to get those so callled terrorist

that are really making you(Israel) look like fools.

I will never ever understand why you have to use a whole army just to fight

back woman and childhren that are trying to stand on their on two feet.

Do not talk about wining the war.  Egypt, Jordan, and Syria are no match

against United States military equipment and Intelligence.

Let get back to issues regarding peace for all and not how our ay-arab neighbors

are neglecting the falestinians.  Our ay-arab neighbors have their own affairs

and this issue is for the falestinian living in fear.


\Sultan


P.s  Lets hear more from DeC Israel, on know your there.

Your view is important to current problems in neighboring towns.

    	Remember when the Palestinians went into the kindergarten and
    killed all those Jewish babies?
    	Remember when the Palestinians went to the Olympics in Germany
    and killed the Jewish athletes?
    
    	The babies were not throwing rocks at the Palestinians, yet
    the Palestinians shot them to death.
    	The young Jewish athletes were not throwing rocks at the
    Palestinians, yet the Palestinians shot them to death. 

    Re: .53
    
    So, wouldn't you say it was about time all this stopped?
    

re:.53


Your talking about a small(VERY VERY small) group of men that commited

those violent acts against small innocent group.  Yes it was wrong.

These quys commiting violent acts are not a whole army(IsrAel), therefor

can be controlled and delt with.

\Sultan

    Personally I am bowing out of this discussion as of this reply.
    I think that I have felt at times as though I were an individual
    trying to hold back a wave.  I am not condoning or endorsing present
    policy on the territories, but what I trying to emphasize was that
    a balance was missing in coverage of the recent events, and in the
    entire situation as a whole.  I also that there some replies from
    those who are ignorant of the reality.
    
    We're not going to solve anything here, that is clear.  I am glad
    to see someone like Sultan take part in a discussion in BAGELS,
    I can understand some of his feelings.  I don't know what the future
    will have in store for Israel/the Palestinians, it may very well
    take another war before any resolve happens, I hope to G-d not.
    
    David
    
       

    Re .53
<Your talking about a small(VERY VERY small) group of men that committed
<those violent acts against small innocent group.  Yes it was wrong.
<These quys commiting violent acts are not a whole army(IsrAel), therefor
<can be controlled and delt with.
<\Sultan

	Has any of the Arab governments arrested and convicted the VERY
    VERY small group of men that committed those violent acts. NO. They
    praised them and gave them medals.
    
	I just read a Reuters news story in the Boston Globe that the 
Palestinians just released the 2 little French girls they kidnaped
November 8.  I think the Palestinians should be commended for their
courage in kidnaping the 5 and 6 year old girls. I think they used
about 10 commandos for this heroic and patriotic deed.

    	I wounder what Palestinians do with little girls for a month and a
    half.        

Re: .57

>	Has any of the Arab governments arrested and convicted the VERY
>    VERY small group of men that committed those violent acts. NO. They
>    praised them and gave them medals.
    
And what did Israel do to Sharon?  Did he wind up in jail?  No, he's
still a respected member of society.
	
>   I just read a Reuters news story in the Boston Globe that the 
>   Palestinians just released the 2 little French girls they kidnaped
>   November 8.  I think the Palestinians should be commended for their
>   courage in kidnaping the 5 and 6 year old girls. I think they used
>   about 10 commandos for this heroic and patriotic deed.

I'm assuming these children were the ones who were kidnapped along with
their adult relatves and friends from the yacht.  I'm happy to see that
they have been voluntarily released.

>   I  wounder what Palestinians do with little girls for a month and a half.

The implication here is totally out of line unless you have some evidence
to back it up.

    	re -.51 David Cherson	
    
              
>    re: "the militant"
>    
>    The militant is low-grade garbage wrapper just as you describe it
>    Alan, I should know my political activist career began in my teens
>    as a "Trot" with the socialist worker's party, of which the militant
>    is the party organ.
>    
>    The trots and other marxist organizations in this country, at least
>    were, composed of many Jews who wouldn't admit to being Jewish.

	Thats a bunch of shit. Sounds like maybe projection. The Socialist
	Workers Party never hid anti-Zionism. If you joined while trying to
	hide your Jewishness then that is sick. All the Jews I knew never
	tried to hide their culturaral background, they never denied they were
	Jews. I have known some Jews in the party that could not reconcile
	their Jewishness with ant-Zionism and quit. That is an honest thing
	to do. There ARE many Jews in the party, you insult them.

>    You see Lenin's theory was that the Jews are not a distinct
>    nation/race,

	Hold on here, are you arguing aginst this position? Lets say something
	rather then just sliding into your following "and therefore ...".
	First lets seperate nation and race. It is clear that Jews have been
	and are discriminated against on the basis of racial and cultural
	distinctions. That does not define a nation. And just how racially
	distinct are Jews from other Semites? I see a lot of overlap between
	between some classified as Jews and some classified as Arabs. Maybe
	European genes make you more Jewish?

>		 and therefore Zionism is nothing but a bourgeois,
>    chauvinistic ideology, which then is "anti-internationalist".

	And that was written when Zionism was a minority position held by
	Jewish people. Zionism had many facits, they were not all aimed at
	creating a Jewish State out of Palestine. Israel is a particular
	manifestation of Zionism. And Israel is "a bourgeois, chauvinistic ...
	anti-internationalist" state. Of course the "anti-internationalist"
	refers to lack of worker internationalism. Read note 419 to see
	what else Zionism represents.

>								   I'm
>    not making any of this up, it's all in black & white in Lenin's
>    "the Jewish question".  This short book was a compilation of responses
>    to the members of the Jewish bund, who were members of the first
>    revolutionary coalition in the soviet Union.
>    
>    Therefore painting political pictures in the colors that you believe
>    in naturally fits into the whole ball of wax.  The "democratic,
>    secular state of Palestine" is but a piece of this puzzle.  I ought
>    to know about this, I espoused it myself during a self-hate period
>    of my life in which the trotskyist view of life suited me.

	I would like to see someone expound a little more on this self hate
	theory. It is an insult to the ability of a Jew to think.
>    
>    So you see we Jews have no right whatsoever to the land, and we
>    would just be nice and "democratic" about it we'd better pack up
>    and leave.  The irony is that those who would deny one people's
>    claim to Israel would just as soon deny the other's if it suited
>    their particular ideology.

	Irony? Straw dog fiction is a cheap trick.
  
>    
>    P.S.: It's good to see some response from TAVland, let's have some
>    more!

	I'll second that.

	Les

    re -.50  Alan Goldman
    
    Hi,
    
    The Militant article gave its source on the Al-Ouja story. I have
    contacted several people in New York trying to get further information
    on that story. The Militant editorial offices are closed for a
    one week break. I support the Militant, I have known many
    of its writers for years including Fred Feldman and Harry Ring.
    They are honest revolutionaries. I have seen a lot of articles take
    a lot of heat. I and many other supporters have looked deeper into
    stories. The more one looks into what is going on the more one is
    capable of commenting on things. I have learned much and have
    confidence in the Militant. It is now in the 60th year of printing.
    The Militant has never tried to hide anything that it has said.
    I will comment further as I get more details.
    
    Regards,
    
    Les
    

...And after a few days where due to power shutdowns I was off the net this
is what happens?? :^)

Now Mr. Epstein (chrnologically...boy this may take some time...)

MISFIT::EPSTEINJ                                     40 lines  23-DEC-1987 14:42
                            -< Misinterpretation? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re. .27       

>       >I really like Greg's idea that if 10-12 year old children
>       >are not in school they are fair game for shooting by soldiers
>       >or police.  
>    
>	I don't think(in fact I know) that Greg was implying that 10-12 year
>	olds are fair game for shooting.  This is a misinterpretation on your
>	part.
                              
       
>Is this a misinterpretation?  Read the original note exerpted below:
And what do you do with these 10-12 year olds, who as you say, should be
in school but instead are throwing rocks and gas bombs?
       The final two lines above seem to me to be saying that no other Israeli
       response is acceptable.  I honestly do not see how you can arrive
       at any other interpretation.  Please explain where my error
       is coming from.                 
Your error comes from the fact that what is stated is "What should we do
with them?" A question was asked which to my mind is still unanswered, namely
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU DO WITH THEM MR. EPSTEIN????? 

As to Karen "in Calif", do your feet ever touch the ground?

>    Yes:  during the riots, treat people like human beings.  Then, here
>    is my own personal peace plan (borrowed heavily from "A Palestinian
>    State:  The Implications for Israel" by someone or other at Tel
>    Aviv University, and "The Question of Palestine" by Edward Said
>    of Columbia University and a member of the Palestinian Council):
You know of anywhere that's being done? Do you have any FIRST hand experience
at riot control or did you just attend a course in "how to better myself
in conflict"?
    
>    1.  A state for the Palestinians, comprised of the West Bank and
>    Gaza.  According to Said, the PNC has said this is acceptable.
Wow, and he represents who? I mean my father said the dollar should go up
has it?
    
>    2. Jerusalem accessable to all, details to be worked out.  The Tel
>    Aviv book goes into painful detail about this, but I've forgotten.
As far as I know Jerusalem is certainly more accessible to anyone today
than Watts is at night...
    
>    3. The Palestinians rule themselves, Jordan doesn't run things.
>     They certainly don't want to exchange one foreign country's rule
>    for another's.  They have a right to their own state.  They
>    nearly universally say the PLO is their representative.  Before
>    someone says "We aren't going to deal with a terrorist oprganization",
>    please consider this:  That is a policy with zero benefit to Israel.
>    Supposing the British had said, "We're staying here until hell freezes
>    over, because we know that the Israeli government will contain
>    terrorists."  What would have happened them?  More bloodshed,  More
>    misery.  In the end, the same result.
Nearly "universally", where is the "universality"? In the PNC? I suppose
the mild scuffles in Lebanon between warring factions just wanted to show
the world how truly united they are, right?
    
>    4.  Security restrictions on the Palestinian state, such as no standing
>    army, etc.  Up to the U.N. to enforce.
Boy I really would like to know what you're smoking...
    
>    5.  Big bucks dumped into the Palestinian state, probably mostly
>    from the U.S., and perhaps from other Arab countries. (The Saudis
>    still seem to have money to burn.)  Whether this would take the
>    form of reparations to individuals for lost land, or, more likely,
>    something more global, the intent would be to beef up the economy,
>    living conditions, etc. to make the state more viable.
UNWRA has poured money into refugee camps for years, trouble is little of
that went to any good, since most Arab countries did not want the refugees
to get decent housing as they would then become "encrusted" and no longer
refugees to be used conveniently for their own propaganda
    
>    I forgot.... the Israelis who have moved into the occupied territories
>    and glommed onto that land, have to move out.
And you have to leave California so that it can return to the Indians!

>    I think there are a number of evidences of moderate members of the PLO who
>    would accept the West Bank + Gaza + some provision for Jerusalem and
>    punt the idea of ever regaining control of all of Israel/Palestine.  In
>    addition to Said's mention of people supporting this, and numerous
>    Palestinians (lawyers, etc.) quoted on the news lately, there's
>    the article in the Times about (I'm quoting from fuzzy memory) a group of
>    university professors, somethings, and somethings, within the PLO
>    who have put together a plan similar to what I mentioned in the first
>    sentence.
And if that is still not enough, what else would you want us to give up?
I mean 22 Arab countries is not enough for you?

>    Surely in the entire world we can come up with a monitoring body that can
>    ensure no standing army, money spent for hospitals, etc.  (If the U.S.
>    hadn't subsequently lost all the credibility that it gained with the Arab
>    world after the Israeli/British attack on Egypt, we could have done it,
>    sigh.)  The point I was trying to make was, the monitoring body should
>    not be Israel, because I am sure that having Israel directly interfering
>    in the sovereignty of Palestine would be intolerable to the Palestinians
>    after all these years of military occupation,
A monitoring body to monitor what? Who would have the power of doing what?
You would not want the Americans in there nor the Russians, sop you send
in the Peruvians, some Fijians a couple from Luxemburg and you propose that
they do what exactly?    

        
>    Let me make a run at what I think "the world" has been thinking:
>    First, they saw hair-raising instances of brutality by Israelis
>    against individual Palestinians, some of whom were children.
"Hair raising"? Have you looked at the latest violence clips in California?
From my recollection even going to a McDonalds can cost you 14 lives, very
effective police response...waited until he was out of ammo...

>    Then, they realized that potentially lethal methods of crowd
>    control were being used when far less dangerous ones are known.
Philadelphia would be glad to hear about them after the SWAT team destroyed
a neighborhood to get a few people out of ONE house!

>    Then when the Defense Minister is asked about this, he says something
>    like "Our soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong" and starts muttering
>    about how they're protecting themselves from terrorists.  People
>    say, "Is he for real, or what?"  Heaven only knows where Peres
>    is, out of the country apparently, and all the Israeli
>    government spokespeople interviewed on tv act like they don't have a
>    clue as to why anyone would object to what's going on, and they don't
>    intend to even consider in the slightest the tiniest hint that
>    there might be something wrong.
This is true, we were never as good as Nixon and some others at BS the press.

>    Start to think about how incredibly similar all this seems to South
>    Africa (right, as someone pointed out before, this has nothing to do
>    with anybody's claim to the land).  Begin to wonder what we can do
>    to help.  This is what leads even extreme conservatives like James
>    Kilpatrick, for example, to start to talk about blocking U.S. aid to
>    Israel until some concrete progress is made towards peace.  That's an
>    incredible turnaround in the state of U.S. opinion.
Is that right? Who the hell is Kilpatrick?


>>	Has any of the Arab governments arrested and convicted the VERY
>>    VERY small group of men that committed those violent acts. NO. They
>>    praised them and gave them medals.
    
>And what did Israel do to Sharon?  Did he wind up in jail?  No, he's
>still a respected member of society.
And is Nixon laguishing in jail? Sharon was deposed as Defense minister
contrary to what is normally the case in Arab democracies where if he has 
fallen from grace he would be shot
	
>>   I just read a Reuters news story in the Boston Globe that the 
>>   Palestinians just released the 2 little French girls they kidnaped
>>   November 8.  I think the Palestinians should be commended for their
>>   courage in kidnaping the 5 and 6 year old girls. I think they used
>>   about 10 commandos for this heroic and patriotic deed.

>I'm assuming these children were the ones who were kidnapped along with
>their adult relatves and friends from the yacht.  I'm happy to see that
>they have been voluntarily released.
How gracious of you, not pat on the wrist then for them being naughty? Shame
on you...

>>   I  wounder what Palestinians do with little girls for a month and a half.
>The implication here is totally out of line unless you have some evidence
>to back it up.
I do beleive you have a problem...

    re: responses from behind "the barricades"
    
    (Strange things are occurring to this notesfile.  Not too long ago
     we were embroiled in arguments over Halacha, religion and G-d, now
     ideology seems to be the focus.)
    
    I think the problem with a few people and their outlook on the Middle
    East is that there is a definite disconnection between what they
    perceive and the actual reality.  
    
    All I know that there is a completely different world in Israel
    than from the comfort of Palo Alto or 495/128.  The trouble is that
    the only image you receive is that of the media's, so you either
    swallow this whole or you augment it with other viewpoints.  I know    
    because that's how I used to look at it.
    
    Naive assumptions have been made about the Arab side as to their
    sincerity, etc.  I have great respect for Arabs and their culture,
    but you cannot overlook their lack of political judgment.  As Abba
    Eban once said, "The Arabs have never missed a chance to pass up
    an opportunity".
    
    I suggest to you that you make one trip to Israel, make it a
    fact-finding tour, not a touristy one.  But try to let down your
    "ideological guard".  Talk to Jews and Arabs, see what they think,
    and weigh them in the balance.  Israel is democracy, unlike some
    of it's neighbours, you have free reign to do such.
    
    Re: .58
    
    The attitude of SOME Jewish members of the SWP is only natural given
    the attitude of Lev Bronstein himself.
    
    You don't have to resort to four-lettered language in your responses,
    after all Lenin wrote 20 million words, and not one was profane.
    
    David     

    Re: .62
    
    Well, I myself have tried to get a much wider view than just what's
    available thru the media, by means of extensive reading of books
    and papers by people who have been there and studied the situation,
    and I am attending a conference next month.  I think
    that what is actually going on is that "each side" perceives a
    different reality, understandably, and I am hoping that progress
    towards a solution will be more likely if each side understands
    the other side's view better.  That's why I'm in here discussing
    all this.
    
    I have spent time in an Arab country.  I don't feel comfortable
    with the idea of visiting Israel now, because I would have to do
    a dishonest number with my passport (Algeria does not issue visas
    to people who have travelled to South Africa or Israel, and I plan
    to revisit Algeria several times in the near future).  I also feel
    that anything that looks like "tourism" to Israel is in bad taste
    in view of the current state of things, as it implies an endorsement
    of Israeli policies.
    
    Eban is in favor of negotiation, is he not?
    

    Re: .62
    
    Uh, .58 and four letter words?  I wrote .58.  The only four letter
    word I use a lot is "cats".
    

Re: .61

>    Yes:  during the riots, treat people like human beings.  
>>You know of anywhere that's being done?

Any place they use shields, helmets, water cannon, etc. instead of sending
people in with live ammunition.

> Watts.....McDonald's...Nixon... etc.

I think we're already established that the U.S. has problems of it's own.
The point is that the things mentioned are condemned by either a majority
    or a substantial part of the U.S. population.  Not so with Israel.

> 22 Arab countries.....

The land that the Palestinians have a claim to is not Morocco, etc.  It
is the land that the Israelis also have a claim to.

> Indians....and Israeli settlers confiscating lands in the occupied
> territories

No one alive has moved into California with the express intent of taking
land that belongs to someone else.  It's in the interests of both Israel
and Palestine to have Palestine be economically viable and hence more stable.
It's not going to be viable if Israel guts the occupied territories of
    their best land.
    
>>    to help.  This is what leads even extreme conservatives like James
>>    Kilpatrick, for example, to start to talk about blocking U.S. aid to
>>    Israel until some concrete progress is made towards peace.  That's an
>>    incredible turnaround in the state of U.S. opinion.
>Is that right? Who the hell is Kilpatrick?

I take it that you're in Israel, and not an American?  James Kilpatrick is
a conservative political commentator, well known in America, and formerly
a staunch supporter of U.S. aid to Israel.

    
                                                                      

Re: Karen:

>    Yes:  during the riots, treat people like human beings.  
>>You know of anywhere that's being done?

>Any place they use shields, helmets, water cannon, etc. instead of sending
>people in with live ammunition.
Rubber bullets, water cannons and the rest had been tried. The trouble is
that when you have a group of two or three soldiers being surrounded by
a bunch of screaming demonstrators, as a last resort you fire.

>> Watts.....McDonald's...Nixon... etc.

>I think we're already established that the U.S. has problems of it's own.
>The point is that the things mentioned are condemned by either a majority
>    or a substantial part of the U.S. population.  Not so with Israel.
Oh gimme a break! We're headline news because one Arab gets killed, yet
the Indians "liberate" Sri Lanka and kill 300 is not worth more than a passing
note in the evening news!

> 22 Arab countries.....

>The land that the Palestinians have a claim to is not Morocco, etc.  It
>is the land that the Israelis also have a claim to.
Well let me set your mind at rest, they will NOT get Israel. They can lay
a claim to anything they want, and they will remain in hovels which is where
most of the Arab countries want them anyway if they continue that approach.
If we assimilated hundred's of 1000's of Jews of were summarily expelled
from Arab countries with barely their lives, the Arabs could have assimilated
the Palesitinians in Jordan for example which makes up 80% of what the British
called Palestine (East and West Bank)

> Indians....and Israeli settlers confiscating lands in the occupied
> territories

>No one alive has moved into California with the express intent of taking
>land that belongs to someone else.  It's in the interests of both Israel
>and Palestine to have Palestine be economically viable and hence more stable.
>It's not going to be viable if Israel guts the occupied territories of
>    their best land.
Oh yeah? Tell that to the Sioux in the Dakotas, the Cheyenne and all the
rest of the Tribes you swindled and drove away with bogus treaties that
you broke before the ink was dry! "Noone has moved to California..." :^)
nice Karen, real nice.
    
>>    to help.  This is what leads even extreme conservatives like James
>>    Kilpatrick, for example, to start to talk about blocking U.S. aid to
>>    Israel until some concrete progress is made towards peace.  That's an
>>    incredible turnaround in the state of U.S. opinion.
>Is that right? Who the hell is Kilpatrick?

>I take it that you're in Israel, and not an American?  James Kilpatrick is
>a conservative political commentator, well known in America, and formerly
>a staunch supporter of U.S. aid to Israel.
No I'm Israeli though I lived in the US for 5 years and I never heard of
that guy. But then again I was far West of California...

    
                                                                      

Re: .66

>Rubber bullets, water cannons and the rest had been tried. The trouble is
>that when you have a group of two or three soldiers being surrounded by
>a bunch of screaming demonstrators, as a last resort you fire.

    No, the less harmful methods weren't tried until after the uproar
    over the use of live ammunition.

>Oh gimme a break! We're headline news because one Arab gets killed, yet
>the Indians "liberate" Sri Lanka and kill 300 is not worth more than a passing
>note in the evening news!

    Maybe the situation in Sri Lanka didn't get much news time in Israel.  It
    did in the U.S.  And the U.S. isn't supplying a third (a fourth?) of their
    national budget, like it is Israel's, and so we bear less direct
    responsibility for their actions.

>If we assimilated hundred's of 1000's of Jews of were summarily expelled
>from Arab countries with barely their lives, the Arabs could have assimilated
>the Palesitinians in Jordan for example which makes up 80% of what the British
>called Palestine (East and West Bank)

    The U.S. could assimilate all the Israelis now in Israel, too.  That doesn't
    mean that the Israelis should leave land that they have a claim to, any more
    than it means that the Palestinians should.

>>No one alive has moved into California with the express intent of taking
>        ^^^^^
>Oh yeah? Tell that to the Sioux in the Dakotas, the Cheyenne and all the

    and in addition, Amerindians have won several court cases in the past
    few years which have resulted in land or money being returned to them.
    
    

    
    >I have spent time in an Arab country.  I don't feel comfortable
    >with the idea of visiting Israel now, because I would have to do
    >a dishonest number with my passport (Algeria does not issue visas
    >to people who have travelled to South Africa or Israel, and I plan
    >to revisit Algeria several times in the near future).  

    Israel provides for those that want to enter, but don't want their
    passport marked with an Israeli visa.  You can request a form for
    such a visa at customs.  
    
    >I also feel that anything that looks like "tourism" to Israel is in 
    >bad taste in view of the current state of things, as it implies an 
    >endorsement of Israeli policies.
    
    Personally I take this as insulting, but I won't take that any further.
    In your reply you state that you try to get both sides of the issue, 
    how can you do this with such a prejudiced attitude?
  
    >Eban is in favor of negotiation, is he not?
    
    Yes he is, but not negotiating the status of Haifa.

    David
    
    P.S.: you're right, it was .59 that employed four-letter words,
    	  sorry.

    Re: .68
    
    > prejudiced because I don't endorse current Israeli policies.
    
    I oppose current Israeli government policies just as I oppose real
    terrorism on the part of the Palestinians.  I support Eban, etc.,
    just as I support Said and Awad.
    
    > twiddling visas
    
    I do know about this, but it would still involve lying to the Algerian
    government.
    
    Re: .what -- 66? 67? anyway, GREG
    
    What future do you envision for Israel and the Palestinians?  I
    would like to know what you think Israeli society will be like in
    ten or twenty years, given that, no matter what happens, the
    Palestinians are not going to go away.
    

< Note 406.66 by MOSSAD::GREG "My god, it's full of stars..." >
                                     -<   >-

>Oh gimme a break! We're headline news because one Arab gets killed, yet
>the Indians "liberate" Sri Lanka and kill 300 is not worth more than a passing
>note in the evening news!

I don't want to drag this note down a rathole, BUT...

1. India went in WITH the 'permission' of the govt. of SriLanka
2. People killed there are people supported by the Indians but who
  refused to accept the Indo-SriLankan accord
3. The 300 or so killed (actually more!!) were formerly being killed with
  the help of Israel(Shin Bet)/UK(KMS).
4. They were not stone throwing teenagers faced by soldiers; they were
   proven hardcore, well trained guerrillas.
5. And it got more than a passing mention...

Ofcourse, I agree, Israel's actions are being blown out of proportion...but
just imagine how the world would react if the KGB used tear gas when
one of its agents "was surrounded by a emotional mob" of refuseniks in Moscow.
I understand this is an exaggeration; but these are issues where a lot of
emotion and bitterness and anger and distrust are involved.....


-parthi
PS: I bitterly oppose the Indian actions in SriLanka. But I don't agree with
    the comparison.

>Rubber bullets, water cannons and the rest had been tried. The trouble is
>that when you have a group of two or three soldiers being surrounded by
>a bunch of screaming demonstrators, as a last resort you fire.
>    No, the less harmful methods weren't tried until after the uproar
>    over the use of live ammunition.
These methods have and continue to be used. Again, if it were a concerted
effort to kill, beleive me the casualty figures would be a lot higher. 
I'm sure you can't really beleive that it was a deliberate act! The trouble
is that the Army is ill suited for that type of task. Border police and
special riot control people are trained in this type of thing. The Army
is not. 

>    Maybe the situation in Sri Lanka didn't get much news time in Israel.  It
>    did in the U.S.  And the U.S. isn't supplying a third (a fourth?) of their
>    national budget, like it is Israel's, and so we bear less direct
>    responsibility for their actions.
OK, you disin't like that example. How about this one: Mecca. Inocent Iranian
pilgrims wanting to pray at Mecca were butchered by by Saudi police, 400
killed? Who cared? So much for water cannos and rubber bullets.

>   The U.S. could assimilate all the Israelis now in Israel, too.  That doesn't
>   mean that the Israelis should leave land that they have a claim to, any more
>   than it means that the Palestinians should.
One thing you may not have understood yet, is that Israel is the home for
Jewish people. The Palestinians have Jordan, which comprises nearly 80%
of what was known to be Palestine. Some form of federation with them is
the only possible solution, which would make it both economically viable
as well as provide the Palestinians with enough land thereby removing them
from the overcrowding of Gaza. BTW how come during 19 years of Jordanian
rule in the WB (which they annexed illegally I might add) nothing was heard
of Palestinian aspirations on the WB? How come nothing was heard from them
in Gaza?
>    > twiddling visas
    
>    I do know about this, but it would still involve lying to the Algerian
>    government.
Very noble. However you forget to mention that the fact that Israel allows
you to visit Algeria by NOT stamping your passport, whilst the people you
do not want to lie to do not!
    
    
>    What future do you envision for Israel and the Palestinians?  I
>    would like to know what you think Israeli society will be like in
>    ten or twenty years, given that, no matter what happens, the
>    Palestinians are not going to go away.
I beleive that the only solution is a federation with Jordan. There is just
no room between Jordan and Israel to create yet another state. The distance
between Jerusalem and the sea is under 60Kms. If the overwhelming majority
of the people living in Jordan are Palestinians why can't they join the
majority? Dreams of reconquering Jaffa and Haifa, listening to 10 year olds
say they are going back to their grandfather's place, is like me saying
I will reconquer Lithuania (anyone bother to mention that to the Russians--used
to be an independant country...) to live in my ancestor's house, which I
have never seen.
I will have you know, that many countries suffered through war and occupation.
The French for example were occupied by the Germans, yet they didn't abandon
their land and flee to Spain. And if the law were applied to let the
Palestinians return (only those living in Palestine before 1947) we must
also displace the rest of the world to let Rumanians, Lithuanians, Poles
return to a place of origin that hasn't been theirs since their fathers
or grandfathers left.

Re:
PLDVAX::PKANDAPPAN

1. India went in WITH the 'permission' of the govt. of SriLanka
Rubbish! The Indian Govt. threatened armed intervention until a face saving
solution was found whereby they "asked" for assistance.

2. People killed there are people supported by the Indians but who
   refused to accept the Indo-SriLankan accord
So by refusing the accord it was OK to kill them? :^)

3. The 300 or so killed (actually more!!) were formerly being killed with
  the help of Israel(Shin Bet)/UK(KMS).
Firstly the Shin Bet is our INTERNAL security forces, I doubt very much they
were involved. But whoever was, it was as you say in point 1, as advisors
at the behest of the Sri Lankan government.

4. They were not stone throwing teenagers faced by soldiers; they were
   proven hardcore, well trained guerrillas.
It was therefore most unfortunate that most of the killed were civilians
right? The rape cases were just an assault with a friendly weapon right.
Looting was unheard of correct?

< Note 406.71 by MOSSAD::GREG "My god, it's full of stars..." >

Greg
	I disagree with almost all your statements and do believe that you
know little about the situation in SriLanka; in fact, I have been fighting
with my friends in INDIA notes but on policy issues. Ofcourse, you can accuse
me of knowing next to nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian issue..BUT, as
you pointed out, when even the USA 1. criticises Israel 2. abstains from
veteoing a resolution in the UN, then there is SOMETHING wrong with the
situation.
	I DO KNOW that Shin Bet is the INTERNAL security services; but it was
precisely because of their experience in controlling a hostile local
population that they have been used in SriLanka - as "security advisers".
	Finally, I feel that this is going fast down a rathole; therefore,
I shall desist from rambling anymore about this in here. I'd appreciate if
you could send me VAXMAIL and illuminate my mind as to the Israeli/Jewish
opinion of the situation as well as the solution that Israelis envision
for this festering problem.

Regards
-parthi
PS: I don't believe in Israeli-bashing; but I don't believe that all that they
    do are justified either. As a prominent American Jewish leader said on
    a Sunday talk show, "we lose credibility if we attack only persons critical
    of Israel and not criticise certain actions of Israel ourselves...I view with
    pride the fact that Israel is being held to a higher standard than its
    neighbours; that speaks for itself!"...or something to that effect.

    
    >> twiddling visas
    
    >I do know about this, but it would still involve lying to the Algerian
    >government.
    
    What is the hell is so holy about Algeria?  Why can't you "soil yourself"
    with dealing with the Jewish state?  Israel gives you more than ample
    opportunity to criticize it even from within it's borders, try that in
    Algeria or Syria and see where that would get you.

    David   

       re .73:
       
       Your point is well taken.  Ms Kolling's implicit support for the
       policies of the Algerian government, which include the type of
       authoritarian control over entry visas that are typical of eastern
       bloc countries, make her claims of impartiality lamentably weak.
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.: I didn't mean to impugn the eastern bloc countries -- unlike
       Algeria, none of the Warsaw Pact nations (to the best of my
       knowledge) ask a visa applicant to specify his/her religion. 

    I ran into someone overseas who was very surprised to discover that
    my American passport does NOT give my religion!  He would have been
    a good deal more shocked to find out that I am an American Jew as
    well, but I didn't see giving out unnecessary information that could
    land me in trouble - I was a long ways from home!  We forget how
    lucky we are to live in a time and place where we are not aggressively
    persecuted for religious regions, and where we can safely complain
    about government-sponsored Christian religious activities and such.
    
    But back to the original subject!
    
    I don't think we, or anyone else, for that matter, are going to
    be able to resolve the Palestinian issue here.  That is what makes
    it such a tragedy.  I, too, wish that they would all move to Jordan,
    or to Lebanon (which used to be a beautiful country, not all that
    long ago - I lived across the street from a Lebanese Christian family
    when I was growing up -- they owned land in Beirut!  Probably a
    cratered wasteland now.).  It isn't going to happen, though.  Those
    people feel they have as much of a historical claim on Judea and
    Samaria as our people do, and can point to a long history.  I tend
    to support Israel, even when I think they over-react, because the
    Palestinians do have other places they can go, even if they don;t
    want to settle in those places.  A good percentage of the Jewish
    population in Israel immigrated there because they had nowhere else
    they could safely go, leaving behind Iran, iraq, the USSR, Yemen,
    Ethiopia...  I feel this way even though my own status, if I were
    to try to make aliyah myself and appeal to the Law of Return, is
    somewhat questionable for proving my ancestry - which irritates
    me a good deal when I think about it, since I know for sure that
    the nazis, if I had happened to be born a generation ago, would
    not have questioned my "Jewish legitimacy" for a minute.  That's
    a separate issue, my own personal heartache.  For the generation
    that did go through that horror, and their children who are my
    contemporaries (my parents were both born in the US), Israel is
    a necessity - the one place where that horror will not happen again.
    
    One of the people I work with is a Palestinian, born in East Jerusalem,
    in fact.  He has strong ties to the country his family fled, too,
    even if I don't feel that they could be as strong as the ties that
    bind the Jewish people to the land.  Like I said, it is a tough
    issue, and I don't think it will be solved in our generation, by
    anyone.  I wish it would, but I'm not expecting it.  Sigh.

    Re: .71
    
    What I understand is that _both_ Palestinians and Israelis have
    a claim to the land, and that your hope that the Palestinians now
    living in the occupied territories will vanish quietly off into
    Jordan is not going to happen, as recent events have shown.  The
    Palestinian feeling for the land is just as deep and valid as the
    Israeli.  It's a totally different thing from the tenuous links
    of ancestory that you compare it to.
    
    I'm not sure what Mecca has to do with this;  both sides there were
    engaged in fairly vicious behaviour, as far as I have heard.
    

    Re: .73
    
    I didn't use the phrase "soil myself" in connection with dealing
    with Israel.  What I was trying to say is that I feel that visiting
    Israel in what looks like "tourist mode" carries with it the
    implication of approval of Israeli government policies towards the
    Palestinians.  Since I strongly disapprove of these policies, obviously
    I'm not going to do that.
    

    Re: .74
    
    How many replies will I be entering today....  The Algerian government
    is not currently engaged in anything at all like the situation in
    Israel/Palestine.  There are no mass injustices being inflicted
    on segments of the population.  So I feel no difficulty in visiting
    Algeria.  I don't know why Algeria requests that ones religion be
    stated on visa applications, but leaving it out doesn't stop you
    from getting a visa.
    

    re: -1
    
    The phrase "soil yourself" was my own because that's the impression
    you left with me.
    
    Your analogy of being a tourist in Israel with condoning government
    policy towards the Palestinians seems ludicrous at best.  I suppose
    if you follow this line of reasoning than all Jews, and all Christian
    pilgrims, and anybody else who visits Israel is anti-Palestinian.
    I think that this points out the whole weakness of your argument
    in this note.  
    
    You see aggression and negative intent in any act in connection to Israel.
    If being a tourist in Israel condones a government policy, then
    what does that make Israelis resident in the country, or G-d forbid
    those that immigrate to Israel?  They must be out and out racists,
    right?  This includes your friend Abba Eban, if you want to get
    picky.
    
    I think what is behind your thinking is the belief in the Arab side
    of the equation.  No matter with what logic that we've tried to
    counter with, you come to the conclusion that we're wrong and the
    "ideal" as expressed by the PLO, etc. has to be the gospel truth.
    
    David  

    Re: .79
    
    I do think that tourism is out of place, as I have said.  One of
    the first ways U.S. citizens had of protesting against the South
    African treatment of blacks was the cessation of tourism to that
    country.  It feels like the same situation to me.
    
    Of course, I know that numerous people in Israel object to the current
    government stand.  I don't see how it follows that knowing that one's
    government is in the wrong rquires one to leave the country instead of
    staying there and trying to change the policy.  
    
    I don't believe everything that the Palestinian side says.  I think
    some people in this discussion don't believe anything they say.
    Therein is the crux of the problem.
    

    
    >I do think that tourism is out of place, as I have said.  One of
    >the first ways U.S. citizens had of protesting against the South
    >African treatment of blacks was the cessation of tourism to that
    >country.  It feels like the same situation to me.
    
    Again I am going to have to object to the linkage between South Africa
    and Israel.  Despite what you might believe, the two don't have 
    anything in common.

    >Of course, I know that numerous people in Israel object to the current
    >government stand.  I don't see how it follows that knowing that one's
    >government is in the wrong rquires one to leave the country instead of
    >staying there and trying to change the policy.  
    
    Huh??  Who said anything about leaving the country?  I was talking about
    entering it for whatever purpose.

    >I don't believe everything that the Palestinian side says.  I think
    >some people in this discussion don't believe anything they say.
    >Therein is the crux of the problem.
    
    Did you ever think that some people have first-hand knowledge of the
    Palestinian side?  That may influence their thinking vis-a-vis belief.

    David

     Israelis are not totally right or wrong,
     Palestinians are not totally right or wrong.

     So, lets get down and find out why the innocent are the ones that
     get picked on and not the true guilty.


     Why does a lady hanging her families clothes have to lose her life?

     Why does a boy studying in his room have to lose his life?

     Why do religous people going to pray in a Jerusalem mosque(mazjad) have
     to lose their lives?


     Why are armies needed to hurt childhren that are just trying to say leave
     US BEE and stop killing our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers.

     You want the hard core trouble makers that are making you look like 
     murders and terrorists(yes that's the definition of whats going on) then
     go after the guilty and leave the poor innocent alone.

     
     Some young men losing there childhren or parent(s) or land, have no place
     to go and no one to turn to, so with out rage they become upset and commit
     violent crimes to show the world that they also have been hurt.
     
     The ones you call terrorist are looking for revenge for what you
     (Israel government) has done to their BROTHERS and SISTERS, MOTHERS and 
     FATHERS.

FWIW:
     Building a PRISON on land that was stolen from a family would yes, cause
     out rage and therefore create a terrorist whom you fear most.

        Can you guess who?         (refer: TIME magazine about 2/12 years ago)

     Please, just leave them alone.
     
     There has got to be answer to end this NIGHT_MARE.



Sultan

    re: 80
    
    No.
    
    The crux of the problem is that the Arab nation want to liquidate
    the state of Israel.  And, not being suicidal, the Israelis do not
    want to see this occur.
    
    The Arab nation has time and again suffered defeats, on battlefields
    during wars, and in the streets during demonstrations, riots and
    attempts at insurrection.  Nonetheless, they come back time and
    again.  The Israelis know that they cannot survive a single defeat.
    They must win every conflect or the state will be destroyed and
    its people will be at the mercy of the conqerors.  As a result,
    Israeli response has been harsh and will undoubtedly get harsher.
    Defeats are luxuries that the Israelis cannot afford.
    
    You say that both the Israelis and the Palestinians say things that
    can and cannot be believed.  What is it that you find believable
    in Israeli statements?  What is it you find unbelievable in Palestinian
    statements.
    
    re: 82
    
    You say something similar, "Israelis are not totally right or wrong.
    Palestinians are not totally right or wrong."
    
    What do you find right about Isralie statements?  What do you find
    wrong about the Palistinian statements?
    
    Herb

    Re: .83
    
    You asked what I find believable about Israeli statements and what
    I find unbelievable about Palestinian statements:
    
    I do believe that many Israelis fear that any compromise on their
    part will lead to the destruction of the Jewish state.  I think
    they are wrong, but I do believe that they believe that.
    
    I am sure that there are Palestinians who hate Israelis as much
    as the fellow in the parallel note here (his name escapes me) hates
    Palestinians.  Happily, however, none of the few that I know personally
    do.
    

    re:.83
    
    Congratulations, Herb, for achieving what Nasser et al failed at
    for years, achieving Arab unity!
    
    The "Arab nation"  They wish! 
    
    The various Arab factions are as divided as the Jewish ones, if
    not more so, and that's pretty divided.  The single most populous
    Arab country, Egypt, has made peace with Israel.  Lebanon is at
    war with itself; Syria and Jordan don't like each other, Iraq is
    as loony as Syria but they hate each other; Libya sets a record
    for looniness but only Iraq, Syria and South Yemen take it seriously;
    Tunisia, Norty Yemen and Morocco are pretty passive, Sudan is not
    seriously hostile, etc.
    
    Now which monolithic Arab nation do the Palestinians belong in?

Re .83
	I understand your statement that "Israel cannot survive a single
defeat". Now, let me ask you a question.
	Is that premise "I will ensure my survival by always being ready
to win" a sane approach? After all, nature dictates that there is always
a first time - and inspite of its strength, Israel could lose it militarily;
the first days of the Yom Kippur war may (or may not) be a sign.
	Isn't it imperative that you try and reduce the causes of the war?
Though the Arab 'nation' may not give up, isn't the main reason for the
tension the absence of a solution to the Palestinian problem? Can Israel
afford not to find a amiacable settlement? People like Ariel 'Arik' Sharon
and Yitzak Rabin may declare that Israel will not give a mm (on a lighter
note I was delighted by the change from the archaic 'inch' to the ISO mm!),
but I find the approach of Shimon Peres much more sane, pragmatic and
hopeful.
	Finally, I am reminded of two things:
	One is that of David and Goliath.
	The second is a saying in my language "If the elephant has its
	times, the cat has its own times too"
	Just wondering who is the cat/David and who is the elephant/Goliath?

-parthi

    re:84
    You still have not answered my question.  You said in .80, "I don't
    believe everything that the Palestinian side says." What, specifically,
    do you not believe.  You have no right to assume that I hate
    Palestinians. They have suffered greatly, but unfortunately have
    not yet come to realize who their real enemy is..
    
    re:85
    
    When it comes to the destruction of Israel, there is an Arab nation.
    I would be happy to see some evidence in contradiction.
    
    re:86
    
    You talk about a sane approach on the part of Israel and you seem
    to feel that "I will ensure my survival by alsways being ready to
    win" as something less than sane.  Do you suggest that it is more
    balanced to follow a policy of not being ready to win.  Yes, the
    first days of the Yom Kippur war can be taken as a warning..  What
    would have been the consequence for Israel if the Egyptian army
    was allowed to continue its advance?
    
    I liked your analysis of the problem in 422.4, but I didn't see
    any solution in it.  Did I miss something?
    
    Herb

    Re: .87
    
    I didn't mean you hate Palestinians -- I said "the guy in the parallel
    note" -- the one about the "fifth column" -- our friend with no shift
    key,  who thinks every Palestinian in the world is a crazed manic, as
    far as I can tell.
         
    To make my previous answer clearer:  it seems very likely to me
    that there are Palestinians who have the same feelings towards Israelis
    as the fifth column guy has towards Palestinians.  I would take
    everything they say with a pound of salt, like I take his comments.
    It might be true, it might not be true.  
    

< Note 406.87 by DELNI::GOLDBERG >
                           -< A series of responses >-

>    re:86
>    You talk about a sane approach on the part of Israel and you seem
>    to feel that "I will ensure my survival by alsways being ready to
>    win" as something less than sane.  Do you suggest that it is more
>    balanced to follow a policy of not being ready to win.  Yes, the
I agree am guilty of not making the thoughts clear. It is not the fact that
Israel constantly arms and prepares itself that I, well, dislike; on the 
contrary! It is imperative that Israel be prepared to win any war, given the
realities of the situation; it would be suicidal not to do so. 
The thrust of my argument is that that policy of reliance on military superiority
alone is illusory, if not insane. I hope this never happens, BUT, what if you
(I mean Israel) slip up just once and, say, the Arab 'nation' defeats you; and
history is full of episodes of mighty regimes falling to supposedly inferior
foes. So all I am saying is that searching for peace is neither a luxury nor
a pasttime for Israel; it is rather imperative for the very existance and the
prosperous development of Israel.
Also, as the 'victor' and the nation that holds the upper-hand, the onus for this
search falls on Israel. It may be unfair to ask Israel to bear the burden of this
search, but that is the hallmark of a democratic, civilised nation - and that is
one reason I admire Shimon Peres. I only wish he would tone down his rhetoric
a little!

>    first days of the Yom Kippur war can be taken as a warning..  What
>    would have been the consequence for Israel if the Egyptian army
>    was allowed to continue its advance?
You made my point. But to change your phrase a little "what would have been the
consequence for Israel if the Egyptian army was able to continue its advance,
overwhelming Israeli defences"? With the peace accord, you can now breathe a 
little easier.
    
>    I liked your analysis of the problem in 422.4, but I didn't see
>    any solution in it.  Did I miss something?
Thankyou for the compliment. It would be presumptuous of me to 'declare' a
solution; after all people with far better knowledge, great powers of mind
and high personal stakes have tried their hand at it.
But let me state my personal opinion.
1. The Palestinians must declare their acceptance of the State of Israel
	simultaneously with an Israeli declaration of its recognition of
	the right of the Palestinians to a homeland. 
2. However distasteful it may be, Israel must tacitly deal with the PLO;
	maybe through PLO sympathisers, acceptable to both the PLO and Israel.
3. Israel must concede territory not granted (change the word granted if you
	dislike the connatation!) to it by the UN resolutions; these
	territories may be setup as autonomous regions during a transitory
	period.
4. Mr.Hussein must be 'persuaded' by all concerned that he has to yield
	some influence to the representatives of the Palestinians in a
	confederate state; maybe some form of British monarchy would be suitable.
5. An international team would conduct a plebiscite in the areas conceded by
	Israel and in Jordan for the form of govt the people would like.
	A security council sponsored international military force would
	ensure the integration of the two regions - areas conceded by Israel
	and Jordan. it will also have to force compliance by Jordanian
	authorities and the PLO, PFLP, .......to the terms of the accord; by
	force if necessary!
6. Finally, a guarantee by both the superpowers to the security and sovereignity
	of both Israel and the new 'trans-Jordan'!!

Maybe it is all a pipe dream; but then dreams are for free.....

-parthi

    Parthi, it isn't clear to me from your note how many countries you
    are envisioning as an end result: (Israel, TransJordan) or
    (Israel, Palestine, Jordan)?  The suggestion of set #1 seems to
    be a real stumbling block as far as the Palestinians are concerned.
    
    I haven't forgotten the request about Jerusalem;  I haven't had
    a chance to dig back into Heller's book yet.
    
    Let me ask a question about territory:  The formation of the West
    Bank and Gaza into Palestine seems to have appeal because of the
    current distribution of population.  It has the obvious disadvantages
    of a divided Palestine, and the security problems that the resultant
    border would cause Israel.  Is there an alternative division of
    territory that would avoid the disadvantages and also result in
    a viable Palestine (sufficient workable land, etc.)?
    

   re -1:

  Forget it!  The West Bank and Gaza as an independent country is a 
  joke.  Have you ever been there?   Forgetting for a moment any 
  social, political, and security issues, it has zero chance of 
  success as any sort of a viable economic entity, no matter how many 
  outside dollars are poured into it.  

>  Forget it!  The West Bank and Gaza as an independent country is a 
>  joke.  Have you ever been there?   Forgetting for a moment any 
>  social, political, and security issues, it has zero chance of 
>  success as any sort of a viable economic entity, no matter how many 

I agree; particularly from my knowledge of such an attempt to create two
regions of Pakisthan separated by a hostile nation - India.
Consider that such a country is established; it would still be unfriendly to 
Israel (one can't expect them to become buddies overnight). So to go from
WB-Palestine to Gaza-Palestine, one has to go around Jordan, Syria, Mediterranean
-- forget it. 

Can anyone tell me where I can read about the original UN resolutions
creating Israel (and supposedly a Palestine)?

-parthi

    Re: .91/.92
    
    I do realize the difficulties of the geographical separation, that's
    why I brought up the question of an alternative partition.  (I'm
    still waiting for suggestions....)
    
    As for the economic situation:
    Isn't that up to the Palestinians who live there to decide?  It
    doesn't seem right to say to a people "You can't have self-determination
    because we're sure your country won't be viable economically?"
    I mean, it's their right to decide this, not someone else's.
    There is an exhaustive analysis of the economic viability of West
    Bank/Gaza in Heller's book.  If the U.S can prop up Israel with
    millions, I don't see why it can't effectively spend money there as well.
    In addition, I have read that all of Israel's expenses (up to the last
    few months perhaps) in occupying the territories actually equal
    the amount that it collects from those Palestinians in taxes.  So,
    how would the economic state be different for them?  It would
    presumably even improve, because the Israeli laws that prevent them
    from selling their products on an even footing, and so forth, would
    no longer apply.  In addition, according to NBC, Israel has
    systematically stripped the occupied territories of their educated
    leaders (anyone who advocates Palestinian nationalism, even by
    explicitly non-violent means, is q.e.d. a 'terrorist' by Israeli
    definition, and subject to imprisonment or deportation);  when this
    is no longer possible, the society as a whole will surely be more
    viable.
    

Re: PLDVAX::PKANDAPPAN
>Can anyone tell me where I can read about the original UN resolutions
>creating Israel (and supposedly a Palestine)?
Well the relevant UNOG documents would be what you are looking for. You
may write to the UN in New York (attention publication division) and ask
for the required documents--there may be a small fee.

Re:CIRCUS::KOLLING 
>    As for the economic situation:
>    Isn't that up to the Palestinians who live there to decide?  It
>    doesn't seem right to say to a people "You can't have self-determination
>    because we're sure your country won't be viable economically?"
>    I mean, it's their right to decide this, not someone else's.
Certainly it's their right. And if it doesn't fly, it's then your right
to send your tax money and US Marines to MAKE it work. Next we can push
the Iraqis to give the Kurds independance, Corsica would secede as well
as Brittany, I would definitely push for the Bronx to become independant, as
it's not your right to decide whether the blocks between 110th St. and 225
St. in the Bronx would be viable...

>    There is an exhaustive analysis of the economic viability of West
>    Bank/Gaza in Heller's book.  If the U.S can prop up Israel with
>    millions, I don't see why it can't effectively spend money there as well.
I do beleive that the US gets its money's worth out of "propping" up Israel.
Both strategically as well as Intelligence wise. More concretely a large
part of the propping up is done via LOANS and not grants which are costing
us a pretty penny to repay. And the reason we are in debt to the tune of
several billion US dollars by spending an abnormal amount of our GDP is
our own survival.


>     In addition, I have read that all of Israel's expenses (up to the last
>     few months perhaps) in occupying the territories actually equal
>     the amount that it collects from those Palestinians in taxes.  So,
>     how would the economic state be different for them?  It would
>     presumably even improve, because the Israeli laws that prevent them
>     from selling their products on an even footing, and so forth, would
>     no longer apply.  
I beleive that the majority of West Bank produce is EXPORTED across the
Allenby bridge to Arab countries as well as a sizable ammount of Israeli
produce in non-country of origin boxes so that our cousins in other
neighborhood countries can enjoy citrus and other products without having
to peel away a Jaffa Orange.

>    In addition, according to NBC, Israel has
>    systematically stripped the occupied territories of their educated
>    leaders (anyone who advocates Palestinian nationalism, even by
>    explicitly non-violent means, is q.e.d. a 'terrorist' by Israeli
>    definition, and subject to imprisonment or deportation);  when this
>    is no longer possible, the society as a whole will surely be more
>    viable.
I am in the process of colating a list of impartial reporting from news
medias as reported from Lebanon and Israel, why they have not taken these
people to court is unbeleivable. As soon as I have finished I'll post it
here. But some highlights are:
During 1982 and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon the picture of a baby was
flashed to all newspapers depicting the infant with missing arms and severely
burned. The Israeli Minister of Health E. Shostak asked that this infant
be found and be brought to Israel for treatment. It was found in Southern
Lebanon, it had both it's arms--the stump was part of the milk bottle though
it did have burns. The newspaper retracted it. The New York Times carried
the picture on page 1, the retraction on page 14.
Second example: Film interview by a US camera crew at a cemetery with a
woman claiming her son had been killed by the Israeli invasion. Yet when
you look at the Arabic date on the tomb, the date he died was 1980, TWO
years before the invasion.
And lastly another camera crew filming the remains of Damour "Flattened
during an Israeli bombardment". The were filming an ANCIENT ROMAN ruin!
I have a whole list of others which I will document with dates and sources,
adding up to the following: The pressure of camera and news crews to get
their films in for the 10pm news, their lack of ANY historical knowledge of
the conflict (half of them don't even know their own history) has resulted
in a sensasionalism that borders on insult. But I'll let you judge for yourself
give me another couple of days to get this researched.
 Greg                                  

    A bit more on the press, local this time (Boston)
    
    About a month ago, the Boston Globe ran an article on page 1 under
    a three-column headline reading something like "EGYPT GARDENS THE
    DESERT". This was certainly important news and deserved page 1
    treatment. The story concerned an experiment in Egypt that has grown
    to a project and which promises an agricultural revolution in that
    country so great, that within several decades, Egypt might be able
    to feed itself.  They are farming the desert! (instead of arming
    it.)  Anyway, it appears that with contined efort, Egypt will become
    self sufficient and will no long need to import food.  Great promise
    and cerainly something to celebrate.
    
    The story ran to an inside page of the paper and the interview with
    the agronomist continued.  All in all, very heartening.  But what
    have we here, alongside this article runs another one.  This one
    consists of an extended interview with the Israeli agronomist who
    is working with the Egyptian agronomist in developing and maintaining
    the project.  So, one must ask, why didn't the Globe run the real
    story and headline it on page 1 under a banner that might have read
    something like "EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI COOPERATION CAUSES DESERT TO BLOOM"?
    What did they make two stories out of one?
    
    I can think of two possible reasons:
    
    1. The Egyptians told the reporter to play down the Israeli aspect.
    2. The editors at the Globe figured that they could get more newspapers
    throughout the world to pick up and run the article if it were "clean"
    of the Israeli involvement.
    
    Nasty, what?
    
    But there is something even more unsatisfactory, something bothersome
    about the whole business, a question that the reporter did not ask.
     And that question is:  "How many Egyptian troops are protecting
    the project?"  Because don't you have the feeling that there are
    groups in Egypt that would like nothing more than descending on
    this project with guns, kerosene, and truckloads of salt if they
    knew that the Israelis were involved? Wouldn't it have been interesting
    to learn to what degree the Egyptian government felt that the hope
    represented in this project was endangered?
    
    Wouldn't it have been magnificent to have learned that there were
    no troops protecting it?
    
    We don't speak of amity, but there is much to be gained by a
    non-beligerent attitude vis-a-vis Israel.

    re:.94
    
    I'm sorry, Greg.  You have conclusively proven that they're merely
    having a nice little sunday school picnic over there, and the press
    is confusing tackle football (American sport) with real hostility.
    Damn press liars...
    
    And btw, the Bronx doesn't want to secede.  Economic
    self-determination, maybe, but definitely not complete secession.
    Since they don't want to lose Yankee Stadium.

    WOW - just a few busy days and I missed about 90 replies!

    I don't even intend to try answer all of it, but just some
    general remarks of my own:

    * The historic research (who was here first?) does not seem
      to be relevant. The Indians were there before the white men.
      There is a story I heard about 2 farmers arguing about a
      piece of ground:

       A: How do you know you have the rights to this land?
       B: I received it from my father!
       A: And why did HE have the rights on it?
       B: He received it from HIS father!
       A: And how did HE got it?
       B: He faught for it!
       A: Then I'm going to fight for it with you!

      For more information, refer to Rash"i's interpretation of the
      very beginning of the bible.

    * Talking about "Israel" and the "Palestinians" reaching some
      agreement in general is very abstract, because each side is
      MADE OF large scale of political opinions internally. It's very
      difficult for me to imagine the extreme Isrealis and/or the
      extreme P(h)alestinians give up ANYthing in any discussion.
      Part of the reasons for it may be religious (hope this is not
      going to be hidden or something...) - as there is no compromise
      in religion.

    I don't really want to express any specific opinion. I don't have
    a solution of my own, just hope it will be somehow solved.

Press-baiting and press-bashing is a common practice, it seems; the
Arabs slander that the US press is "controlled by the Jews"; the Israelis
retort that the US press is "shamelessly pro-terrorist"; the Right accuses
the US press of being "pinko-liberal" and the Left accuses the US press of
"sucking up to the colonialists". 

Inspite of all that has been said here about the mistakes of the press,
the essence of the story remains the same. 

I did not read the story about the "blooming desert", but could it not have been
an article written in the context of the famine sweeping Africa and the fears
being expressed that the Nile may one day dry up. So it could possibly have
been a agro-story. And the fact that they "mentioned" the Israeli agronomist
tells me that there was no deliberate effort to totally hide the Israeli
connection.
From your perspective it may be important to play up the Israeli "connection";
but then there are other perspectives too.

I am not prone to "jumping" on Israel; but pardon me, in the last few months
the image we get is not one of Arab/Palestinian belligerancy but that of
Israeli belligerancy. When Sharon takes up an apt in the heart of Arab
towns, when Rabin says "if they continue the violence, their suffering
will continue" (if the violence subsides, what does he have to offer them?),
when Yitzak Shamir refuses to meet with an UN representative (if he disagreed
with the UN vote, he should have met the man and conveyed Israeli feelings),
when the UN rep is prevented from visiting the camps (it may have been useless,
because the Palestinians anyway prevented him from entereing another ccamp!)
- we are left with the feeling that Israel is being bellicose. And sadly,
I think the Boston Globe ed-page cartoon today symbolised the feelings of many
about the Israeli stance of negotiation.

The  more I see all this, the more I like Shimon Peres; has he not been
sticking his neck out for negotiations? That is the mark of a statesman!

-parthi

    Re: U.N. documents
    
    I suspect you will find them in the following book, which presumably
    a local library could get for you via inter-library loan:  "The
    Arab-Israeli Conflict, vol. III, Documents" (John Norton Moore,
    ed., Princeton University Press, 1974).
    
    Re: Egypt/Israeli news story
    
    I remember seeing that story, and wherever it was that I read it, aw
    the Israeli angle got a lot of play.  I don't remember whether I saw
    it in the N.Y. Times or in a local paper however.  While we're
    talking about news coverage by distortion and omission, last night
    I was reading Edward Said's new book on news coverage of the Middle
    East, and he pointed out the incredible inattention in the U.S.
    news media to the revelations ab(Cout the torture of Palestinians
    by Shin Beth in Israeli jails.  (Can someone tell me why sometimes
    the spelling is "Shin Beth" and sometimes "Shin Bet"?)
    
    Re: oranges
    
    Are the folks in Gaza now permitted to export their produce to Europe
    without it being marked something like "product of Israel"?  This
    is a request for information, not a rhetorical question.
                                                          

    re: 98
    
    It seems that I didn't make myself clear about the Globe article.
    The article starting on page 1 made NO mention of the Israeli
    connection. As separate, accompanying article that ran under a 
    separate headline on the inside, did.  It is obvious that a single
    news story was deliberately torn apart, probably because of either
    or both of the reasons I cited earlier.
    
    Incidentally, news articles are not written in a "context", as you
    seem to believe.  They should be devoted to news - what, who, when,
    why and how.  "Context", point of view, or opinion belongs on the
    editorial page or in signed columns.  Opinon masquerading as news
    is an unethical journalistic practice.
    
    So, the major Globe article was, as the Nazis might have put it,
    Judenrein.  Which brings up the subject of Ariel Sharon's new
    apartment. The move was certainly provocative, but that begs the
    larger question:  Why shouldn't a Jew who wants to live in East
    Jerusalem not be able to do so?
    
    Insofar as the Boston Globe cartoon of yesterday is concerned, it
    proves without question, and in public too, that the cartoonist
    is unable to complete a thought.  People are not deproted because
    they are journalists, teachers, etc., but because they are seen
    engaged in fomenting insurrection.  Also, the cartoonist, you will
    have to admit, does not draw very well.
    
    Further, I can't believe that you are serious when you say, "in
    the last few months the image we get is not one of Arab/Palestinian
    belligerency...".
    
    Herb

    Re: .100
    
    >Further, I can't believe that you are serious when you say, "in
    >the last few months the image we get is not one of Arab/Palestinian
    >belligerency...".
    
    He's serious.  Not the least of my fears about this whole situation
    is that U.S. public opinion is going to turn so far against Israel
    as a result of all this, that U.S. support for Israel will go down
    the tubes completely.
    
    >Why shouldn't a Jew who wants to live in East Jerusalem
    
    We aren't talking about "anybody" here, we're talking about a man
    the Palestinians see as the "Butcher of Sabra and Sha etila."  We're
    talking about someone who is throwing oil on a fire.  He certainly
    has a fine eye for an action that will cause as much distress as
    possible,  I'll say that for him, considering how this resonates
    with one of the major sources of trauma for the Palestinians currently,
    the increasing expropriation of their land by the Israeli settlers in
    the West Bank and Gaza.  
    
    >context
    
    I think that what he means by context is "associated pertinent facts",
    as opposed to opinion.  
    

On the Lebanon War some thorough analysis can be found in the following
books:
   Misreporting Lebanon by J. Muravchik, for the Heritage Foundation, Washington
   Media Coverage: The War in Lebanon by F. Gervasi for the Center for
International Security
   The Journalists' War Against Lebanon- Techniques of Distortion,
Disorientation and Disinformation by E. Alexander in Encounter Magazine
Sept. 1982
   The Times Goes to War by M. J LAsky in Encounter Magazine October 1982.

Specific examples of Press distortion and disinformation:

Frank Gervasi American War correspondent stated in "The War of Desperation"
by J. Laffin "ALL major American networks showed Israeli tanks rolling past
the ruins of Tyre, Sidon and Damour-cities which had been heavily damaged
by the PLO-[thus] creating the impression that what viewers were seeing
was the result of Israeli military action..."

The New York Times wrote on 20 June 1982 "the death and starvation wrought
by the Israelis in Lebanon had caused 40,000 killed and made 700,000 homeless.
According to War correspondent Gervasi his figures produced:
Tyre 56 killed and 95 wounded with 20 in hospital (mid-July)
Sidon 265 dead and 1000 wounded of which 300 were not hospitalised
Figures for Ein Hilwe and Rachidiye were given by local Mukhtars at between
1000-1200. At Nabatiye 10 killed and 15 wounded. 
Too many from a humanitarian point of view but nothing like what Western
news media printed, and although later admitting that their figures were
wrong by several orders of magnitude never retracted them officially. One
agency which was especially quick in distributing these inflated figures
which were provided by WAFA (the Palestinian News Agency) was the International
Red Cross, and continued to do so after most News Agencies had dropped them.
It should be noted here that the International Red Cross although recognising
the Red Crescent does not recognise the Israeli Red Cross (Magen David Adom).

From 7-12 June, 1982, Antenne 2 (a French TV channel) showed footage of
a girl whose head was hanging limply, ostensibly dead, being carried in
the arms of an Arab. Shots of the same girl lifting her head were ommitted.
This was repeatedly used as background material until challenged by two
French newspapers Le Monde and Paris Match.

Following the battle of Beaufort, several houses in the vecinity were doused
with white flags. Western journalists continued to film that as "a plea
from Lebanese families not to have their house shelled by the Israelis".
In fact it is a tradition in that region that families hang out white flags
to indicate a girl of marriagable age--in any case the war by that time
had moved way beyond that area.

Newsweek "special report" 21 June
"After the first wave of terror bombing and indiscriminate shelling no one
could count the bodies burried in the rubble of Lebaonon's coastal cities.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees huddled on open beaches and scavenged
for food and water".
It is now accepted, including by Newsweek, that there were never 100,000's
of refugees and noone scavenged for food or water. Yet Newsweek was not
the only paper to report it, nor did they issue a formal retraction.

On indiscriminate fire. Most of the filming was done from the Alexander
or the Commodore Hotel rooftop. To view an artillery bombardment from several
miles out can be viewed as indiscriminate yet hardly objective, as most of
the Palestinian positions were placed amongst civilian appartments.

On reporting the war from the Palestinian side. John Kiffner wrote in The
New York Times "To work here as a journalist is to carry fear with you as
faithfully as your notebook. It is constant knowledge that there is nothing
that you can do to protect yourself and that nothing has ever happened to
an assasin. In this atmosphere a journalist must often weigh when, how,
and sometimes whether to record a story. In the ME facts are always somewhat
elusive. But there is the pervasive belief among the Beirut press corps
that correspondents should be extremely wary...". So much for objective
reporting.

A bit of sensationalism from ABC. Mike McCourt vividly reported on June
28 
"As they [historians] have written about Stalingrad and Berlin they will
write about the siege of Beirut in 1982. Two square miles of West Beirut
are now dust and mortar. The rest of the city, nearly all of it, resembles
some ancient ruin. The Israeli siege has made most of West Beirut into a
ghost town."
A blatant lie if anyone took the trouble to go to the heights behind Beirut,
the majority of the city was intact.

In New Society 10 August 1982, there was a report dealing with "carpet bombing
which continued for 10 days without respite at Ein-el-Hilwe. If that had
indeed been carpet bombing and lasting 10 days the camp would have turned
to dust. It still stands today.

Reagan's Little Girl. As I briefly outlined in my previous note was reported
by UPI as a girl missing both arms due to Israeli actions. The girl turned
out to be a boy, which was located in Southern Lebanon and UPI retracted
the gross error on August 24, as the baby's "stump" was a milk bottle
and that indeed the infant had both arms. The Washington Post ran the picture 
on page 1 and the retraction on page 14. 

US News and World Report August 2, 1982 showed a woman mourning at the
graveside of her son "a victim of the Israeli invasion". To those who could
read Arabic it was the grave of Halad Belaty who died on 29 Ramadan 1400-
that is 10 August 1980; TWO years prior to the invasion.

Destroyed buildings kept being filmed, which had been that way since the
1975 civil war; attributed to indiscriminate Israeli shelling.

On page 152 of The War of Desperation, by J. Laffon, there is an instructive
picture of a Katyusha rocket launcher sitting on top of a Hospital (nope
the Katyusha is NOT an anti aircraft weapon!), as well as ammunition in
Red Crescent packing boxes, RPG's in crates marked Tractor Parts. A lot
of ammunition was stored at UNWRA schools and in underground depos sitting
below appartment buildings.

Bill Moyers appearing on CBS Evening News on 23 August was one of the few
reporters to express his disquiet at the standards of reporting:
"Watching scenes of the Beirut evacuation I was struck by how it is possible
for cameras to magnify a lie. These Palestinian troops left town as if they
had won a great victory. Arafat, they praised as a conquering hero. And
in fact, Arafat had led them to this cul-de-sac where they made their last
stand behing the skirts of women and among the playground of children..."
The Palestinians leaving, fired their rifles in the air in a show of bravado
which was much filmed by TV crews. What was not later reported was the 17
people killed by this show of machismo (what goes up must come down...).

Reader's Digest page 36, "Can we trust the News?" February 1988
"...Internationally the media cover what they have access to, which ammounts
to almost everything in free counties- and democracies come off the worse
for it. Israel's invasion in Lebanon was covered in lavish, gory detail.
The killing by Syria, Israel's foe, of thousands in Hama was not covered.
Israel accomodated the news media, Syria barred them..."

Col. Trevor Dupuy, retired, became interested in the way the war was being
reported. In a long article syndicated in the US entilted "Behind the Lies
in Lebanon" had the following to say on reports concerning the bombing of
West Beirut on 12 August quoted from the War of Desperation pages 164-166

"According to headlines all over the world, on that day the Israeli AF launched
its most intensive and devastating attack on the War in West Beirut. It
was reported that hundreds of buildings were destroyed and nearly 1000 people
killed or wounded.
   On that day I spent about five hours observing this bombardment. During
that time it was apparent from my observation that no more than 150 bombs
probably 200 to 500 kilograms each, were dropped on Beirut. As far as artillery
bombardment was concerned, [from] the many Israeli positions I visited in
and around East Beirut, I saw fewer shell bursts than bomb explosions during
the time I was there.
   It must have been extremely unpleasant for people in West Beirut during
that time, and the refugees I saw streaming through the Galerie Samaan
checkpoint were obviously happy to be out. However, any veteran who has
been under air or artillery attack in "normal" combat situations, this was
relatively modest harassment.
   Therefore I was surprised to learn from a BBC broadcast that night [12
August] that bombardment was so intensive that Pres. Reagan phoned PM Begin
to express "outrage".
   My surprise turned to astonishment when I read in the August 14 issue
of the International Herald Tribune, quoting a PLO communique, that warplanes
dropped 44,000 bombs and that 700 houses collapsed. The article did not
comment on these statistics or prevent any differing assesment. So the reader
could only conclude that the Herald Tribune beleived those figures.
   I later discovered that The Washington Post of 13 August reported, again
without comment, a statement made by PLO representative in New York that
1,600 bombs and rockets were dropped and 42,000 shells fired.
   Let's suppose that I am not a very good observer, that instead of 150
bombs 2,000 were dropped during the 5 hours I was there watching. This means
that 42,000 bombs would have had to have been dropped in the remaining 6
of the 11 hours during which the attack was reported to have taken place.
   That means 7,000 bombs/hour, or more than 100/minute. No Air Force in
the world could drop 42,000 substantial bombs on one target the size of
Beirut in 6 hours, or drop 44,000 bombs-4000/hour or 70/minute-in 11 hours.
   The Israeli AF has fewer than 600 combat aircraft. In a maximum effort
it might be able to commit 300 of these to such a mission, and these could
probably fly 3 combat sorties each during 11 hours. That is a maximum potential
of 900 sorties; if each plane carried 4 bombs on each sortie, that would
be an absolute maximum of 3,600 bombs, less than 1/10 of the number reported
by the Herald Tribune.
   But I stick to my on-the-spot observation that the actual intensity was
probably 1/10 of that theoretical maximum and thus less than 1/100 of the
reported figure.
   As to the Washington Post report, the figure of 1,600 bombs was
theoretically possible, but suggests an intensity at least 4 times greater
than what I saw.
   The reported 42,000 rounds of artillery fire would have required a
bombardment averaging nearly 4,000 shells/hour. On the basis of what I saw
this could not be true.
   How could responsible reporters present such figures without a word of
comment?"

Lastly my wife was in northern Israel at this time ( in the Kiryat Shmoneh
area) and had to convince many a people here in Europe that the BS (there's
no other word for it) they were seeing in the news reels were nothing like
the reality.
I have several more examples but I suppse that if this does not cause certain
people to reasses their "faith" in CBS or whatever nothing will.

Folks
	Everyone knows and understands that news, particularly TV pictures,
have an exaggerating and sometimes distorted view; Vietnam proved that
quite clearly. But for every point of view that you cite as distorted and or
incorrect, there are several other views that are can be cited as slanted
in favour of Israel. As an educated person, I believe that we all have
the capability to sieve through the news - slanted both ways!
	When the Israeli censors release only certain pictures, and CBS
screens it, isn't it an implicit slant in favour of Israel? And ABC showed
a film clip wherein plain clothes Israeli agents fired in the direction of
the news camera. Now, it may have happened (and I believe it did happen)
that Arab youth were stoning the bus that the agents were escorting; you
could cite it as a distorted view since the clip did not show the stone
throwing. But the gist of the message was clear - Arab youths attack Israelis
with stones and molotov cocktails and in return Israeli agents were using live
ammunition.
	What I am trying to say is that press distortions are a fact of life;
but they ttend to balance out. And definittely the US press is about the most
balanced and truthful press one can find in the world.

	About the Globe cartoon, let me say something as neither a Jew nor
a Palestinian, nor an Arab, nor a Moslem, nor an Israeli.... the impression
I get is definitely that Israel is refusing to talk to anyone who will 
question it even slightly. As far as I know, every prominent Palestinian
editor who gains prominence in the West is deported immediately. Consider
Siniora (sp!). He after all advocates only civil disobediencce in an area
that even Israel acknowledges is occupied territory. If you will charge even
folks who call for a non-violent form of protest, what then. Seems to me Israel
is saying that it will talk to Palestinians that it ccan appoint as 'leaders'.
That is like GM chairman Roger Smith saying that he will not talk to UAW union
president Owen Beiber, because Beiber threatened a strike if negotiations
did not achieve success and hence he was inciting the  workers!!

	As for Sharon, I don't deny that any Jew has the right to any
space that he/she can legally rent/buy in any part of Israel. BUT, you 
yourself stated that it was a provocative act. At a time when emotions
are flying high, for a person charged with some connections to the
Shabra/Shatilla masscares to stage such a move is least desirable. And moreover
as a member of the Cabinet, he had a higher responsibility to try and cool
down things. 

As for beligerancy, try and view it from my point of view (remember I said
the 'last few months'):
1. youth and women in an occupied area resort to stone throwing; in
   response, the highly trained and immensely reputed Israeli Army
   uses live ammunition
2. Rabin, instead of trying to first calm things, goes around saying
   "they will not get a mm from us", "the longer they agitate the more
   will be their suffering"
3. Sharon, a man accused by many of complicity in the Shabra/Shatilla
   massacres, makes a provocative move.
4. Shamir dismisses the entire event as just a small unruly incident
   staged by the PLO, when most people - both pro- and anti-Israel
   agree that it is more like a home-brewn uprising.
5. Polls show that a majority of the Israeli population desire more
   'tough' measures - even at the cost of more Palestinian lives.
etc.

I concede that it is unfair to judge Israel in the light of events in
a select time frame; but the apparent dichotomy of the Israeli desire
to be a Jewish state AND a democratic state cannot be ignored.

-parthi
PS; one strange thing has happened due to the current unrest. Instead of
people with less-than-fluent knowledge of English mumbling along on TV
representing the Palestinian views, highly educated persons with a strong
command of the language have been forcefully stating their views. 
Ref: This Week with David Brinkley, ABC - a Prof in Columbia, I think
     Macneill-Lehrer Newshour, PBS - a former editor and now Prof.
     CBS - Palestinian editor Siniora
     CBS - Mohammed Awad advocating civil disobedience

      I'm about to hop off and see if I can do something in terms of
      political action in this country about this situation, which means
      that I won't have time to really participate in this conference any
      more.  I appreciate the time that various folk have put into
      discussing this issue here.

      I understand that there are press distortions in each direction,
      both in terms of the news and "entertainment" programs.  (I was
      grinding my teeth just a week ago over a tv movie that referred to
      Palestinians as "having such different values that they might as
      well be from another planet.")  This doesn't alter the fact that
      real, massive injustices exist.

      Here's my last attempt to make my position clear:

      1.  I understand that a lot of the Israeli government's position
      stems from fear for Israel's security.

      2.  Both people have a claim to the land.  The Palestinians, in
      large measure, now seem to be ready to recognize Israel (Arafat has
      said that he will attend a conference based on mutual simultaneous
      recognition.)  The Israelis do not seem to be willing to do the
      reverse. 

      3.  The current situation for the Palestinians in the occupied
      territories is intolerable:  being treated as though they were less
      than human, and. more importantly, having more and more of the land
      taken by Israeli settlers every year (currently 60% of the West
      Bank, 30% of Gaza).  For them to stop rioting means they accept a
      continued worsening of their condition, with no hope that there will
      ever be any improvement.

      4.  Since the views of the Israeli populace seem to be moving more
      and more to the right, the only hope I see in this situation is for
      the U.S. to try and exert some influence.

      I have tacked up on my refrigerator a picture of one of the
      Palestinians recently deported shaking hands with an Israeli army
      officer.  Let's clone them both, a jillion times.....
    
    
    

    I beleive J.P Sartre once said " If you're not left wing when you're
    20, you don't have a heart. If you're still left wing when you're
    40 you don't have a brain..."
    
    Have a nice hop Ms. Kolling...

.104>    Since the views of the Israeli populace seem to be moving more and
.104>    more to the right, the only hope I see in this situation is for the
.104>    U.S. to try and exert some influence. 

	That's a pretty vain hope!  The current U.S. foreign policy is
    further to the right than Israel's, and the Reagan administration has
    mostly exacerbated the situation in the Mideast.  By undermining
    whatever progress had been made under the Camp David accords and by
    implicitly (I suspect explicitly, too, but I can't prove it) supporting
    the Lebanon adventure, the U.S. has supported those in Israel who
    prefer to use force and violence rather than politics and diplomacy.
    As the Palestinian Covenant (q.v.) makes clear, that is exactly
    the kind of confrontation they want.

        The basic premise here ("views...more and more to the right") is
    flawed, anyway.  Yes, some of Israel's foreign policies (including its
    behavior as an occupying power) are foolish or just plain wrong, but
    internally Israel is still closer to the model of a social democracy
    than most self-proclaimed "socialist" countries. 

    		David

    re:.102,.105
    
    Lest Greg's extremism be unchallenged, I'd just point out that
    Americans do not all consider sources like The Heritage Foundation
    (a reaganaut "think tank" of the far right) to be unbiased arbiters
    of fact.
    
    Nor do we consider his abuse of Sartre to be definitive.  If he
    wants to be a grouchy old reactionary, that's his business, but
    that doesn't make the rest of us old leftists into blithering idiots.
    
    Finding a percentage of inaccuracy in an avalanche of testimony
    does not disprove the entire case.  Impugning witnesses makes a
    nice defence when there are only a few witnesses, but press-bashing
    won't cut it this time.

    RE .0->.107
    
    I have been reading this note for the past month and the one fact
    never brought up is that Israel is no different, in terms of experience
    in riots, than any other nation. What you are seeing on the 7:00
    news is an event that has happened in nearly every society during
    this century.
    
    While many of you may have forgotten what took place 2 decades ago
    in the US let me remind you with a few phrases:
    			Kent State
    			Berkley
    			Watts Riot
    			Miami riot
    			Democrate National Convention
    			Naval War College 
                        March on Selma Alabama
    
    			 [...]
    
    I was at many of the demostrations, and yes people were beaten and
    in some cases KILLED. 
    
    While I do not condon or even wish to just accept what is happening
    there, this country or any other country that is not at war with
    it's neighbors can even begin to understand what it is like.
    
    
    						Mordecai ben Zeef
    

    re -.108
    
    In the list of events that you give, the country that was on the
    wrong side (U.S.) is the same country that is bankrolling the Israeli
    repression. There is no contradiction.
    
    Les

Re .108
	Those are tame incidents by what is going on elsewhere, particularly
countries that have been castigating Israel

India - SriLanka (butchery beyond even my comprehension- ofcourse I am partial!)
Saudi Arabia - the Mecca riots (>400 murdered in one day!)
Syria - the Moslem Brotherhood was crushed at the cost of an entire city
Indonesia - massacre extra-ordinaire

BUT, that's not an excuse, particularly if Israel is to retain the moral
high ground; and the Palestinian plight deserves due consideration.

-parthi
PS: Heritage Foundation - they are beneath contempt!

I think that we(people for peace) should elect Peres in order for

peace talks to begin.  There is to muchbloodshed, at the expense

of the innocent.  Let the humilating of the innocent stop, and let 

the peace talks bring good news to the victims that have suffered.

If elected .eqs.  "PERES"

 then goto to Peace_table

End If


Good_day,
Sultan

    It is the people of Israel who will or will not elect Peres.  And
    if they do, I think that what you can look forward to is:
    
    1. A move toward some territorial compromise that may not be accepted
    by the Knesset.
    2. No Palestinian state.
    3. No negotiation with the PLO.
    
    I think that these three points reflect his basic views.  If you're
    expecting anything else, I think you will be disappointed.
    
    Herb

Re:                            -< Peres -- his views? >-

>    It is the people of Israel who will or will not elect Peres.  And
No one disputes that. And judging by the polls in Israel, seems his 'liberal'
views aren't popular!

>    1. A move toward some territorial compromise that may not be accepted
>    by the Knesset.
Territorial compromise with whom? King Hussien is too scared to accept
anymore Palestinians; he already has enough of a minority status!
President Mubarak remembers President Sadat too well to accept Gaza.
And the Golan Heights have already been annexed to include Syria.

>    2. No Palestinian state.
Suppose there is a coup in Jordan, King Hussien is executed/flees to the USA
and a PLO-sympathetic Palestinian junta takes over. What if this nation
then declares itself Palestine and welcomes the PLO? That would be a 
Palestinian nation and I am not sure Israel will be able to just go in 
and root them out. Would israel then be willing to discuss 'peace' with
this 'nation'?

>    3. No negotiation with the PLO.
I don't subscribe to the theory that something ccan never happen; given the
suitable conditions, anything can happen. Who would have thought that
PM Menachem Begin and President Sadat would sign the peace treaty.
But I agree the chances of direct PLO involvement is remote; unless some
strategic changes take place that weaken Israel's military domination of
the region. Because I believe that the Israeli resolve not to discuss any
form of territorial compromise that would involve yielding territory is
based on its firm belief that none of the neighbours can defeat it 
militarily; if that perception should change due to some hypothetical
reasons, then I am sure that the Israeli posture would change. It is all
a question of "at what price?"!!

>    I think that these three points reflect his basic views.  If you're
>    expecting anything else, I think you will be disappointed.
Anyone who expects peace in the region of Greater Syria/Israel/Palestine
in the foreseeable future will be disappointed.

-parthi

    re: 113
    I was only expressing what I thought were Peres' basic views.  As
    for a PLO takeover in Jordan, that's an interesting idea.  And yes,
    "negotiating with whom" has always been a problem.
    
    What do you mean by a "Greater Syria".  I think that Assad feels
    that it includes Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the territories.  What
    kind of role could such a hypothetical entity play in any attempt
    at peace?

Re: < Note 406.114 by DELNI::GOLDBERG >

>    I was only expressing what I thought were Peres' basic views.  As
The first thing about any negotiations is that one does not concede anything
early in the game; and when the time is right, concede peiccemeall for as
high a bargain as you can strike. In that spirit, given the 'right' deal,
I am sure that Mr. Peres would be willing to concede a lot; I always
have thought of him as one of the most pragmatic leaders of Israel.
    
>    What do you mean by a "Greater Syria".  I think that Assad feels
>    that it includes Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the territories.  What
I was only trying to be flippant; no offence intended. Jews call that area
as Yretz Israel (pardon me if the spelling is wrong!); Palestinian Arabs
call it Palestine; and Syrians (President Hafez al-Assad is the most prominent)
consider it part of Greater Syria. Not a total set; but the intersections are
too many for peace to flourish.

>    kind of role could such a hypothetical entity play in any attempt
>    at peace?
Syria, whether Israel likes it or not, is a powerful country (militarily
- that is what counts there!); powerful enough to keep fomenting trouble.
So its aspirations for the glory of Greater Syria has to be quenched. 
That may be acheived through
	1. economic incentives from the USA
	2. recognition of Syria as a power by Israel (Assad craves that
		symbolic recognition)
	3. COncessions on spheres of influence, primarily in Lebanon
	4. Maybe Israel's concessions along the Golan Heights
	5. And a symbolic part for Syria in any peace plan

The riots seem to have subsided; now is the time for Mr.Peres, Mr.Shamir,
Mr. Rabin and Mr.Netanyahu to deliver on their promises that they will
actively seek a political solution. Other Arabs may be unwilling to come
to the table; but unlike the Palestinians and the Israelis, these ffellows
have litttle to lose. So ignore them for the moment. Talk to people like
Hana Siniora, Mohammed Awad, etc, who are acceptable to the PLO & the 
Palestinians and yet have never taken part in or advocated terrorism
directly.

I keep on dreaming
-parthi

    This is a slightly abridged copy of Arthur Hoppe's column in today's
    San Francisco Chronicle.  Reprinted without permission.

                     Shoot the Rock Throwers

    The sidewalk cafe was crowded.  The Colonel took a seat facing the
    street.  An armored car rumbled by, the only hint of the rock-throwing
    violence that had filled the media.

    "Shoot them," he growled, his eyes squinting.  "Beating's too good for
    them."

    The Young Man across from him shook his head.  "I don't know, uncle,"
    he said.  "If I were one of them, I'd probably be rioting myself."

    The Colonel snorted.  "One of them!  One of those lazy, no-good
    troublemakers?  One of those terrorists?  They aren't worth..."

    He paused as the waiter approached to take their orders for tea.  The
    waiter's eyes scanned first one man and then the other without
    expression.  The Colonel watched him depart.  "He'd like to drive us
    into the sea, wouldn't he?" he said.  "They all would."

    "You can't blame them, uncle," said the Young Man.  "They think of
    this as their land, too."

    "Their land!"  The Colonel's fist crumpled his paper napkin.  "We
    fought and bled for it.  We built these cities.  We turned the
    wastelands into farms.  We performed economic miracles.  It's our
    land, and it always will be our land."

    The Young Man frowned.  "Sure, economic miracles.  And that waiter
    lives in a shack in a ghetto that's as bad as any in the world," he
    said.  "We let him come out to perform menial tasks for us during the
    day, and then we shut him up again at night."

    The Colonel released his napkin.  "He works for us because we pay him
    better than his own people would.  And as to where he lives, he lives
    with his own kind."

    "We treat him like a prisoner," said the Young Man.  "He has to carry
    an identity card and show it to any policeman who stops him.  He..."

    "These people are at war with us!"  The Colonel swept his arm out in
    an all-encompassing gesture.  "They send terrorists across our borders
    to plant bombs in our stores and to murder innocent women and
    children.  And you don't think he should carry an identity card?"

    "But what's happening to our democracy, Uncle?" protested the Young
    Man.  "We're jailing people without trial.  We're shooting kids who
    throw rocks.  What's happening to freedom of the press?"

    "Look," said the Colonel, "This is a struggle for survival.  We
    shouldn't be ashamed of one single thing we've done."

    "If we're not ashamed," said the Young Man, "why are we now stopping
    cameramen from filming the way we deal with rioters?  Don't you see?
    We're turning the whole world against us."

    "Damn the world!" said the Colonel.  "We're fighting for our country
    against a sea of enemies who would..."

    He paused again as the waiter set down the teacups and poured.  They
    were silent until he'd left.  The Young Man looked into his tea as he
    stirred.  "But how long can we hold them off?  Every year, there are
    more of them and every year, they grow more militant.  Eventually,
    we're going to have to share this land with them."

    "Share with the likes of them!" cried the Colonel angrily.  "You're
    mad!  They would overwhelm us by sheer numbers.  No, it's only by
    force and force alone that we whites can hang on to our beloved South
    Africa."
    
    

re: .-1

    I knew it wasn't talking about Israel - EVERYONE is required by 
    law to carry an ID card.

    BTW - I don't know if it made the California press but I read 
    an interesting article in the Herald Tribune last week.  A
    foreign TV crew which set up in one of the potential hot 
    spots was approached by a few kids and asked what they would 
    like to film that particular day.  The menu consisted of stone 
    throwing, tire burning, fire bombs or being beaten up by 
    soldiers.  The press crew told them just to go and do their own 
    thing - and the kids left!

    Re: .106
    
    By "more to the right", I mean the increasing support for the current
    type of activities of the government and its forces.  The belief
    that society consists of two classes of people, one with often many
    of the rights associated with democracies and the other which consists
    of people who are not entitled to human rights and dignities and
    are often not really even believed to be human, is one of the earmarks
    of fascism, i.e. "more to the right". 
    
                         

    Re: .117
    
    Actually, I contemplated editing the id business out, since I believe
    South Africa no longer requires id cards of anyone.  No, the news
    story you mention didn't show up in my newspaper -- what there was
    this morning was a picture of a Palestinian being led into an Israeli
    police station and another picture of his swollen, beaten, and unconscious
    body being taken out on a stretcher later, along with an accompanying
    story about how  Israeli soldiers are now breaking into peoples'
    houses after dark and beating anyone they can find, breaking their
    arms and legs, including elderly women.  For some reason, I guess, the
    newspaper thought this was of more importance than the story you mentioned.

> For some reason, I guess, the
> newspaper thought this was of more importance than the story you mentioned.

That's exactly my point.

    Karen,
    
    I found your little analogy about South Africa and Israel personally
    insulting to me as a Jew.  You're beginning to get to the point
    where you're getting repititive and not adding any more to this
    notesfile than you already have.
    
    Yes, we know all about certain policies of the government and their
    ramifications for Israel.  But now that we've stated it here many
    times what we can do about it here in BAGELS?  The answer is nothing,
    absolutely nothing.
    
    Why didn't you mention the rally that was held in Tel-Aviv on Saturday
    evening?  Imagine that, 30-50,000 demonstrating against the
    government's policies in the territories!  I wonder how many anti-government
    rallies are held in your beloved Algeria?
    
    David     

    
    Karen,
    
    I'd suggest that if you would like to read something that is more 
    analytical, less emotional, and more historical (accurate) about the 
    land of 'Palestine' then you pick up a copy of 'The Palestian
    Triangle' by Nicholas Bethel. He only deals with History, but then it's
    only in History that documents and information become available, and that 
    writing of anything greater than opinion is possible.
 
    Malcolm

    .116 is a fabricated anecdote.  The event described never occured.
    It's an example of shabby propaganda that any respectable journal
    would refuse to run.  A contemptible bit of mischief.

    Actually, I found .116 rather entertaining.  Thanks, Karen.
    
    The fact that it was not an _actual_ conversation (was the young man
    wearing a wire? otherwise of course it wouldn't be) doesn't change the
    fact that to some readers, it rang true.  And yes, it did have me
    fooled (though some of the Colone's statements were out of line.)
    Which scares me, since it's a very unpleasant analogy. 
            fred

    Re: .123
    
    > ".116 is a fabricated anecdote"
    
    It is an opinion column -- clearly not intended to be mistaken for
    an actual event.  The whole point of the column (isn't that obvious?)
    was to show how Israel and South Africa are becoming indistinguishable
    in the world's eyes.
    
    Re: I forget the reply number
    
    I didn't mention the peace march (finally!  a peace demonstration!
     where have these people been?) because it wasn't reported on the
    news here until the next day, after I had written my reply.
    
    Re: repeating myself.
    
    Okay, I'll stop repeating myself as soon as Israel stops doing all
    these heinous things.
    
    Re: U.S. does bad things, you haven't been to Israel, so you have
    no context.
    
    Chew on this scenario:  imagine it's 40 or 50 years ago --
    
    American to German:  What you're doing to the Jews is monstrous;
    you must stop immediately.
    
    German:  Have you been to Germany?  No?  Then you can't possibly
    understand the context.  Besides, the U.S. has a terrible record
    in human rights -- look at slavery and so forth, so you have no right
    to critcize us.  Be quiet and go away.
    
                        

    Re: .121 "What can we do about it?"
    
    A lot of things.  Write letters to politicians and newspapers,
    demonstrate, support peace groups, try and convince people who support
    continued occupation that a peace conference should be held.
                         

    Karen, 
    
    >   I didn't mention the peace march (finally!  a peace demonstration!
    >where have these people been?)
    
    I don't think it helps if you see everything in a negative light.
    The numbers of Israelis who were on that demonstration **and others**
    puts the rest of the world which critises Israel to shame. If only
    other countries populations could be as active in their issues maybe 
    we'd all be living in a better world!
    
    In Israel not only do people speek out, but they do so in vast numbers.
    You may not like all their opinions, but you can know about them because
    there *is* freedom of speech and a free press. Can you ever *know*
    or *hear* the opinions of any of the *people* in the Arab nations?
    
    You appear to assume that Israel is solely responsible for the
    situation that you object to. That is not true. I hope that by reading
    some history your understanding might be improved. 
    
    Did you know that over the past 2 decades the United Nations (member
    states that vote) has regularly censured Israel for rehousing
    Palestinians away from the squalor of the camps and into new houses? 
    Did you also know that also call for rehousing Palestinians from good 
    homes and into the camps! ??
    
    Now, everything is not black and white, but I think you should ask
    yourself why the nations of the world prefer to see things as they
    are (it couldn't have anything to do with interests and oil could
    it?????). 

    Malcolm

    re: .127
    
    I wasn't speaking about the peace marches in a negative light --
    that was relief in my voice.  I saw a sign "Rabin -- how many
    Palestinians have you killed?" and it reminded me of "hey, hey LBJ,
    how many kids have you killed today?"  There was this level of protest
    in the U.S. during Vietnam.
    
    There is not freedom of speech and freedom of the press for the
    Palestinians, unfortunately.  Distribution of newspapers is restricted
    and censored, Palestinian journalists and editors are jailed without
    trial.  Siniora, one of the advocates of non-violence, is the most
    recent that I recall, although I believe that he has since been
    released.  There is a Palestinian newspaper that I would like to
    subscribe to, but Israel forbids its distribution outside of the country.
    
    I am aware of wrongs on both sides of this issue.  The question
    is, what can be done now?  And there, I do believe that Israel
    is solely responsible for the current impasse, because the PLO has
    said it will participate in a peace conference on the basis of
    mutual simultaneous recognition, and Israel refuses
    to do this.  I am not impressed by Israeli government statements
    that Israel will not negotiate with "terrorists", when a goodly
    number of Israeli government figures have engaged in terrorist activity
    in the past against Britian, and the activities of Israeli soldiers
    and the government recently are surely as disrespectful of human
    rights and dignity as any terrorist activity.
                       
    

re: .128

Karen,

I have to take issue with your statement that

>>                                                           the PLO has
>>    said it will participate in a peace conference on the basis of
>>    mutual simultaneous recognition

Although many people have said the same thing, I have yet to see a statement by
Arafat or any authorized spokesman for the PLO to this effect. This is a
position that is always put forth in an indirect manner.  Other people say that
this is the Arafat/PLO position, but every interview with Arafat that I have
seen or read in which he has been asked directly about this, he has either
denied it or refused to answer.  The PLO has had (and still has) many
opportunities to make its position clear, and the only official statements I
have seen do not confirm your assertion. 

In fact, the statements I have read indicate continued support for the PLO
charter--which I find a rather chilling document.

[ It is important to note that there are Arabs--both Israelis and
non-Israelis--who have made it clear that they want real peace.  They have
been talking with Jews--both Israelis and non-Israelis--for some time now
to find a way out of this morass. ]

					Aaron

    Re: .129
    
    I will have to review my videotapes (6-8 hours worth) and other
    material to find this.  There will therefore be a mediumsized
    pause.....
    

re:.128
    where do you get your facts, how can you suggest to equate plo
    terrorism to what jews have done. it is either you are ignorant
    of the facts or there is certain built in slant to your thinking.
    
    if your suggesting that begin or shamir and arafat are one of a
    kind you really don't know what the hell your talking about.
    the the the irgun which begin belonged to never attacked civilain
    targets, never did they go after children in nurseries, or hijack
    planes. in fact if there was a chance of civilians being hurt, a
    warning would always be made public to let everyone know that there
    would be an attack. this was done even when it jeopardized their
    mission.please spare me about the king david hotel, it was, as i'm
    sure you know, the military headquaters of the british in palestine
    at the time, and even then there were warnings by the irgun to the
    some type of action would occur. if you want to bring up as an example
    (the favorite of israeli history revisionists) of der messin, i
    believe that was the name of the village that was attacked by the
    irgun, this also has be put in perspective. i don't have all the
    facts at my disposal right know, but i do have a book that deals
    with the specifics. just to add alittle perpective to the story.
    de messin was an arab village overlooking the main supply linking
    jerusalem to the rest of what was then the jewish part of palestine.
    der messin was used as staging gound for attacking this supply line,
    this was at the time of the 48 war. the irgun surrounded the village
    and used loudspeakers to tell the arab inhabitants to surrender.
    the hundreds that did surender were not harmed that is a fact.
    when the irgun did enter the village they found iraqi soldiers dressed
    in womens clothing who had pretended to surrender. with the ensuing
    confusion and the aftermath of the battle there were indeed many
    arabs killed. this action was condemned by ben gurion and the hagannah.
    
    it's enough of these blanket statements. either put up or .......
    
    on second thought, if you still feel the same so what.
    when you come to a discussion predisposed, to an anti israeli stand
    it really doesn't make any differnce, at least to me, what you think.
    of course i'm sure that there are noters that do want to challenge
    your pt. of view.

If anyone saw the Evening News with Tom Brokow last night the picture 
one got of the current problems in Israel was 180 degrees from the 
usual picture painted by the news media.

First was an interview with the General responsible for the troops in the 
"occupied areas".  He acknowledged that beatings had occurred, stated 
that they were against policy and that soldiers who had committed 
beatings were being court marshaled and that any solider who committed 
beatings would be court marshaled.

The second part of the the coverage was of a demonstration by Arab 
"youths".  I use quotes since some of the demonstrators were 
considerably larger than the adults that were in the video.  The scene 
was at a Coca-Cola bottling plant and involved the restraint (reporters 
words) used by Israeli Border police and private security guards (armed) 
at the plant.  The youths were doing anything within their power to 
provoke the guards.  They used gestures usually only seen at Eddie 
Murphy concerts.  The took cinder blocks and put it through the widow of 
a car and tried to hit one of the guards over the head with a bat, even 
though the guard was armed.  He withdrew without even pointing his gun.  
The border guards came and then left without firing reluctant to provoke 
any additional response (reporters words).  What I saw was a mob of 
uncontrolled youngsters and adults who were looking for a fight and 
doing what they could to provoke one.  If that scene had occurred in the 
US it would have been followed by a call for immediate police action to 
protect life and liberty.  Any US mayor who allowed that kind of mob 
rule would be out of office Immediately.

Where is the truth.  It probably lies somewhere in between the two 
views we now are getting on US TV.  But it clearly shows how distorted 
the news we are getting really is.

    It also shows what a bunch of sheep most people are when
    they view these NEWS programs and change their point of view
    about a people based on what they "saw" and read.

    Honestly, I don't KNOW what it's like to be in Israel.  I've
    never been there.  When I do go, only then can I form an honest
    opinion based on what I experienced.

    This topic is generating some interesting and though provoking
    material, but let's keep it in perspective.  Placed on the West
    Bank front line, and many opinions in this topic might be changed.

Hello,

Good job on getting BAGELS up and running.  End of January is better then
nothing.

..back to this discussion

I feel that the Palestinian people should elect their own people to represent
them in the peace negotiations(soon I hope).  Having someone chosen by
other then the Palestinian people poses a threat to a democracy.

Peacefull demostrations and STRIKES are a good example and are the only solution
to a problem that will not go way and MUST be addressed.  I somtimes wonder 
why a little flag waving in the air would cause someone in the army to inflict 
wounds.  

A little wine, a little truth.

Good day,
-Sultan

	The attached editorial expresses much of what I have wanted
    to say about the current situation but have been unable to formulate
    on my own.  I may not agree with some of the details, but the author
    recognizes that and says so.  On the whole, it is the most constructive
    commentary and proposal I have found.  Also, the author makes some
    points specifically relevant to Passover, so it is particularly
    timely.
    
    	Please read the entire editorial first before you comment; if you 
    stop anywhere before the end you may misinterpret the author's complete
    message.
    
        I will be interested in the reaction of the people who have been at
    both extremes of this argument. Will they dismiss this out of hand?
    Does this create a framework within they can envision a solution? 

    	I hope that this proposal can reach a wide audience and cause
    some real action to occur.
    
    		David

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    

    The Occupation:  Immoral and Stupid 
    
    A Strategy to End It 

    Michael Lerner
    Editor, TIKKUN Magazine
    
	The widespread moral outrage at Israel's policies in Gaza and the
    West Bank--the sense that Israel is violating the basic ethical values
    of Judaism--is coupled with a growing realization that these policies
    are also bad for Israel and bad for the Jewish people.  Granted, some
    of Israel's current critics have been unfair, both in their failure to
    acknowledge the role of Palestinian leaders and Arab states in creating
    the conflict, and in their tendency to judge Israel by standards that
    they rarely apply to the rest of the world.  Nevertheless, from the
    standpoint of Jewish ethics and Jewish survival the occupation is
    unacceptable.  There are plausible solutions to the Palestinian problem
    that must be tried.  But they won't be tried unless American Jews
    unequivocally tell Israel that the occupation cannot continue. This
    message must be conveyed forcefully to Prime Minister Shamir and to the
    Israeli public. 
    
    				* * *

    	The pain and sorrow many American Jews feel about Israel's policies
    on the West Bank and Gaza are rooted deep in our collective memory as a
    people.  Israel's attempt to regain control of the refugee camps by
    denying food to hundreds  of thousands of men, women, and children, by
    raiding homes and dragging out their occupants in the middle of the
    night to stand for hours in the cold, by savagely beating a civilian
    population and breaking its bones--these activities are deplorable to
    any civilized human being.  That they are done by a Jewish state is
    both tragic and inexcusable.  We did not survive the gas chambers and
    crematoria so that we could become the oppressors of Gaza.  The Israeli
    politicians who have led us into this morass are desecrating the legacy
    of Jewish history.  If Jewish tradition has stood for anything, it has
    stood for the principle that justice must triumph over violence.  For
    that reason, we typically have sided with the oppressed and have
    questioned the indiscriminate use of force.  We, who love Israel, who
    remain proud Zionists, are outraged at the betrayal of this sacred
    legacy by small-minded Israeli politicians who feel more comfortable
    with the politics of oppression than with the search for peace. 
                                                                     
    	Any policy that requires the immoral tactics currently being used
    against an unarmed and militarily subjugated population must be
    rejected.  If the activities of the Israeli army since December really
    are necessary, that in itself would be sufficient to discredit the
    occupation.  We do not diminish our loyalty to our own people by
    acknowledging our profound sadness at the suffering of Palestinians.
    Those who have grown up in camps or in exile have experienced
    homelessness in much the same way that Jews have experienced it
    throughout history.  Even if this suffering were the absolutely
    necessary consequence of our self-preservation, we would still be
    deeply upset by the pain that thereby was caused to another group of
    human beings.  We have been too sensitized by our own history of
    oppression not to feel diminished when others are in pain.  That is why
    we dip drops from our wine cups at the Passover seder in memory of the
    pain of our Egyptian slaveholders.  But when pain is largely
    unnecessary, we feel not only sadness but also anger and a deep
    determination to do what we can to stop the suffering. 
        
    	Our outrage is shared by many Israelis.  Over fifty thousand of
    them gathered in Tel Aviv on January 23 in one of the biggest antiwar
    demonstrations in Jewish history to protest Israel's policies. Joined
    by hundreds of thousands of others who would not attend the
    demonstration but who share their outrage, they are asking American
    Jews to speak out.  To be silent, or keep our criticisms safely "in the
    family," would be to betray our Israeli brothers and sisters. 
                         
    	That is why we say in unequivocal terms to the Israeli government:
    Stop the beatings, stop the breaking of bones, stop the late night
    raids on people's homes, stop the use of food as a weapon of war, stop
    pretending that you can respond to an entire people's agony with guns
    and blows and power.  Publicly acknowledge that the Palestinians have
    the same right to national self-determination that we Jews have, and
    negotiate a solution with representatives of the Palestinians! 
    
    	But our anger at Israel's current policies comes not only from
    moral outrage but also from deep concern about Israel's survival and
    the survival of the Jewish people.  From a strictly self-interested
    position, the occupation is stupid.  Here's why: 

    	1)  The longer the occupation exists, the more angry and radical
    young Palestinians will become.  The possibility of negotiating a
    two-state solution will decrease since these young Palestinians will
    come to regard a West Bank state as a "sell-out" of their dreams for a
    fully liberated Palestine.  This attitude is becoming more prevalent,
    but it has not yet achieved dominance.  Yitzhak Rabin's policy of "the
    iron fist" only quickens this radicalization.  In years to come we may
    wish that we had dealt with the PLO before the Palestinians embraced
    some radical form of Islamic fundamentalism that makes it a religious
    sin to live in peace with Israel. 

    	2)  Even those Palestinians who now live within the pre-1967
    borders of Israel are being drawn into the struggle.  Faced with the
    repression of their own people in the occupied territories, they
    participated in the general strike in December.  Some have rioted in
    protest of Israeli military action.  The longer the occupation lasts,
    the more they will be drawn into the struggle--with disastrous
    consequences for Israel.  Unless the occupation is speedily ended,
    Israel may soon resemble Beirut or Northern Ireland. 

    	3)  As the occupation continues, the logic of domination and
    repression of Palestinians will require that Israelis adopt an
    increasingly insensitive view towards those whom they must control.
    Israelis will inevitably be pushed to the political right.  In the past
    few years we have seen the right-wing Tehiyah party and even some
    sectors of Likud advocate Kahane-like ideas.  Today, right-wing members
    of the Labor party such as Yitzhak Rabin act in ways that would have
    made them scream at Ariel Sharon only a few years ago. This move to the
    right is likely to accelerate the already large emigration ("yeridah")
    rate plaguing Israel--only this time those who leave will be going, not
    to find their "fortune" in America, but to escape a political situation
    that they cannot morally justify. Increasingly, it will be the
    scientific, technical, and professional personnel who leave--people
    whose contributions have been essential to the defense technology,
    economic strength, and intellectual creativity of the country. 

    	4)  Because most of the pro-Zionist Jewish leadership in the United
    States has remained quiet, the only voices articulating clear moral
    criticism have been those of Israel's enemies. For the anti-Semites and
    the anti-Zionists these are wonderful times.  Reports already exist of
    campus demonstrations with posters denouncing "Jewish murderers"--and
    many Jewish college students, ashamed of the images of the Jewish state
    being portrayed in the media every day, are willing, for the first
    time, to listen to the anti-Zionist propaganda being disseminated.
    Previously lacking any rational foundations for their attacks on Jews,
    the voices of hate have gained credibility by their association with
    legitimate criticisms of the Jewish state. Israel's current policies
    give credibility to the worst lies about Judaism.  And, in the years
    ahead, the Jewish people may face hard times based not simply on lies
    and distortions of anti-Semites, but on the justified indignation of
    many people who see the Jewish state embodying a viciousness and moral
    callousness that they would find repugnant anywhere. 

    	5)  The occupation threatens to erode the popular base of support
    for Israel in the United States.  As America's economic problems
    intensify in the coming years, people will inevitably question any
    large-scale military and economic aid given to any foreign country.
    Moreover, major American corporations have never been happy with the
    government's tilt toward Israel.  Most corporations understand that
    their long-term economic interests are better served by friendlier
    relations with the various Arab autocracies.  Opportunities for
    investment and trade have been limited by America's alliance with
    Israel.  The United States's policy of military support to Israel is
    one instance in which popular forces, using the democratic mechanisms
    of the electoral process, have countered corporate interests.  Even the
    power of AIPAC is based less on its fund-raising capacities (does
    anyone seriously doubt that Arab oil companies could, if they so chose,
    raise more cash for political candidates than AIPAC?) than on its
    ability to mobilize a political constituency of Israel's supporters.
    Yet many of Israel's supporters would be much less committed if Israel
    were perceived as having repudiated its commitment to democratic values
    and human rights.  If Americans continue to be barraged by images of
    Israelis beating, tear-gassing, shooting, and starving a civilian
    population, they will be much less likely to stand up to the Arab and
    corporate interests that argue for "evenhandedness" in American policy. 

    	Make no mistake about it--what is at stake for Israel is not only
    its Jewish soul but its survival.  Once the perception fades that
    Israel stands for moral values, those of us who want to provide for
    Israel's defense may be unable to convince the United States to supply
    the latest and most sophisticated military hardware, and Israel may be
    unable to keep up with Arab armies supplied not only by the Soviet
    Union but also by Japan and Europe.  As a result, Israel may be
    vulnerable to serious military attack.  There is no more pressing
    Israeli security need than its need to maintain its image as a society
    committed to just values. 

    	6)  The occupation is also a threat to the survival of Judaism and
    the Jewish people in the Diaspora.  The breakdown of authoritarian
    communal structures increasingly makes every Jew a Jew by choice. In
    the past two decades there has been a dramatic revival of interest in
    Judaism from Americans who have found the individualistic and
    competitive values of American society unfulfilling and morally
    vacuous.  They have turned to Judaism because they rightly sense
    Judaism's moral sensitivity and its transcendent vision, which stands
    in sharp opposition to the logic of domination and mean-spiritedness
    that permeates life in most competitive market societies.  The
    occupation may reverse this trend since increasing numbers of Jews will
    begin to dismiss much of Judaism's moral vision as pious moralizing
    that lacks substance.  A Judaism that has lost its moral teeth and
    becomes an apologist for every Israeli policy, no matter what its moral
    content, is a Judaism that not only betrays the prophetic tradition,
    but also risks losing the adherence of the Jewish people. 
    
    				* * *

	Israel is putting its supporters in the agonizing position of
    either rejecting its current policies or rejecting some of the central
    teachings of Judaism.  While Israel's policies in the West Bank and
    Gaza are anathema to Jew and non-Jew alike, to secular as well as
    religious people, they are especially upsetting to those who take
    Judaism seriously as a guide to life.  No rule in the Torah is repeated
    as frequently as those that, in one form or another, warn us not to
    respond to being oppressed by oppressing others.  Using the term *ger*
    ('stranger') to refer to anyone who is part of a relatively powerless
    minority, just as *we* were in Egypt, the Bible commands us over and
    over again:  "When you come into your land, do not oppress the *ger*
    who dwells in your midst."  "One law shall be for you and the *ger*."
    And always the haunting reminder:  "Remember that you were a *ger* in
    the land of Egypt!" 

    	The wisdom of Jewish tradition is deep.  It recognizes the
    temptation to do unto others what was done unto us, to engage in a kind
    of collective repetition compulsion in which we attempt to achieve
    mastery over the traumas of the past by identifying with our oppressors
    and becoming like them.  We can see this dynamic in many people who
    were traumatized as children, and who then as adults seem to replicate,
    in their behavior towards others, much of what was done to them when
    they were young and powerless.  The Torah seems to recognize that this
    same dynamic can affect an entire people, and it insists that freedom
    means breaking out of this pattern by consciously resisting it.  For
    the Children of Israel, political freedom from slavery was only the
    first step.  In order to be entitled to the Land of Israel, they had to
    accept the yoke of moral responsibility not to pass on to the next
    generations the evils of the past.  For that reason, the Children of
    Israel were required to wander in the desert for forty years until the
    generation that was crippled by the mentality of slavery died off.  The
    psychological traumas of oppression cannot be made the basis for
    building a Jewish society.  We must transcend this dynamic:  We must
    not do unto others what was done to us.  God's voice here is
    unequivocal:  There is no right to the Land of Israel if Jews oppress
    the *ger*, the widow, the orphan, or any other group that is powerless. 

    	The Torah insists that both physical and psychological/spiritual
    slavery must and can be broken.  This is the liberatory message of
    Passover.  To the extent that Judaism has kept alive this message of
    hope, it has been a revolutionary vanguard, insisting that the logic of
    the past, the logic of oppression, is not only the only possible
    reality, that there exists a transcendent and liberating Force that we
    must foster.  For this very reason, Jews must reject every effort to
    turn Judaism into a cheering squad for Israeli policies. We must also
    resist the arguments of those who say, "We Jews were hurt so badly in
    the past and have such a residue of anger for our past oppression that
    you must understand why we act as we now do."  On the contrary, the
    essence of Judaism is to resist that argument. 

    	Nevertheless, we must have compassion for the people who feel this
    way.  We cannot ignore the specific features of Jewish history that may
    have conditioned Israeli soldiers to act like a classical colonial
    force trying to subjugate a rebellious citizen population.  The rage
    that these soldiers exhibit when they beat civilians they suspect have
    been involved in rock-throwing may be understood, in part, as a
    response to the two thousand years during which the world
    systematically denied their right to exist as a people, a denial that
    culminated with extermination in gas chambers and crematoria.  This
    oppression occurred not only in Europe; many Jews also had to flee Arab
    lands after hundreds of years of oppression and delegitimation. This
    same process of delegitimation has been further perpetuated by the Arab
    states in their refusal to relocate Palestinian refugees in 1948, in
    their insistence that these refugees stay in camps in Gaza and the West
    Bank, and in their failure to follow the lead of other countries that
    resettled much larger refugee populations, such as Pakistan's
    resettlement of nearly ten million Moslems after the struggle for
    Indian independence.  This conduct by the Arab states was a loud
    proclamation:  "You Jews don't really exist for us.  Your presence here
    is temporary.  We don't have to resettle Palestinians or deal with this
    problem because you will soon be gone." 

    	For two thousand years the Jews had to scream in silence, fearful
    that protesting their delegitimation would lead to an escalation of
    oppression.  Now, with the existence of the State of Israel, these Jews
    have begun to unleash their pent-up anger on the Palestinians--not a
    people of innocent bystanders, but a people that refused to accept the
    State of Israel in 1947, a people whose leadership still views a state
    as a transitional entity to a "second stage" in which Israel will be
    destroyed.  One can understand the rage of some Israeli soldiers by
    recognizing this history of delegitimation. 

    	A people this deeply wounded deserves compassion.  Yet love for
    Israelis requires us to do our best to stop them from hurting
    themselves and others.  Just as we understand the frustration that
    leads Palestinian youths to throw rocks even as we criticize their
    conduct, so too do we express deep care for our brothers and sisters in
    Israel even as we reject their actions. 

    	We do not have to be reminded that the Palestinians themselves
    played a major role in creating the present conflict.  When they were
    the majority in Palestine and *we* were refugees, they would not allow
    refugees to share the land.  When Jews were desperately fleeing
    Christian Europe as well as Islamic Asia and North Africa, the
    Palestinian refusal to grant Jews a haven convinced many Zionists that
    Palestinian self-determination is incompatible with Jewish survival.
    When the media focus on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, they
    paint an incomplete picture to the extent that they fail to inform
    their audience that the Palestinians are heirs to a tradition that to
    this day continues to reject the legitimacy of Jewish claims to a
    state.  Those who throw rocks today may be justifiably frustrated, but
    if they do not have the courage to match their rock-throwing with the
    political will to accommodate Israel, if they wallow in their fantasies
    of eliminating the Jewish state, they simply will prolong their
    homelessness. 

    	So we say to the Palestinians:  Stop the rock-throwing, stop the
    talk of violently overthrowing Israel, reject the rejectionists, and
    publicly proclaim your willingness to live in peace with Israel. Begin
    to talk publicly about peaceful coexistence.  You will not be granted
    genuine self-determination until you allay the legitimate fears of many
    centrist Israelis that you still are committed to destroying Israel. 

    	Along with many people's failure to recognize that the Palestinians
    bear part of the responsibility for the present crisis has come
    criticism of Israel that simply is out of proportion, criticism that
    makes both Israelis and American Jews defensive and prevents them from
    recognizing the genuine injustice of Israel's policies. The worst
    example of such criticism is the comparison between Israel and South
    Africa.  Israel is not South Africa, and what it is doing is not
    apartheid.  It is true that Israel, like South Africa, is inflicting
    needless suffering on a population that seeks self-determination.  But
    when it does, it acts as a colonial oppressor in ways more similar to
    the Soviet Union's oppression (on a much larger scale) in Afghanistan,
    or China's in Tibet, or the Unites States' (acting through local
    proxies) in much of Central America. 

    	Apartheid is a racist system under which blacks are discriminated
    against simply because they are black.  In Israel the picture is
    different.  Arabs who have remained within the pre-1967 Israeli borders
    have the same political rights as any other Israeli and are represented
    in the Knesset.  Though Israeli Arabs rightly complain about unfair
    allocations of the budget and discrimination in housing and employment,
    these are practices that more closely resemble the unfair realities of
    black life in the United States than the formal legal discrimination of
    apartheid.  The fact remains that an Israeli Arab with large amounts of
    money does not face the kind of discrimination that remained legally
    instituted against blacks in the United States until thirty years ago.
    Israeli Arabs play on the same beaches, eat at the same restaurants,
    attend the same movie theaters, and are free to stay at the same hotels
    as other Israelis. 

    	The situation in the occupied territories is terrible, but
    resembles colonial oppression much more than racist apartheid. First,
    even if the territories were annexed into Israel, we would not be faced
    with the South African situation of a minority ruling a majority.
    Israeli Jews would remain a majority oppressing a minority the way
    Sikhs are oppressed in India, or the Kurds in Iran and Turkey, or the
    Miskito Indians in Nicaragua, or the Irish Catholics in Northern
    Ireland, or the Basques in Spain.  Second, unlike typical colonial
    oppressors, many Israelis still favor a solution under which they would
    rid themselves of the West Bank, provided that they could guarantee
    Israel's security.  Israel's good faith already has been shown in its
    withdrawal from the Sinai in return for peace with Egypt.  This is not
    the behavior of a colonial power, much less of a South African-type
    regime.  In short, the South Africa analogy distorts reality and allows
    right-wingers to focus on its flaws instead of dealing with the
    justified criticism of Israel. 
    
    				* * *

	There are solutions to these problems.  A demilitarized and
    politically neutral Palestinian state can be established on the West
    Bank and Gaza in precisely the same fashion that the Russians and
    Americans agreed to give Austria independence after WWII.
    Demilitarization would be guaranteed by the United States and the
    Soviet Union, and the treaty that established this Palestinian state
    would also recognize Israel's right to intervene militarily in order to
    prevent the Palestinian state's building or deploying tanks, missiles,
    laser weapons, military aircraft, or other heavy artillery. A joint
    military force established by the United States, Israel, and the Soviet
    Union would be charged with the policing of this agreement, and with
    protecting both the Palestinian state from attack by hostile neighbors
    like Syria, Iraq, or Iran, and protecting Israel against any threat of
    the Palestinian state.  Should any of the supervising countries decided
    at some future point to withdraw its forces, however, Israel would by
    treaty agreement have the right to enforce the demilitarization on her
    own. 

    	Under the treaty establishing the Palestinian state, Palestinian
    leadership would have to renounce,in the name of the Palestinian
    people, all claims to territory within the pre-1967 borders of Israel.
    It would also be required to grant citizenship and full protection of
    civil rights to those Israelis living in the occupied territories.
    These Israelis would be required, in turn, to live in accordance with
    the laws of the Palestinian state just as Palestinians are required to
    obey the laws of the Israeli government.  Claims that Israeli settlers
    have in the past illegally seized land and water rights would be
    adjudicated in a court, established for this purpose by the joint
    military force patrolling the borders.  Subsequent violations of law
    would be attended to in the Palestinian courts, and Israel would
    renounce the right to intervene or attempt to affect the outcome of
    this process.  By the same token, the Palestinian state would renounce
    the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Israel, including
    those matters affecting Palestinians living within Israeli borders. 

    	As part of this two-state solution, Jerusalem would remain united
    as one city with a democratically elected municipal government. The
    city would be the capital of both the Israeli and Palestinian states. 

    	These are the conditions governing the initial stages of the
    relationship between Israel and the Palestinian state, but the ultimate
    goal is to establish ties of cooperation and friendship that eventually
    will lead to economic confederation as well as cultural and political
    alliances.  While the plan outlined here provides all the necessary
    guarantees for Israel on the assumption that the current hostility will
    not be reversed, those who think that hopes for future friendship
    between Israel and the Palestinian state are utopian should consider
    the current ties between France and Germany in light of the vicious
    hostilities that existed between those states a mere forty-three years
    ago. 

    	Who would negotiate for the Palestinians?  Any group that is
    willing to recognize Israel's right to exist.  If Israel claims that
    the PLO doesn't represent the Palestinians in the occupied territories,
    let it immediately hold a plebiscite to determine whom the West Bank
    Palestinians want to negotiate for them.  And Israel must set no
    restrictions on who can be a candidate. 

    	What if no Palestinian leadership is willing to accept a
    demilitarized Palestinian state?  Then Israel loses nothing by having
    offered, and actually gains a great deal.  Instead of Israeli
    rejectionism, we would be back to a clear picture of the Palestinians
    as the obstacle.  It is reasonable for Israel to insist on its own
    security.  If, in the 1930s, Jews had been offered a state under a
    similar plan guaranteed by all the great powers, they certainly would
    have accepted it, even on a considerably smaller piece of land.
    Ultimately, a totally demilitarized Middle East is optimum, but for now
    a demilitarized Palestinian state is the only kind of state likely to
    be accepted.  We hope the Palestinians prove the skeptics wrong by
    accepting a demilitarized state.                      

    	Israel should publicly offer the Palestinians such a state now.
    This proclamation will help ensure Israel's political and military
    survival.  It probably also will provoke a crisis in the Palestinian
    world and bring to the fore the unresolved conflict between those
    Palestinians who really are willing to accept Israel's right to exist
    and those who desire a state on the West Bank simply as a launching pad
    for the total destruction of Israel.  If the rejectionists win the
    struggle, Israel has proved itself reasonable without weakening itself
    militarily.  We hope, however, that the forces of reason among the
    Palestinians will win and that the kind of peace that most Israelis
    want can be achieved. 
                                               
    	Anything less than such a public proclamation will be seen as
    stalling--and rightly so.  Prime Minister Shamir's attempts to revive
    Camp David "autonomy" talks clearly are delay tactics.  The autonomy
    being proposed is a sham--the opposite of genuine self-determination.
    But even an international conference will have limited impact if Israel
    is unwilling to commit itself to a demilitarized Palestinian state.  A
    "solution" that proposes anything less than this--for example, a
    Jordanian confederation on the West Bank under which the Palestinians
    still do not have self-determination, their own flag, or their own
    passports--will give extremist Palestinians the incentive to expand the
    struggle.  The psychology of the situation is clear:  Until the
    Palestinians feel that they own something, which limited autonomy
    cannot provide, they have no real incentive to stop the struggle.  Once
    they achieve this sense of ownership, those who advocate continuing the
    struggle will be seen by fellow Palestinians as putting their own state
    in jeopardy. 

    	The cutting edge issue is a Palestinian state.  Talk of "land for
    peace" as part of a plan in which the West Bank would be "given back"
    to Jordan may seem more moderate--but in fact in the not-too-long-run
    this solution may well be more dangerous than a Palestinian state.  If
    the so-called Jordanian option were pursued, Palestinians would still
    feel that they didn't have their own self-determination under the often
    arbitrary rule of King Hussein. So if Palestinians were incorporated
    into Jordan they would press for Hussein's overthrow.  In a matter of
    years we might face an Iranian style struggle in which Palestinian
    extremists might end up with an army and significant military equipment
    at their disposal. 

    	Our proposal, on the other hand, builds in a strategy for permanent
    demilitarization.  By giving up more in the short run, Israel can get
    more security permanently:  it can ensure military neutralization of a
    Palestinian entity in perpetuity.  If Israel pursues a negotiating
    strategy aimed at throwing Palestinians back into the embrace of
    Jordan, we may end up with precisely what we and they don't want: a
    militarized Palestinian state with a commitment to continue the
    struggle against Israel.  The time for a Palestinian state is now: and
    it is now that we can get such a state under conditions most favorable
    to Israeli security. 

    	If, on the other hand, Israel adopts one of a variety of different
    delaying tactics, we are likely to face years of bitter struggle,
    senseless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians, and the possibility of
    consolidation of American sentiment against Israel.  Eventually, Israel
    will be forced to make the concessions by the combined moral, military,
    and economic pressures of the world.  Wouldn't it be better if the
    scenario went the opposite way:  Let Israel propose a demilitarized
    state, let it seize and hold the moral high ground (which often has
    important military and political benefits for a state that must rely
    on outside military and political support). If Israel were to seriously
    maintain a commitment to a demilitarized Palestinian state, it would
    secure American commitment to Israel and would avert the possibility of
    a much more threatening Palestinian state being imposed from outside. 

    	Our purpose here is to show that there is a possible strategy for
    ending the occupation.  You may disagree with some of the details.
    Fine.  Our purpose is not to work out every detail of the treaty--but
    to change the nature of the public discourse so that it can focus on
    the nature of a settlement rather than remaining trapped in moral
    condemnations of Israel's current behavior or accusations about what
    the Palestinians did to create the current impasse. 
                         
    				* * *
    
    	Americans, particularly American Jews, have an extraordinary
    historical responsibility at this  moment.  The path of least
    resistance--privately criticizing Israel but publicly supporting it or
    remaining silent--is actually a dramatic betrayal of the interests of
    our people.  Americans must use every possible means to convey to
    Israelis--in private communications, in letters to Israeli newspapers
    and to members of Knesset, in petitions to the government of Israel, in
    public rallies and teach-ins, and in statements issued by synagogues
    and communal organizations--that Israel is in deep jeopardy and that
    the occupation must end. 

    	What we do now actually may make a significant difference. Israeli
    centrists are under the illusion that American economic and political
    support can be taken for granted.  Conservative leaders from the
    American Jewish world have fostered this fantasy.  Many of these
    centrists can be moved to support peace proposals if they are made
    aware of the precariousness of their position.  The ordinary Israeli
    has no idea how deep American disaffection has become or how such
    disaffection may threaten Israel's military security in the future.
    The only way s/he will "get it" is through a combination of public
    protests and private communications.  Since we can't count on Jewish
    leaders to convey this sense of urgency, we need to do it ourselves. 

    	Many American Jewish leaders have displayed shortsightedness and
    cowardice in dealing with the current difficulties.  Little in their
    past style of operation or in their intellectual approach gives them
    the tools necessary to provide leadership now that it is needed most.
    The neo-cons, the "Israel is always right" crowd, the people with moral
    blinders--none of these people can provide an analysis or a strategy
    that will speak to the American Jewish public.  A very large number of
    American Jews are in a state of deep personal crisis.  Their
    identification with Judaism, Israel, and the Jewish people is being
    fundamentally challenged.  This is the moment when they need to hear a
    different kind of voice from the Jewish world.  Let them hear your
    voice. 
                         
    	The crisis in Israel is a moment of truth for all of us.  It should
    be responded to with the deepest seriousness and with the full
    understanding that the choices we make now may have consequences that
    reverberate for centuries to come. 

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    This editorial, from TIKKUN magazine Vol. 3 No. 2, has been copied
    without permission from a reprint sent as part of a subscription
    solicitation.  Subscriptions are $24/year (6 issues); the address is:
    
    		TIKKUN Magazine
		5100 Leona Street
    		Oakland, CA 94619

     I agree that the proposal for a demilitarized state is a good
     idea.  I do think that a conference where ideas can be
     adjusted and mutual offers made is more likely to produce a
     good result than unilateral offers, which by their nature are
     less flexible.

     I have to point out that the historic view put forth does not
     mesh with the Palestinian historic view. It seems strange that
     anyone would expect the Palestinians to do anything but resist
     Jewish immigration regardless of its reason, when the Zionists
     had the announced intention of establishing an exclusionary
     state on land to which the Palestinians also had a claim.
     Obvious follow on remarks about blaming the Palestinians for
     not just fading away into another country.  However, it is not
     clear that it serves any purpose to pursue the differing
     viewpoints, since the question is what to do now.

     What I have heard several prominent Palestinians say is that
     they will pursue an independent state in "the Occupied
     Territories" by force if necessary, but then they see a future
     with two coexistent states, and hopefully then one of two
     outcomes:  a relationship of trust like the U.S. and Canada,
     or an actual merging into one democratic state.  The latter is
     "the destruction of Israel!" referred to, so it is unlikely.

     I also think the question of the Israeli settlers in the
     Territories might better not be left to drag thru the courts.
     It is in everyne's interest to have Palestine be economically
     viable as soon as possible.  One step in this direction is to
     restore the land confiscated from the Palestinian farmers who
     are now working as day laborers in Israel, so they can return
     to being independently employed.  Israel is alone in thinking
     these settlements are acceptable, even the U.S. does not agree
     with it, so the eventual outcome would be the same.

     Anyone who wishes to discuss this further with me should meet
     me on talk.politics.mideast, where there are others with my
     views, so I don't have as much time soaked up answering
     everything by myself.
    
    

    re>.135
    just for your edification, tikkun magazine is considered to be a
    radical leftist magazine. this view is not only my opinion but is
    shared by the editor m. lerner(though he may have a problem of the
    radical portion of my description) and its' views should be judged
    in that context.

.137>    just for your edification, tikkun magazine is considered to be a
.137>    radical leftist magazine. this view is not only my opinion but is
.137>    shared by the editor m. lerner(though he may have a problem of the
.137>    radical portion of my description) and its' views should be judged
.137>    in that context.

	What is your point?  Are you going to read and discuss the
    editorial on its own merits, or are you attempting to discredit
    it simply because of your particular opinion of the magazine in which
    it appeared?  If I had entered the editorial without giving a clue as to
    who wrote it or where I got it, would that have changed your approach
    to it? 
	
    	FYI, TIKKUN describes itself as a liberal (not radical) alternative
    journal to such old-line Jewish magazines such as Commentary, which
    in recent years have swerved sharply to the right, the "neo-cons"
    referred to near the end of the piece I quoted.  Any description
    beyond that is your own name-calling.
    
    			David

    
    
    	DO NOT POST ANY PART OF THIS FILE ON THE USENET!
    
    

    re .140
    
	You're right.  If anybody wants the text of .135 as I originally
    transcribed it, send me mail.

    		David

    Ug.  well, in response to David's suggestion to me offline, I had
    already posted his editorial (and my response to it) on
    talk.politics.mideast.  I haven't posted anything else however.
    I have also unsubscribed to t.p.m as rational discussion there is
    being swamped by a flood of name calling in each direction.  Actually,
    everybody on a vms system has access to the Usenet groups, via the
    method described in the last reply to the last note in the vms arabic
    conference.
    

    Here are the directions.  There is also a soc.culture.jewish, of
    course.
    
                <<< IPG::DISK$JB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ARABIC.NOTE;1 >>>
                              -< Arabic Systems >-
================================================================================
Note 60.2                      soc.culture.arabic                         2 of 2
CAD::SAKALLAH "Karem"                               121 lines   1-APR-1988 03:53
                  -< soc.culture.arabic accessible from VMS >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UseNet is accessible from any VMS-based host on Digital's EasyNet. The following
note extracted from the USENET notes conference gives the simple instructions
required to subscribe to any USENET news group, including "soc.culture.arabic".
There's no need to bother Karen!

Karem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



            <<< ROLL::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]USENET.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -<  USENET  >-
================================================================================
Note 98.0                  New Subscription Software                  24 replies
ASHBY::FEATHERSTON                                   49 lines  18-JUL-1985 15:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	The new subscription software is in place and functional.
	To use this software you must do the following:


	- Send a message to ROLL::USENET (or ASHBY::USENET) containing
	  the commands you wish executed.

	- Make sure that the word 'subscription' is in the 'Subject:' field
	  of the mail message.

	- ROLL::USENET will then execute your request. A copy of the logfile
	  will be sent to the requestor, AND ANY OTHER ADDRESSES THAT ARE
	  IN THE COMMAND LINES.

	All questions and/or problems should be addressed to 

			ROLL::USENET_DISTRIBUTOR


1. To subscribe to a newsgroup (one line for each desired newsgroup)

	$USELIST ADD your-enet-address desired-newsgroup-name

2. To unsubscribe from a newsgroup (one line for each desired newsgroup)

	$USELIST REMOVE your-enet-address desired-newsgroup
				or
	$USELIST CANCEL your-enet-address desired-newsgroup
				or
	$USELIST DELETE your-enet-address desired-newsgroup

3. To change your address on all distribution lists
   (CAUTION: THIS ONLY WORKS IF YOUR NEW ADDRESS DOES CURRENT EXIST
	IN THE DATABASE)

	$USELIST CHANGE your-old-enet-address your-new-enet-address

4. To remove yourself from ALL distributions (one line does it all)

	$USELIST KILL your-enet-address

5. To get a list of the newsgroups you currently subscribe to

	$USELIST SHOW your-enet-address

6. To get a list of currently active newsgroups

	$USELIST LIST

            <<< ROLL::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]USENET.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -<  USENET  >-
================================================================================
Note 3.0                  How to contribute articles                     1 reply
ROLL::FEATHERSTON                                    46 lines  10-FEB-1984 11:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	You can "MAIL" your contribution directly to the desired newsgroup
	through the gateway. To do this send mail to:

			RHEA::DECWRL::"newsgroup-name"


		Example:

			$MAIL
			MAIL>SEND
			To: RHEA::DECWRL::"net.test"
			Subj: This is a test
			Enter your message below......

	
				This message is to test submitting an article
			to the USENET from the ENET.
	
					/ed featherston/
	
					...decvax!decwrl!rhea!roll!featherston
			^Z

	( the double quotes are necessary ).


	PLEASE!!!! Do not send out test submissions, and DO NOT send anything
	to net.test. The USENET newsgroup software requires every 
	participating machine to store and forward every article that is
	submitted. Needless to say, that is a lot of overhead, and they do
	not appreciate spurious submissions.

	Also, please use the Subject: line of mail to contain the topic of
	your article. 

	There is a comfile currently available on ROLL ( ROLL::NWSGRPLOG.COM )
	 that makes logical assignments for all the available newsgroups. 
	Then you have only to send mail to the newsgroup name itself. ( all 
	the double quotes are needed so I can execute MAIL in one command 
	ala. $MAIL/SUBJ="FOO" FOO.TXT NET.FOO ).


	If you get mail back from the RHEA mailer-daemon reporting an error
	then more than likely the alias on "decwrl" for that newsgroup
	( comparable to a logical under VMS ) has not been made. Send mail
	to Peter Lipman ( RHEA::LIPMAN ) requesting the alias be made.
       

    
    

    
    
    	This has nothing to do with the fact that OUTSIDE DEC users
    	do NOT have access to INTERNAL DEC documents and never should.
    
    	You may have just posted something that you should not have
    	and the results can lead to many bad situations including
    	the loss of your job or worse, this file.
    
    

    The best policy for posting to USENET is:

    1) If you posted something here and you want to repost it there,
       fine.
    2) If someone else posted something here and you want to repost it
       there ask the author and abide by his/her wishes.
    3) Under no circumstances post anything that might be DEC
       proprietary information on the USENET.

    If we all use some common sense there won't be any problem.

    Gavriel,

    PS. Karen, I dropped t.p.m when my asbestos long johns caught fire 8^{).

    
    Thanks so much for posting this, David.  (I'm between Tikun
    subscriptions.)  Like you, I didn't agree with all of it--such as
    the casual one-liner disposal of Jerusalem-- but it's
    certainly the most reasonable analysis of the situation I've seen.
                                                      --Fern

    re: whichever reply referred to Tikkun as "radical"
    
    Tikkun is about as radical as the Phoenix (a local former "underground"
    rag in Boston).  If your view is from far right field than anything
    left of center will seem like Pravda.  My suggestion: get out from
    your ideological straitjacket and view the entire spectrum, then
    you'll have an understanding.
    
    David

    Just imagine what the Israeli reaction would be if the PLO had
    assassinated Rabin.  They'd be condemned as blood-thirsty murderers
    who had clearly demonstrated that they had no interest in peace,
    and were only interested in the destruction of all Israelis.
    
    They'd also be considered surpassingly stupid, since such an action
    would only harden Israeli public opinion against them and weaken the
    position of those Israelis trying to convince others that the PLO
    could be trusted.
    

    I'm sorry to differ with you Karen, but since the since the PLO
    and Israel are in a state of war than a "general" such as
    Khalil-al-Wazir is fair game, as much as Rabin would be for them.
    
    David

	If indeed Israel was the terrorist that attacked Abu Jihad then
	I think that Israel showed their true colors.  A big mistake on
	Israels part too show the world how they operate behind the seens.

	Now you can understand why Israel(government) wants all those TV 
	cameras off the Palestinians land.

re:-1	Have you now declared that this war and anything is fair game.  I would
	strongly re-think what you wrote.  You are doing wrong by trying to
	cover somone's stupidity.

	You(Israel government) having murdered or taking part in murdering a 
	Palestinian, have just giving birth to trouble for many years to come.
	

Good_day,
-Sultan

    re:-1
    
    Sultan, if you are talking about murder then ask some of the relatives
    of the victims of the bus attack that Khalil-al-Wazir planned, that
    was one great military target, wasn't it?
    
    David

>    of the victims of the bus attack that Khalil-al-Wazir planned, that
>    was one great military target, wasn't it?
Can you tell me how many of those on the bus were IDF reservists? Since they
were nuclear plant workers, they must be somewhere between 20-50 in age. And
I believe people of that age are in the reserves (are women exempt?).

Now, if all those folks were reservists, would it then be a legitimate military
target? Or do they become a military target only when they receive their
mobilisation papers?

Just curious
-parthi

    Re: .151
    
    Dimona:  How many civilians died when Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor?
    
    I think it's pretty clear now that there is no difference between
    the tactics and morality of each side.  One has only to remember a
    previous reply to this note (perhaps lost in the cataclysm) where
    someone was appalled by the PLO rejoicing in the deaths of Israelis
    and honoring the assassins as heroes, and then compare it to the events
    of the last couple of days in Israel.
                

    In the case of the Iraqi reactor (a pre production nuclear reactor)
    the exercise was only to stop the capability of producing nuclear
    bombs. I can't see this was any other than a military objective.
    
    In the case of Dimona, the target was indiscriminate with a military
    objective of attacking passengers on a bus.
    
    I can see a big difference, and wonder why you have such difficulty
    in understanding it. Can you not differentiate between attacks on
    civillians and those on military installations.
    
    Malcolm
    

    On the contrary, the objective was military, namely the release
    of Palestinian captives.  The "civilians" at Dimona are engaged
    in the production of nuclear weapons, just as the "military" at
    the Iraqi reactor.
    

    re> to the terrorist plo sympathizers
    
    would you have had a problem if the allies had assasinated hitler?
    
    you see there is no difference between a nazi germany and the plo.
    both attack jews for being jews. whether they are taking cruises
    on ships, praying in synogogues, competeing in the olympics, or
    standing in an airport they are gunned down because they are jews.
    these are the same people you so self righteously support.
    you have no right to preach justice or freedom when you lie in bed
    with such animals.
    
    i am fed up with your comparison of the the plo and the israeli
    gov't. where are your facts, and let's not hear any garbage about
    begin or shamir being terrorists. it will not wash here. you see
    they were in fact the true freedom fighters. women and children
    were not the victims, in their fight for liberation.
    
    if the arabs want peace they know how to achieve it. arab support of 
    the plo show what theirs and your beliefs truly represent. the arabs
    on the w.b have told the world what they want- all of israel. that is
    why it's going to be alot more arab bloodshed. the arabs still haven't 
    learned to get along with one another it will probably take a miracle 
    before they will be able to tolerate jews in their midst. so in the 
    meantime let them eat #%@# with their "brave and glorious leaders the plo.
    
    it really shows a people's mentality, when they support such a group.
    
    your attempt at clouding over the differences between a terrorist
    organization and a legitimate democratically elected gov't will
    never win anything on the ground. you see the jews still have jerusalem
    and the w.b. and the arabs have nothing as it should be for a people
    who don't know anything, but but how to murder women and children.
    
    by the way, the bus hijacking of the bus by the "brave" plo managed
    to kill two women and a man. just another average day for your
    "glorious freedom fighters."

    re .156, and Karen
    
    If it true that Israel was responsible for the assassination, then
    they should be condemned.  Just like how the PLO is condemned for
    their terrorists acts. Two wrongs don't make a right. Naive attitude,
    you may say. But if the two sides keep on fighting the way they
    are right now, one side will be eventually eliminated. 
    
    _karen w.

    >you see there is no difference between a nazi germany and the plo.
    >both attack jews for being jews. whether they are taking cruises
    >on ships, praying in synogogues, competeing in the olympics, or
    >standing in an airport they are gunned down because they are jews.
     
    Are you aware that Abu Jihad was primarily responsible for the
    cessation of attacks against Israelis and Jews outside of Israel,
    and that he was able to keep that policy in force even after Israel
    murdered three PLO members in Europe recently?  Also that he was
    primarily responsible for the policy of using non-lethal means in
    the uprising, even in the face of about 140 Palestinian deaths by
    guns and beatings and 70 by gas?
    
    >i am fed up with your comparison of the the plo and the israeli
    >gov't. where are your facts, and let's not hear any garbage about
    >begin or shamir being terrorists. it will not wash here. you see
    >they were in fact the true freedom fighters. women and children
    >were not the victims, in their fight for liberation.
     
    Tell that to the Arab (and Jewish) women and children blown apart
    by Shamir's bombs planted in marketplaces and the Palestinian
    women and children killed by his organization at Deir Yassin.
    
    According to NBC News tonight, Yassir Arafat who "weeks ago offered
    peace to Israel, today after the assassination of his long time
    friend Abu Jihad, vowed not to rest until Israel was destroyed."
    Congratulations to Israel's inner cabinet on the success of their
    strategy -- simultaneously remove a moderating influence and further
    radicalize the other members of the PLO, giving Israel a perfect excuse to
    continue with its policy of extermination raher than compromise.
    Anyone with the brain of a newt could have predicted precisely this
    outcome.
               
    

.152> Can you tell me how many of those on the bus were IDF reservists? Since
.152> they were nuclear plant workers, they must be somewhere between 20-50 in
.152> age. And I believe people of that age are in the reserves (are women
.152> exempt?).
.152> ...
.152> Just curious

The passengers on the bus were almost all women who were allowed to arrive
at work later than normal in order to give them more time to get their kids
off to school.  The man who was murdered was a widower who was on that bus
for the same reason.

In response to your second question, married women do not serve in the
reserves.

    re> to the terrorist plo sympathizers
    
	Not true my good friend.  Come down to the real world and see where 
	suffering caused by greedy governments causes hatred on both sides.
	
    re> would you have had a problem if the allies had assasinated hitler?

	personally no problems here.  Here you go hiding behind the shield.
    
    re> you see there is no difference between a nazi germany and the plo.

	If that the truth then add Israel government.
    
    re> i am fed up with your comparison of the the plo and the israeli gov't.

	Reality seems to bee sinking in.  Enjoy it.  But be fair.


    re> arabs still haven't learned to get along with one another 

        But, you have learned very well.  But please don't teach anyone.

    re> you see the jews still have jerusalem and the w.b. 

	oh yes,  Happy Birthday.

    re> but how to murder women and children.

        Just like the Israeli that shot the little girl a few weeks back.
	
    
    re> by the way, the bus hijacking of the bus by the "brave" plo managed
        to kill two women and a man. just another average day for your
        "glorious freedom fighters."

        There not so glorious fighters.  But I don't want you to define
	where the line is drawn, and I will tell you why. Its because you
	seem so dam SMART.  I really could not find the right word.

Good_day,
-Sultan
       

Re: < Note 406.159 by ERICG::ERICG "Eric Goldstein" >

Thankyou. My apologies for the mistaken notion that they were all reservists.

On a tangent:

If the Khalil-al-Wazir assasination was indeed an Israeli operation, a woman
was said to be involved. So the next time Palestinian guerillas kill a woman,
and she turns out to be a reservist, is that 'acceptable'? After all, if no
'ordinary citizen' was killed, the Palestinians can claim that they had 
intelligence showing them who was who!

And when Israeli planes bomb guerilla bases in Lebanon, most often women and
children are dead (along with a good number of the guerillas).
Is that acceptable?

It a sad state of affairs and somebody must break the cycle of killing.

-parthi

    Is it safe to assume that all Palestinians on the west bank are
    reservists in the PLO? If this is the case, then the dead are military
    targets, no different than the reservists of Israel.
    
    Please, this is at best, a silly argument. During a war, and don't
    kid yourself that this isn't one, all people are targets. I may
    not fully support the action, but I certainly understand trying
    to take out the commanding general of your enemy; particularly one
    that could be linked to such acts of terrorism as Munich and the
    TWA hijacking. But of course, if the PLO had a chance to attack
    Shamir or Peres the wouldn't because of public opinion, right?

    
    Killing, on either side, invariably leads to more killing. That
    is a fact. The trouble is that the level of rhetoric on the Palestinian
    side has had no moderating force. At least some Israeli citizens
    have tried to stop the violence (the recent mass demonstrations).
    Where is the same tone from the Palestinian side (and I mean in public,
    not thru some interpreted stance that can be assessed from this
    or that official).
    
    Only when there is a true desire to sit down in face to face
    negotiations, nothing there are vast differences, and wanting to
    resolve, or at least obtain some working relationship, can this
    violence end.
    
    Having said all this, I am afraid I see no end in sight, barring
    some sort of miracle.

    
    By the way, as I recall the Iraqi nuclear reactor attack, it was
    a surgical stirke, made during the night, with only one death. Hardly
    a cold blooded attack on civilians that many would have us believe.

    
>    And when Israeli planes bomb guerilla bases in Lebanon, most often women and
>children are dead (along with a good number of the guerillas).
>Is that acceptable?

    The PLO place their basses in schools and hospitals as a form of
    protection and because they want the public sympathy of civilian
    casualities when they are attacked. You see, they know the morality
    of not attacking women and children! 
    
    I think that given this situation the best that Israel can do is
    to take every reasonable effort to thwart the PLO tactic and only
    hit the bases. Of course this is very hard, and even the IDF can't
    always be 100% accurate. 

    I think you should also question the morality of the PLO in using
    the women and children as their first form of defense.
    
    Malcolm

>    I think that given this situation the best that Israel can do is
>    to take every reasonable effort to thwart the PLO tactic and only
>    hit the bases. Of course this is very hard, and even the IDF can't
>    always be 100% accurate. >
>
>    I think you should also question the morality of the PLO in using
>    the women and children as their first form of defense.
Look folks, I am not questioning the morality of hitting guerrilla bases or
the enemy's commanding general. I was merely interested in learning the
thought process between the distinctions you draw.

I am not even saying that the assasination of Wazir was immoral or wrong or
what have you; all I saying is that it was  a bad decision from the viewpoint
of peace negotiations. This is going to harden attitudes on both sides and
as pointed out in a couple of notes either, we will probably not see any
settlement soon.

-parthi

    re:.158
    >tell that to the arab (and jewish )women and children blown apart
    by shamir's bombs planted in marketplaces and the palestinain women
    and children killed by his organization at der yassin.
    
    where do you get off with spewing this garbage. there is no comparisson
    between the plo and the irgun, which begin and shamir were part of.
    
    their targets were strictly military targets, and in fact if civilians
    were vulnerable, warnings of a particular mission were made public
    even at the risk of their operation. this garbage about bombings
    and marketplaces is nothing but your pro plo propaganda. the irgun
    just like the underground in europe, during w.w.11 did not have stoop
    to the level of a subhuman to accoplish their goals. they were able
    to accomplish great things without murdering children in nurseries.
    as the plo, which you and your kind support, are so proud of doing.
    they have in fact been treated like heroes by arab govts. around
    the world.
    
    so before you speak of bombings of marketplaces by begin and shamir
    be advised no matter how many times you may repeat this garbage.
    it still is a lie, no matter how many times it is spewed out.
    
    as far as der yassin, it was a major stronghold in the arab blockade
    of jerusalem and housed iraqi soldiers. who incidently dressed as
    womens' clothing to confuse the irgun.
    
    at the start of the attack on der yassin, the irgun surrounded the
    village and used loud speakers mounted on their jeeps to warn the
    villagers that there would be an attack and to surrender, almost
    200 villagers did just that and were not harmed. as the irgun attacked
    they came upon iraqi soldiers dressed as women waving white flags,
    in a show of surrender. but immediately the iraqi soldiers opened
    fire on the confused irgun, and in the kaos civilians were killed.
    hardly a case of a premeditated  massacre.
    
    all i can say to the pro plo terrorist sympathizers is the arabs
    will never destroy the jews or israel, no matter how many women
    and children they attempt to murder. you see israel has the upper
    hand and you (supporters of the plo) will continue to be left out
    of the picture until you learn how to sit down and talk like descent
    normal people.
    
    in the meantime eat your hearts out. israel still has jeruaslem
    and the w.b. and the golan heights. so you and your great arab
    "liberators" can keep up your policy of using the arabs of the w.b
    as pawns, it will never accomplish anything but the continued suffering
    of these very same people you claim to be so concerned about.
    
    but i know, and you know that the arab people on the w.b. are not
    your main concern, you have other agendas, you are just to timid
    to speak your mind.
               

    Re: .165
    
    From "Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land" by David
    Shipler of the New York Times:
    
    "Furthermore, textbooks do not tell Jewish children the truth [about
    Deir Yassin].  A book used in ninth grade and published in 1981,
    "The History of the People of Israel," puts a twist on the Deir
    Yassin incident: 'The men of Lehi and Etzel [the Irgun] went out
    to conquer this village through which convoys to Jerusalem were
    attacked.  They called over a loudspeaker to all the residents to
    evacuate the village.' Then Begin's description from 'The Revolt'
    is quoted as the final word, asserting. 'A considerable portion
    of the Arab population listened to the warning and were saved."
    
    Also from "Arab and Jew":
                                      
    "Deir Yassin...was of no immediate military threat to the Jews.
    Although its hilltop position would have made it dangerous in the
    hands of an Arab enemy, its residents were considered passive;  its
    leaders had agreed with those of an adjacent Jewish neighborhood,
    Givat Shaul, that each side would prevent its own people from attacking
    the other...The Irgun and Lehi, however, laid plans for an attack,
    received reluctant Haganah acquiescence...As the leader, Benzion
    Cohen, later said of the participants, 'The majority was for
    liquidation of all the men in the village and any other force that
    opposed us, whether it be old people, women, or children'....
    a loudspeaker truck, with which the Arab villagers were to be warned
    to surrender, got stuck in a ditch too far from the village for
    its message to be heard...When the Jewish fighters later made their
    way into the village, they burst into houses and shot whole families,
    including several old men who had dressed in women's clothes in
    a vain attempt to acquire immunity....A witness, Meir Pa'il, a Haganah
    intelligence officer [said]: 'It was a massacre in hot blood...Groups
    of men went from house to house looting and shooting...You could
    hear the cries from within the houses of Arab women, Arab elders,
    Arab kids."
    

    
    So which account is the truthful one ?
    
    Paul V

I find it fascinating that the mass media initially concluded that Israeil
forces killed Abu Jihad because the attackers didn't kill his wife and
children.  Several reports said, in effect, that if a rival faction had
attacked him, they would have set a bomb to blow up the neighbourhood.

Strange world we live in.

M.

    
    Almost as strange as the speculation about why the hijackers gave
    up and bailed out without attaining their goals.  Seems that between
    Abu Jihad and the whole Persian Gulf situation and the U.S. elections,
    there were simply too many 'biggies' competing for media attention;
    frustrated by the lack of coverage and publicity, the hijackers
    gave up.

    Re: .167
    
    Shipler says B is the one supported by research.
    

    Isn't it amazing...after 40 years, the only incident that can be
    continually thrown in the face of Israel is Deir Yassin.  Maybe that's
    because it was ( even if one accepts the most negative accounts)an
    abberation. 
    
    ---Av

    I've been out of my office for a few days, but have caught up on
    all the replies that my reply generated.
    
    The bus attack I was referring to was not the most recent attack
    near Dimona, but that of several years ago on the Haifa-Tel Aviv
    road.  I think that there were about 35 casualties.
    
    So what if there are reservists on the bus?  They're out of uniform
    and unarmed.
    
    David
    

re> So what if there are reservists on the bus?  They're out of uniform
    and unarmed.

	Who is UNARMED. All I see on TV and hear from relatives overseas 
        is that a very good %% of Israelies are caring machine guns of some
        kind or another.

        Can we try too be fair, if not overseas then at least in this
        conference.

Thanks,
-Sultan

        

    Re: .173
    
    Compared to the U.S., you see a lot of soldiers in Israel walking
    around armed, but the average Israeli no more carries a gun to work
    than the average american.  The ONLY people who walk around armed
    are soldiers, and some settlers in the occupied territory.
    
    BTW - The gun control laws in Israel make it a LOT harder to obtain
    a weapon than in the U.S.
                                                                       
    Just trying to state some FACTS,
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .171
    
    About atrocities:  if you want a list, let's see:  torture sometimes
    to the point of death in Israeli prisons, including torture of children
    under ten years of age.  The use of tear (sic) gas which causes
    fatalities among infants, the elderly, and the infirm, including
    miscarriages, and the shooting of the gas into hospital maternity
    wards and houses.  Beating people to death in the territories. 
    Sabra and Shatila.  Zrariya.  the assassination of Bernadotte. 
    etc.
    

    Even though I am convinced that noone involved in this conference
    (present company included) due to personal involvement can truly
    express an objective view, and therefore any arguement is in actuality
    quite pointless, nevertheless I wish to join the futility.
    
    The PLO has always made a point of carrying out terrorist attacks
    on civilians irregardless of sex or age. This has always been the
    thrust. They have never openly made a frontal attack on military
    installations (except once and quite by accident). Thus any Army
    personell that became the target of PLO attacks became so by virtue
    of accident.
    
    The IDF has always made it a point of attacking and/or counter
    attacking military installations. This has always been its thrust.
    They have never made a frontal attack intentionally on civilians.
    Any civilians that have been killed or injured have either been
    victims of very poor luck or victims of the PLO itself who has
    purposely and without any moral regard placed them within the firing
    lines.
    
    The few (very few) exceptions (by individuals) have been publicly 
    condemned and the perpetrators tried and sentenced.
    
    I believe that the fact that the nations of the world have "proved"
    that Abu Jihad was killed by Israel by virtue of the fact that his
    wife and children were not injured speaks for itself.
    
    If you want to go on making comparisons, do so to your hearts content.
    If your just letting of steam then, ok. If after careful and extensive
    consideration you still believe them, then G-d save your soul.
    
    Cb.
    

    re: .175
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ---Av

    re: -1
    
    My sentiments, exactly.
    
    David

    Shalom,

    Note 406.176 has been set hidden.  That note very specifically
    violates noting policy in that it ATTACKS the author of a previous
    note.

    The following should be taken as standard etiquette of noting:

    Do not speak badly of anyone.

	Anyone includes both identifiable individuals and groups. It
	includes not only DEC employees and those who have dealings with
	DEC, but all individuals.

        When discussing different approaches to a problem or issue, please
        be careful to confine your discussion to the issues and not the
        person.  Although you may disagree vehemently with another person's
        viewpoint, courteous responses are expected.
            
        Suppose that someone makes an argument which you feel is wrong. You
        could respond in any one of the following manners: 
            
                "You'd have to be out of your mind to believe that!"
                "That argument is stupid."
                "That argument is wrong."
                "I disagree with that completely."
                
        The first two are unacceptable. There is no reason to criticize
        the person or to ridicule the argument. Merely stating that it
        is wrong or that you don't believe it, and explaining why, should
        be sufficient. It is, of course, more politic to say that you
        disagree, but it *is* acceptable to say that an argument or
        statement is wrong, provided you explain your reasoning.

    Gavriel

Blood is the worst witness of truth... yet it takes time
to recognize this fact... sometimes 2,000 years... sometimes
a bullet in the nape of a kid's neck, sometimes a dead woman
in the middle of the road.

Hate is the best path to blood... yet it takes only a 
dark night in the battlefield to feel scared and shoot...

I have an Israeli flag on my desk...and a photograph of my
little brother under which I have written:


	"Blood is the worst witness of truth..."


Rub�n.
    

re: .175
		the assassination of Bernadotte. 

Was carried out by Palestinians.  Of course, they were Jewish Palestinians,
but that doesn't really matter, does it?

Martin.

    

    Well, I haven't been in for awhile so I missed seeing Steve's note;
    it's too bad I have a curiousity bump.
    
    Re: . 177  I believe the presence of the Israeli plane jamming Tunisian
    communications during the attack and the off-the-record acknowledgement
    of the attack by Israeli officials to newspeople may have also been
    taken into account.
    
    I heard last night that Israel has expelled Martin Fletcher of NBC
    and a reporter from the Washington Post.
    
    

       re .183:
       
       > I heard last night that Israel has expelled Martin Fletcher of
       > NBC and a reporter from the Washington Post. 
       
       You're not telling the truth, Karen.  Martin Fletcher and the Post
       correspondent were not expelled from Israel.  They were cited for
       not clearing their report (one which they did about 10 days ago)
       through israeli censors; as a result, they will not have access to
       official government spokepeople, but will otherwise have no
       restrictions placed on them.  According to Fletcher, this has no
       practical effect since most of his information comes from
       non-official sources.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    Re: .184
    
    I was reporting what I heard on McNeil-Lehrer.  The impression was
    that they were on their way out of the country.  The (very short)
    report did not go into detail.
    

    re:.176
    talk about censorship, what damn nerve.
    ms. kolling spews out pro plo propaganda at every chance she gets,
    and not a whimper is heard, i use adjectives like garbage and that
    is all of a sudden supposed to be blood curling. as i have said
    to gavriel schoeller, far worse has been said on other confernces.
    
    this conference holds no moral highground, are we not equal to other
    conferences?
    
    is it o.k. to spew out pro plo propaganda as long as it is phrased
    in a respectful fashion. 
    
    is it possible to equate zionism with racism is this confernce
    as long as it is said in a nice way.
    
    a question i would love to hear ms. kolling and her plo supporters
    address.
    
    let me just say, you have no idea what it feels like to put in a
    note and have it censored by a moderator. i realize that gavriel
    is the moderator, but does that give him the power to censor responses
    that make him uncomfortable. as i said before there are other
    conferences that contain far worse,just look at soapbox as an example.
    what makes this conference so different.
    
    at this point, i don't care if you change your mind and post my
    entry or not, i just want you to know you have alot of chutzpah
    for doing it in the first place.
    
    

    re .186
    
    I know. It feels like sh*t to enter a note and have it censored.
    That's why we have to stay away from the name calling. Unless I'm
    mistaken, your earlier note hit a bit below the belt. (Ahem ahem.)
    It wasn't a matter of strong adjectives. 
    
    Anyway, from what I've read from the conference so far, I'm happy
    that it is not like Soapbox.
    
    _karen anne

    Shalom Steve,

    Since you have gone public, so will I.  This is NOT SOAPBOX.  I
    (and I think most of the participants here) don't want it to be
    SOAPBOX.  If you want a soapbox to stand on there is a convenient
    one on BETHE.  Don Topaz and Ed Postpischil love to moderate this
    sort of thing.

    Actually, the same can be said to everyone who has come to this
    conversation intending to sway others without being swayed
    themselves.

    Gavriel

    It's also true that getting people to go from impassioned,
    vituperative propaganda to polite, respectful propaganda is
    a long step on the way to settling a conflict.  Polite
    statement of repellent views at least means that violence is
    a bit further away, and politeness requires listening to the
    arguments of the opposition.
        
    A first big step in solving conflicts is for people on each
    side to believe that the other side also wants to settle the
    conflict.  If the representatives of the other side are angry
    and abusive, who would think they were willing to talk?
    
    Sadly, the Palestine/Israel conflict has not yet made this first
    step.  But that's no reason to make matters worse here.
    
    				-John Bishop

re:  most after about the first 25

   Let's not get carried away here.  The words and tones used in 
   the BAGELS conference in one Digital Equipment Corporation is
   approximately five zillion light years away from influencing
   the Israel/Arab conflict in any REAL terms whatsoever.  It may 
   be informative for some and fun for others, but please, let's 
   keep things in their proper perspective.

    .last
    
    Not really, and here is why.
    
    After reading the base note and all associated respones I would
    like to propose that the participants in this note who really feel
    that we CAN HELP TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE meet face to face over a dinner
    or such and that we let the world outside of Digital know that all
    of us through face to face communications can make a difference.
    
    The fact that we disagree is fine as long as we continue to talk.
    
    Maybe we COULD set an example for the rest of the world.

RE:-1

	This is a very good Idea.  But most of the participants in
	this conference live farther then anyone of us can throw a
	ROCK(a pebble of humor).

        But truely speaking I would give anything to see STEVE and
	to be able to speak(debate) on issues regarding our people
	who are suffering because of a MISunderstanding.

	I think NIGHTLINE has shown that there is a way out of this
	narrow tunnel and the two sides should strongly agree to
	agree on points of interests favorable to BOTH sides.

Good_day,
-Sultan

    OK ..... Now I'm really confused ? Aside from Sultan nobody seems
    interested in my suggestion for trying to take the first steps.
    
    Sultan .... so where do we meet and discuss ?

    I'm too far away geographically.  Stop by if you're ever in Palo
    Alto.
    
    

Here is another perspective on the riots, from Usenet.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Path: decwrl!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!iuvax!inuxc!att!occrsh!erc3ba!alu
Subject: D'var Torah: Behar/Bechukotai: Rabbi Riskin
Posted: 11 May 88 17:22:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T Engineering Research Center
 
 
 
SHABBAT SHALOM: Behar-Bechukotai -- Water For Two
 
        by Shlomo Riskin
 
        EFRAT, Israel -- The romance  is  over.  The  press,  for
inexplicable  reasons,  has  finally  turned  its back on Israel.
Fifteen-second fragments dance across  the  screen  blurring  the
historical  content in favor of a purely emotional one, and three
thousand  years  of  Jewish  civilization  gets  reduced  to  two
repetitive,  hypnotic images: a soldier with a gun and a teenager
with a rock.
 
        Did any of the networks pick up on a story which appeared
in  the  Jerusalem  Post  several weeks ago? Despite a relentless
climate of violent stone-throwing, business as usual was going on
in the city's hospitals. Arabs didn't hesitate to seek out Jewish
care, taking it for granted  that  the  emergency  room  and  the
beseiged  roads were separate realities. Where else but in Israel
could one segment of a belligerent population be  engaged  in  an
insurrection while very often their families were getting some of
the best hospital care in  the  world,  paid  for  by  the  Civil
Administration  in  the  West  Bank.  Joel Fishman's accompanying
photographs in the Post were revealing,  and  he  later  told  me
about  an  incident  involving  an  Arab who'd been rushed to the
hospital after falling from a  barricade  while  heaving  stones.
When  he was carried in, the stones were still in his pocket. Did
the doctors hesitate, question what they were doing? Fishman told
me  they  moved  like  lightning;  the  patient could have been a
cabinet minister.
 
        Many question such blind devotion. But I believe this  is
the right way, the only way, particularly now when so much of the
news emphasizes the impotence and frustration felt on all  levels
of Israeli society, creating a political backlash. Some have even
begun to justify various rash solutions to the  constant  clashes
and  stone-throwing:  if  not an out and out population transfer,
then a greater display of the iron  fist,  demonstrating  to  the
Arabs  that  if  we  want  to,  we  can  also  be brutal, savage,
vengeful, indiscriminate.   Debating  and  wrangling  about  what
we've  been  doing, we sometimes end up expressing views alien to
Judaism, though in all fairness, those who  argue  for  the  iron
fist  base their positions not on blind discrimination against an
alien tribe, but rather the nightmarish memories of centuries  of
suffering  that  culminated in 1939-1945 and an obsessive fear of
the future. After 40 years,  who's  more  frightened,  a  Jew  in
Kalkilya or an Arab in Tel Aviv?
 
        Nonetheless, in this week's portion,  Behar,  two  verses
shed a little light on why we must resist the increasing tendency
to believe that muscle  alone  will  determine  the  geographical
boundaries of this land.
 
        "When  your  brother  becomes   impoverished...you   must
support  him,  whether he be a proselyte or a settler...Fear your
G-d and allow your brother to live alongside you." [Leviticus 25:
35-36].  According  to  Rashi, 'settler' refers to the non-Jewish
population in the land of Israel who've  given  up  idol-worship,
though  they  continue  to  eat  non-ritually  slaughtered  meat.
Nachmanides points out  that  the  phrase  'live  alongside  you'
(literally,  'live  with you') means that the non-Jewish settlers
must be sustained; keeping them alive is a positive  commandment,
even  if  the  Sabbath  must  be  violated. The Torah rejects the
traditional xenophobic position of the  ancient  world  in  which
only one's own tribe received aid. Nachmanides, in his commentary
to Maimonides' Sefer  Hamitzvot,  includes  this  as  a  positive
commandment,  explicitly  spelling  out that this means violating
the  Sabbath  if  necessary,  the  clearest  expression  of   how
significant this commandment is.
 
        Furthermore, in Tractate Gitin, 61a, the Talmud  declares
that  for  the  reasons  of  maintaining  peace in the world, the
impoverished gentiles were to be  cared  for  together  with  the
Jewish  poor, and the sick of the gentiles healed with the Jewish
sick.
 
        Clearly,  when  it  comes  to  helping  one's   neighbor,
discrimination  is  forbidden.  What  prevails  is  an  ethic  of
universal social services, and possibly the very  reason  why  so
many  American hospitals built by Jewish sweat and money ended up
helping so many other waves of immigrants. And  that's  also  why
hospitals  all  over  Israel  care for a large share of West Bank
Arabs, patients who would never go anywhere else.
 
        Where does that leave us? Do we  heal  people  who  would
turn  around  tommorow  to  smite  us? Perhaps a part of the Arab
population wants us  destroyed,  but  there  are  others  who  do
recognize  that  we are the children of Abraham, semitic cousins,
Jews whose link to this land is eternal,  carved  in  memory  and
blood.
 
        I believe that this week's portion teaches how we  should
respond  to  the  problem. Indiscriminate punishment is dangerous
because  it  may  be  violating  one  of  the  Ramban's  positive
commandments  in  the  Torah. We must never do what the Americans
did during WW2  to  Japanese  citizens  whom  they  feared  as  a
potential  fifth  column,  transferring  them from their homes to
internment camps. Are all Arabs our enemies? I know they're not.
 
        In Efrat we've had difficult days  during  this  critical
period,  days  when  cars  were  stoned  on  the  way to and from
Jerusalem. The closest neighboring Arab village  is  called  Wadi
Nis.  One  day  when  the  unrest  was  particularly violent, the
mukhtar of Wadi Nis rushed into Efrat with a woman who'd suffered
a  heart attack. Immediately, the doctors went into action, and a
medical team worked to revive the stricken  victim.   Within  ten
minutes  she was breathing again. Her life was saved. The mukhtar
kissed my hand and confessed that he didn't know how we'd respond
to  their  crisis.  How else would we behave? We're neighbors, we
live alongside each other. There are no problems between us. Ever
since the riots had begun, he had expected that we would turn off
their water supply. I repeated that we were neighbors.  "So  long
as we have water, you'll have water."
 
 
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Copyright Ohr Torah 1988.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network. For information 
regarding its use, contact the Kesher BBS at 312-940-1686.
 
For more information, call (212)496-1618.
 
 
 
-- 
               		Alan Lustiger
    |_ | |             	AT&T Engineering Research Center
     /   |( 		Princeton, NJ
			{AT&T Machines}!pruxc!alu

    There is an interview with Mubarak Awad in the current issue of
    Tikkun, including a description of how some Israeli peace activists
    helped replace some olive(?) trees that the government had uprooted
    from an Arab settlement.  (I think the new seedlings were subsequently
    uprooted as well, I'm fuzzy on the details as the magazine is at
    home, but at least something good got accomplished.)