Conference taveng::bagels

   The Temple is NOT being rebuilt at this time.   There is a very 
   small group of people who call themselves "The Faithful of the 
   Temple Mount" (my translation from the Hebrew).  Their line, in a 
   nutshell, is that the Jews should "retake" the Temple Mount and
   rebuild the Temple.  They were going to have a symbolic corner 
   stone laying ceremony but someone obtained a court injunction
   preventing them from doing so. 
   
   To be perfectly honest, Israelis sure don't take this group very 
   seriously so I strongly doubt that the Arabs do.
   
   The Temple Mount is under almost total control of the Wakf which 
   is the Moslem Religious Council in Jerusalem.  Jews have fairly
   limited and restricted access. 

    It is incorrect that the U.S. plans to veto the resoution.
    According to CNN the U.S. plans to support a resolution
    condemning the Israeli actions and sending a U.N.
    investigative team.  The haggling is over what if
    anything will be done with the results of the team's
    investigation.  
    

    I am deeply saddened by the loss of life, and the negative publicity
    that was generated in the confrontation.  However I am very
    disappointed with the U.S. for it's support of the sanction against
    Israel.  The Boston Globe, as well as the TV networks have virtually
    been silent in terms of reporting on the fact that perhaps 3000 Arabs
    happened to assemble on a Jewish holiday, and happened to have what
    witnesses have found to be barrels of rocks and debris in preperation
    for this assault.  The point is THE CONFRONTATION WAS NOT A RANDOM
    situation.  Other than some New York and Israeli newspapers stating
    all the facts, one could easily draw the conclusion that the Israeli's
    had over reacted.  One other point, is that a senior PLO official
    was arrested 45 minutes before the attack for inciting a riot at the
    temple mount.
    
    regards,
             Ron

    The "senior PLO official" was Faisal al Husseini, who gets arrested 
    every time any Palestinian even coughs.  Little wonder he would be
    any place besides the Temple Mount with a reported march by
    Israeli fanatics to the site.
    

	Yes, Karen. And there were acutally 32 dead, because Arafat says
the Palestinians hid some bodies...

DG

    It's customary for the Palestinians to try to bury the bodies of
    their dead before the Israelis can take them.  The Israelis
    perform autopsies, which Muslims consider desecrations when the
    person has died as a martyr, and also prevent everyone but
    a few family members from attending the funeral when they
    return the body.  The Israelis' confiscating the body also prevents
    the family from burying it in accordance with religious
    law (if I remember correctly, the body has to be buried before
    nightfall if death took place in the morning, etc.)
    

    I heard one newscast (probably BBC or Radio Australia)
    which suggested Isreal will admit the UN investigating
    team, but only "as tourists". I guess this means no official
    cooperation.
    
    The same newscast also seemed to suggest Israel is convening
    its own special investigating board to probe the incident,
    and that this panel will be chaired by a former Mossad chief.
    [Shucks, history shows that Allen Dulles pulled his own weight
    as a Warren Commission member.]
    
    Suggestion:
    
    How about modifying the topic's title to include an appropriate
    descriptive word such as "shootings" or "massacre" or somesuch?
    
                                     

re:  .4

>Little wonder he would be any place besides the Temple Mount with a reported
>march by Israeli fanatics to the site. 

FACT:	1) There were about 20,000 Jews praying at the Kotel that day.
	   A large percentage of them were old men and women.  The
	   Palestinians had hoarded several *hundred* rocks on top of the
	   Kotel during the night before. 

FACT:	   "Rock" is not = "pebble".  We're talking 6 to 10 inchers, here,
	   which weigh kilos each.  The Kotel is about 50 feet high.  We're
	   talking throwing kilogram+ rocks from a height of 50 feet
	   onto an extremely crowded area of old men and women.

	   As a liberal "democrat" (small "d") and humanitarian, I expect 
	   that you will offer, publicly, some deeply felt words of regret 
	   for the Jews who were hurt while at prayer, regret for the attack 
	   on them, and some criticism for those who attacked them, in 
	   addition to your deeply felt criticism for the Israeli Police.

	2) We've been at the Kotel several times when the "Temple Mount
	   Faithful" have been there, "demonstrating".

FACT:	   There have never been more than 35 or so of them, including
	   the women and children.  They always sing a lot of songs, and
	   then try to make entry to the Tample mount.  Each time, the
	   Border Police turn (non-violently) them back.  They have never 
	   been able to / allowed to enter the Temple Mount as a group.

FACT:	   They are only allowed to enter the Temple Mount as individuals,
	   1 or 2 at a time.  In this way, they enter as does any other
	   visitor to the site, with the exception that they cannot
	   enter as a group.

FACT:	   They never demonstrate in the areas in which people pray.
	   Their goal is to enter the Temple Mount, not to disturb the
	   people praying. 

	   If the goal of the Palestinians was to stop them, throwing rocks 
	   on the praying public was, at best, a tragic mistake -  i. e.,

FACT:	   The Police checkpoint through which people enter the Temple Mount 
	   is almost 300 meters to the right, and *almost at the same height*
	   as the points from which the Palestinians were throwing the rocks.  
	   It is almost literally physically impossible for a man to throw 
	   rocks from their "throwing" locations to this point.

	   The Palestinians, therefore, could not have stopped any march
	   in this way.

FACT: 	   The entrance-way to the Temple Mount, itself, can hold at most 2
	   or so people abreast.  It's essentially a doorway.  If all
	   the Palestinians had wanted to do was to prevent entry of
	   the "Temple Mount Faithful", all they needed to do was block
	   this doorway.

FACT:	3) The particular "march" you're speaking about was cancelled by
	   the Israeli Supreme Court a week or so before the "event".

FACT:	   The decision of the Supreme Court, not to allow this demonstration
	   by the "Temple Mount Faithful", was specifically printed several 
	   days running, in Arabic, in all the Arab-language newspapers.

FACT:	   Husseni (and other Palestinian leaders) was/were 150% aware, at 
	   least several days before the fact, that there was not going to
	   be any demonstration by the "Temple Mount Faithful".	   
    
FACT:	4) This did not stop the Palestinians from printing up press releases 
	   about "the massacre" **IN ADVANCE OF THE EVENT.**  These press 
	   releases, accusing the Israelis of action against the Palestinians,
	   were printed and available AT LEAST TWO HOURS **BEFORE** the event.
	   (The only thing missing from these press releases were the exact
	   number of people hurt.)

Nice PR, what?

			Oh!  Just one more FACT...
		
	The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was speaking to crowds at Al-Aksa (one 
	of the Mosques on the Temple Mount) the night before the incident,
	and on the day of the incident.

	His remarks included, both times:

	     " ... you should go out now and kill the Jews ...".


	Would any humanitarians care to comment on the remark?

    Thank you Jem.
    
    And not condemning the violent assault perpetrated on the Jews at
    the Kotel is the amoral message by the UN and Bush.
    
    B

  One thing that was not mentioned is the rights of Jews to access the Temple
  Mount.  The Temple Mount was purchased by the government of Israel 3,000
  years ago from the Jebusites -- the aboriginal Canaanite tribe which first
  settled in Jerusalem 5,000 years ago (according to archaeological evidence).

  The transaction was faithfully recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:18-25 --

	18 Then the angel of the L-rd commanded Gad to say to David, that
	   David should go up, and set up an altar unto the L-rd in the
	   threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
	19 And David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spake in the
	   name of the L-rd.
	20 And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons with
	   him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat.
	21 And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went
	   out of the threshingfloor, and bowed himself to David with his
	   face to the ground.
	22 Then David said to Ornan, grant me the place of this
	   threshingfloor, that I may build an altar therein unto the L-rd:
	   thou shalt grant it me for the full price: that the plague may be
	   stayed from the people.
	23 And Ornan said unto David, take it to thee, and let my lord the
	   king do that which is good in his eyes: lo, I give thee the oxen
	   also for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood,
	   and the wheat for the meat offering; I give it all.
	24 And King David said to Ornan, nay; but I will verily buy it for
	   the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the
	   L-rd, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.
	25 So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold
	   by weight.

  This site is confirmed to be the Temple Mount in 2 Chronicles 3:1 --

	1 Then Solomon began to build the House of the L-rd in Jerusalem on
	  Mount Moriah, where the L-rd appeared unto David his father, in the
	  place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the
	  Jebusite.

  Although Moselms claim that the site is holy to them, neither Temple Mount
  nor Jerusalem are mentioned even once in the Koran!  When I visited Israel
  several years ago, my guide told me that when the Arabs conquered Jerusalem,
  they chose the site of their mosques to be Temple Mount only out of hatred
  for the Jews, as an act of oppression.  The claim that Jerusalem is the
  "third holiest site in Islam" is pure garbage.

  -- Bill B.

    
    	
    	...and not condeming the police is....?
        
    	bob

>    	...and not condeming the police is....?
        
	No complaint about condemning the police if warranted.
	
	My complaint is/was that there is a long list of factors
	which is being given the whitewash (to use polite language),
	changing events totally in people's minds.

	Complain about the police if you like.  But put it in the
	complete framework (e. g., Black Panthers, Philadelphia, 1976?).

don

An investigation by the Israeli government is entirely appropriate.
Why should anyone, even the police, be condemned without some
investigation?

Yet it seems clear to me. When the rock-throwing started the police
were faced with a very stark choice. Somebody was going to get killed
if the rock-throwing wasn't stopped immediately. When the choice is
between letting innocent people get killed and shooting at rioters,
it is hard to fault the shooters.

Dave

    
    
    I don't think anyone, newspaper, TV broadcast, etc, has not indicated 
    that the actual incident was started by the Palistinians. No one,
    to my knowledge has minimized the danger (as evidenced by the size
    of the rocks shown on TV) to the Isrealis present.
    
    However, what most of the world appears to be concerned about, and
    many of you in this notesfile don't appear to, is the (over)reaction
    of the Police.  There appears to be blanket approval.  Now, time
    may prove that to be correct, but I think that's unlikely.
    
    I did see Isreali Police chasing after running palistinians and
    shooting at them.  Maybe they were rubber bullets and not the real
    ones that killed so many.  But the police were charging past dead
    people, and shooting.  
    
    As I see it....  Justifiable or not, Saddan Hussein and the PLO 
    benefited the most from this event/incident.  Isreal & the USA are
    the losers.  For that reason, if no other, it should not have happened.
        
    'nuf said I guess.  I don't want to start a stink/etc but I did
    want to express my views.
                             
    bob
    

  As I see it, the reason the U.S. is a loser is because it ended up backing
  a ridiculously one-sided U.N. resolution which condemns Israel for shooting
  back at a murderous mob in self defense.  Thus it is now a full-fledged
  member of the U.N. hypocrites' club.

  Let's face it, the hypocrites at the U.N. would NEVER condemn any act of
  violence perpetrated against Jews.  Not even the stoning of 20,000 Jews
  peacefully praying at the holiest site in Judaism.

  But if, heaven forbid, the violent hateful schemes of Arab leaders should
  backfire and as a result some Palestinians die in the process, why, Israel
  must be condemned!

  Bush and Baker, welcome to the club.

  -- Bill B.

Re. .15     
    
  >  However, what most of the world appears to be concerned about, and
  >  many of you in this notesfile don't appear to, is the (over)reaction
  >  of the Police.  There appears to be blanket approval...

Why isn't the world concerned with the safety of the innocent?  Is it of
no consequence when the Jews are the victims?  Thank G-d for law 
enforcement everywhere and especially Israel where it's put to task
constantly.  No one should have to contend with the blatant disregard
for life, public welfare, and property that the Israelis are faced with
on a daily basis.  We need to focus on the crime and the criminal.  If
drastic measures need to be taken to protect the innocent, the perpetrators
asked for it and they can expect it.

Bernice      

I am entering the following because I believe it is a clear statement
by the Israeli government responding to the cynical resolution passed
by the UN. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is the official English translation of the announcement which
the Israeli cabinet has authorized the deputy prime minister and foreign 
minister to communicate to the UN secretary-general:

1.  We have read the text of Security Council resolution 672 and the 
statement of the president of the Security Council that was communicated
in connection thereto.  They are totally unacceptable to us.

2. A.  The Security Council decision, completely disregards the attack
against Jewish worshippers on the holiday of Succot at the Western Wall,
which is on the Temple Mount, the holiest site o the Jewish people, and
does not condemn those who attacked the worshippers; this is a political
decision with no connection to reality.

   B.  The State of Israel expressed its regret over the loss of life that
occurred as a result of events on the Temple Mount, at a time when security
forces were responsible for fulfilling their duties.  Israel has also 
appointed an independant commission of inquiry into the chain of events, 
their causes and the actions of the security forces.  The commission will
present its conclusions and recommendations at the earliest possible date.
     As is known, the State of Israel ensures complete freedom of religion
in the holy sites of all religions, in accordance with the law.  Never, in 
all the history of Jerusalem, has freedom of religion for all been 
guaranteed as it has been since the city was unified under Israeli
sovereignty in 1967, and never has the city been more open to all.

3.  Jerusalem is not, in any part, "occupied territory"; it is the 
sovereign capital of the State of Israel.  Therefore, there is no room for
any involvement on the part of the United Nations in anymatter relating to
Jerusalem, just as the United Nations does not intervene in events, some 
even more severe, that occur in other countries.

4.  Given the above, Israel will not receive the delegation of the
secretary-general of the United Nations.

5.  Israel will continue to assume responsibility, in accordance with its
laws, for the safeguarding of holy places and for the security of all 
residents of Jerusalem, Jews and Arabs, as in all other areas it controls.

             (copied from the Jerusalem Post dated 15-Oct-1990)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalom
Baruch

    I may be way of base but I believe that the Israeli athoraties that
    opened up on the Arabs did it in self defense. 
    
    This is the feeling that I've had about this whole situation since I
    first heard about it.  
    
    Back in February I spent 9 days in Israel and grew to love it very
    much and pray that someday I'll be able to return.  I'm deeply 
    saddened by the events that have been going on.  Temple MOunt is
    one of the places that I went to.  In fact i had the wonderful
    opporotunity to be at the Wailing Wall at the beginning of the
    Sabbath.  
    
    I am not Jewish but a lot of my closest friends are and i hurt
    for them over what has happened.  I'm a gentile but my religious
    roots come out of Israel too.
    
    				Shalom brothers and sisters,
    
    					Peggy

        This is my translation of  an  article  on  the  front  page  of
        "Yediot  Achronot"  today,  18 Oct 1990.  Translation errors are
        mine, of course.

	I'd bet you didn't see this in the *American* news...

        don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
             "Threatening Letters from the PLO to Jews in Brooklyn"


        Thretening letters with PLO announcements arrived  in  the  last
        few  days  to  Jewish  residents,  among  whom  are Israelis, in
        Brooklyn, which is in New York.

        The   announcements   were   prepared   by   newspaper   copying
        [techniques,  ed.],  and  included  pictures of Palestinians who
        were  wounded  during  the  events  at  the  Temple  Mount.   In
        handwriting, the sender of the letters declared his intention to
        kill Jewish children  as  a  response  to  the  killing  of  the
        Palestinians:  "Just as they killed our brothers, we're going to
        kill their children."

        "In the neighborhood there was panic,"  explained  yesterday  an
        Israeli  woman  who  spoke  on condition of anonymity.  "We have
        hundreds of children in the schools and in the kindergartens who
        walk  to  school  alone,  and  who knows if the "threateners" [I
        don't have a better word in English - ed.] are really  going  to
        attack them?"


        [DF Comment:  *of course*, nothing was said about  the  hundreds
        of thrown stones which injured aged worshippers at the Kotel...]

	RE:  several past

	The issue under discussion is NOT whether the reponse of the
	Israeli police can be discussed, or whether it was right, or
	whether it was wrong.  No one is debating the right of anyone
	to discuss/criticize this.  There is currently an open (and quite 
	brutal, by the way) public discussion on this subject in the media in
	Israel, and in the Knesset.  (Just as there'd be in the US, Europe,
	etc., by the way.)

	I think that most Israelis / Jews would accept/debate, etc., the
	world and media criticism of the police's actions if somehow the UN 
	and the media would recognize things in a much more balanced way.  
	If the UN resolution also severely criticized the behavior of the 
	Palestinians in this particular case, I believe the Israeli position 
	would be much more tractable.  Somehow, imagine the following two 
	resolutions (I can't!) - 

	Resolution  (a) We severly condemn the Israeli police for the 
		    use of brutal force in quelling the disturbances 
		    at the Temple Mount, in which Palestinians 
		    attacked Jewish worshippers.  We think they could have,
		    and should have used much less force and much better
		    judgement. Many less people would have been
		    killed or injured. We're voting to send a team to Israel
		    to fact-find and to see how to prevent such tragic
		    events in the future.

	Resolution  (b) We severly condemn the Palestinians for the brutal
		    attack on Jewish worshippers at the Temple Mount.  Such
		    attacks are unconscionable. We're voting to send a team 
		    to Israel to fact find and to see how to prevent
		    such attacks in the future.

	What (at least what I think) it is that we're discussing, and what 
	many Israelis are complaining about is really around these issues:

	1) Incredibly one sided coverage in the media, which frequently 
	   completely inverts the events  (I'm not going to list them all 
	   here, but there are hundreds such events; with some I have,
	   unfortunately, intimate  personal knowledge.  Details are for 
	   another note, another time...).

	2) Incredibly one sided action by the UN against Israel.  When
	   similar (or even the *same*) actions occur in other countries, 
	   there's no censure, no action.

	   Examples?  Many.  No details here; I don't want it this to run
	   to 50 replies.  Just to name six:

		- Killings at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps *LAST
		  YEAR*, at the hands of the Amal Militia (this is NOT
		  1982, folks.  Israel hasn't been there for 8 years.)

		  *Many* more Muslims were killed in these attacks compared
		  with when the Israelis were in Lebanon.  NOTHING was in the
		  press, NO UN resolutions, etc.  No moaning or bitching in the
		  American media. But, when Israel was there...

		- Riots in South Africa: hundreds killed. Where have been 
		  the UN delegations?

		- Riots in Jeddah: hundreds killed.  Where were the UN
		  resolutions, UN delegations?

		- Riots in India:  hundreds killed.  Were were the UN
		  resolutions, UN delegations?

		- IRA terror in Northern Ireland and England:  hundreds
		  killed, even in the last few years.  Where were the UN
		  reolutions, UN delegations?

		- When the Palestinians attacked us on the beaches of Tel
		  Aviv in May 1990, a number of American newspapers ran big
		  headlines like "Israelis Kill 4 Palestinians". Huh?  *Who*
		  did *what* to *whom*?  Then: where was the UN resolution, 
		  and where was the UN delegation, ...

	   And lots more.

	3) The strategy of the PLO which enables them to commit acts of
	   threat, war and violence, and somehow then "credibly" (according 
	   to the media, the UN, and most Arab governments) position them 
	   as if they never happened.

    I once heard a very interesting interpretation from I believe the
    Kotzker Rebbi which is pretty much self explanatory.
    
    He asked the following question:
    
    The Torah relates the story of how Shimon and Levi wiped out all the
    male inhabitants of Schem in retaliation for the defilement of Dina,
    their sister, by the son of Schem. Now, before they went ahead and
    killed them all, they basically "agreed" that intermarriages between
    the daughters of Israel and the men of Schem could take place providing
    all the men of schem underwent circumcision and became Jews. The
    question arises, why did they have to go to all this trouble? Why not
    just go in and kill them?
    
    The reason he gave was sarcastic, but nevertheless was intended to
    make a point. 
    
    Had Shimon and Levi killed them BEFORE, when they were still "goyim"
    the enire world would cry out "GEVALT !!!! MASACRE !!!!!". However, now
    that they were Jews, who would give a sh** if some Jews were killed.
    
    Pungent but unfortunately TRUE.....
    
    Cb.

    This is a reply to note 986.11
    Enlightenment and education both in information and manners!
    No where, in this note file or any note file, I have ever read that
    someone ever wrote anything to redicule, insult or put down Judaism
    like Mr Bill B. did in his note about Islam. This stems from the fact
    that Jews have hatred boiling inside them for The Islamic religion and
    its follower. To me this is a clear indication of what is the whole
    conflict between Arabs and Jews is really all about.
    The two major facts that I wanted to mention here are:
    1. The Al Haram Al Sharif "The Dome Of The Rock", was the holiest shrine
    for thousands of years before Judaism Come to Palestine, to the
    Jubitsites, Kanaanites (The Original Palestinians). The mentioning of
    the story in the old testament about David buying it , is a pure Jewish
    belief. Muslims Belives state it differently.
    2. The Qur'an mentioned it in a dedicated chapter in Surat Al Isra'a
    the QUr'an Says, and quote " Praise thee thy lord that has journeyed
    his most faithfull servant from the holy place of Mecca to the holy
    mosque of Jerusalem of which blessing were bestowed around it."
    
    This is not " pure garbage" , and it is not a sheer claim by the
    muslims nor the muslims are doing this for just hatred to the Jews.
    History has recorded that the only time in the whole history of the
    Jews, that the Jews really have enjoyed peace and tranquility, was
    under the muslim rule. 
    
    Please, before you or others write down your hatred to the muslims and
    label whatever you are always are capable of labeling about Islam,
    educate yourselves, read and quote the facts and be polite. 

 .24
 >   This stems from the fact
 >   that Jews have hatred boiling inside them for The Islamic religion and
 >   its follower.

I doubt your ecumenical note would have many converts after such a start. 

 >  History has recorded that the only time in the whole history of the
 >  Jews, that the Jews really have enjoyed peace and tranquility, was
 >  under the muslim rule. 
    
This is plain presumptious and offensive. "the moslim rule is good for ya!" is
like a slaveowner castigating a newly freed slave for abandoning the cotton
field and the porridge bowl. Self-rule, not moslim rule, is what's good for the
Jews. Should one feel justified in saying "the only time Arabs really enjoyed
peace and tranquility, was under the Ottoman rule"?

DG

 .24
 >   This stems from the fact
 >   that Jews have hatred boiling inside them for The Islamic religion and
 >   its follower.

   I find it hard to believe that anyone can really believe this. It
   seems quite insane to me. 

   I would guess that the vast majority of Jews are quite indifferent
   to Islam and its beliefs.  Anyway, why should the Jews hate Islam?
   Its basic beliefs are actually less alien to Judaism than those of
   Christianity. Besides, Jews aren't trying to convert the world to
   Judaism, are they? 

   The treatment of Arabs in Israel is a political, not a religious
   issue.  

   Marge

Since Mohammed lived in the mid 7th century CE and the Hebrews invaded
Canaan circa 1000 BCE, I really don't see how a holy shrine could have
been located there that was known by the Arabs.

According to my history book (Graetz), at the time Mohammed made his
famous journey from Mecca to Medina, the city of Medina was mostly Jewish.
Needing some allies, Mohammed had his followers pray facing Jerusalem
because the Jews prayed facing that way. There were other Jewish practices
that Mohammed institued among his followers (I forget the complete list).
Also, Mohammed declared that Allah and the god of the Jews were one and
the same. Indeed, the Jews of Medina did give Mohammed the protection he
needed but they would not accept Mohammed as a prophet. This eventually
turned Mohammed against the Jews and led to fighting between the Jewish
tribes of Arabia (refugees from the Roman and Byzantine persecutions) and
the early Moslems. It also led to anti-Jewish statements in the Koran.
When Mohammed had gathered sufficient supporters, he no longer needed
to impress the Jews so he cancelled many of the Jewish-like practices and
instructed his followers to pray facing Mecca.

The rise of Mohammedism was extremely rapid - unprecedented in world
history. Within a generation the Arab world was entirely Islaamic.
The 2nd Calif (sorry, I forget his name) was as anti-Semitic as Mohammed.
It was under this Calif that the Moslems conquerred Judea and began
construction of the Dome of the Rock.

The Jews were persecuted by the Christians in what was left of the Roman
Empire and by the Moslems - there were forced conversions to both religions
and Jews were not permitted to build new synagogues. The 3rd Calif survived
only briefly and there was a dispute over the succession to the 4th
Calif. (I believe this was the time of the split between the Shiite and
Sunnite Moslems.) The Jews backed Ali who, in fact, did become the 4th
Calif. As a result, Ali lifted the sanctions against the Jews and the
wonderful synergy between Moslems and Jews began. Life among the Moslems
was far superior for Jews to life among the Christians, so much so that
when Moslems invaded Spain there was no need to garrison the conquerred
cities -- they simply left the local Spanish Jews in charge.

Life among the Moslems was not completely cloud-free. When the
fundamentalist faction was uppermost, they would act on the anti-Semitic
passages of the Koran and institute sanctions on Jews. Fortunately,
much of the time the liberal faction was in power and the sanctions
were ignored. Jews look back on that time as a golden age.

Jews, as a group, do not hate Moslems. We have long memories. I pray for
the recovery of that golden time when Moslems and Jews regarded each other
as brothers.

Dave

Re: Note 986.24    NRADM::YOUSEF       Replying to 986.11

>    Enlightenment and education both in information and manners!
>    No where, in this note file or any note file, I have ever read that
>    someone ever wrote anything to redicule, insult or put down Judaism
>    like Mr Bill B. did in his note about Islam. This stems from the fact
>    that Jews have hatred boiling inside them for The Islamic religion and
>    its follower. 

I had to go back to 986.11 to see what Bill had said which so enraged the
writer of 986.24.  I certainly did not feel that he had meant to "ridicule,
insult or put down Islam", even when I reread the note.  He may lack knowledge
of the subject, and the word "garbage" should have been omitted. 

What I really wanted to point out to NRADM::YOUSEF is that I am a Jew and I do
not have "hatred boiling inside me for the Islamic religion and its followers",
or any other religion or people, as long as they leave me and mine to live in
peace.  I do get a bit fed up with people who make sweeping generalisations.
Next time that you wish to make one that includes me, please check with me
first to ensure that you are correct.  As Baker said (more or less), "you have
my address, and my phone number is in the book"!! You may receive some 
enlightenment, and I promise to use good manners if you do likewise.

Shalom
Baruch

    While in Israel, I had know trouble with the Arabs that I met.  In fact
    I found them to be a very kind and generous people.  
    
    I hold the whole Jewish community of this world in the highest regard.
    As a naton you haven't had it easy and its about time that you should
    be allowed to live in peace in this world.  I have a lot of Jewish 
    friends and a lot of us are the best of friends.  
    
    One thing that I was brought up to do, was to respect everyone and the
    way that people believe. 
    
    
    May all of my Jewish brothers and sisters have a joyous Sabbath.
    
    					Shalom,
    						Peggy

  RE: 986.24 by NRADM::YOUSEF

>   The two major facts that I wanted to mention here are:
>   1. The Al Haram Al Sharif "The Dome Of The Rock", was the holiest shrine
>   for thousands of years before Judaism Come to Palestine, to the
>   Jubitsites, Kanaanites (The Original Palestinians).

    Two points here:  (1) The Jebusites disappeared approximately 3,000 ago,
    and so are probably not related to "Palestinians"; (2) The 3,000-year old
    text which I cited says that they used the area for threshing wheat, a
    funny thing indeed to be doing at a holy shrine.

>   The mentioning of
>   the story in the old testament about David buying it , is a pure Jewish
>   belief. Muslims Belives state it differently.

    The text is also part of the Christian bible, so more than just the Jews
    believe it.  In fact, my quotation is from a Christian-oriented
    translation known as the King James Bible.  (I have it online from one
    of the DECUS tapes.)

    Christians and Jews both believe it is an accurate description of how the
    Jews came to be the legitimate owners of Temple Mount.  Muslim belief is
    of interest to me and the other readers of this Notes conference; however
    you must bear in mind the fact that the founder if Islam was not born
    until 1,600 years after the piece of text I quoted was written.  This has
    obvious believability implications.

>   2. The Qur'an mentioned it in a dedicated chapter in Surat Al Isra'a
>   the QUr'an Says, and quote " Praise thee thy lord that has journeyed
>   his most faithfull servant from the holy place of Mecca to the holy
>   mosque of Jerusalem of which blessing were bestowed around it."

    I stand corrected.  There is a mention of Jerusalem in the Koran after
    all.  But the passage does not give sufficient information for one to
    conclude that it is talking about Temple Mount.  For all I can tell, it
    may be a reference to the original Church of the Holy Sepulchre (the
    Byzantine structure built by Emperor Justinian, not the smaller Crusader
    structure which stands today), which had a circular rotunda.

>   This is not " pure garbage" , and it is not a sheer claim by the
>   muslims nor the muslims are doing this for just hatred to the Jews.

    I have yet to be convinced of this.

>   History has recorded that the only time in the whole history of the
>   Jews, that the Jews really have enjoyed peace and tranquility, was
>   under the muslim rule. 

    Not the only time.  How about during the reign of King Solomon?

    In general, the Umayyid period of Jerusalem (638-1099) was a period of
    relative peace and tranquility for the Jews.  But as some previous noters
    have pointed out, there is more to happiness than mere peace and
    tranquility.  On the other hand, the period of Muslim rule from 1948 to
    1967 was horrible:  Jewish holy places were destroyed, Jewish cemetaries
    were desecrated, and Jews were denied access to the Western Wall.  That
    is why it will never happen again.

>   Please, before you or others write down your hatred to the muslims and
>   label whatever you are always are capable of labeling about Islam,
>   educate yourselves, read and quote the facts and be polite. 

    I apologise for being impolite.  The rock-throwing incident at the holiest
    site in Judaism upset me more than I could bear.  Imagine non-Muslims
    coming to Mecca on a holy day, claiming that they owned the place, and
    stoning unarmed pilgrims praying there.  Wouldn't you be upset too?  I
    want you to try and understand how I felt.  There can be no peace until
    you do.

  -- Bill B.

    Re:     I don't think anyone, newspaper, TV broadcast, etc, has not
    indicated that the actual incident was started by the Palistinians.
    
    Then you must have missed Newsweek, which reports that the cornerstone
    folks were clearly visible marching towards the Temple Mount, the
    Israeli police turned then away in an area where they couldn't be
    seen, and then the Israeli Border Police teargassed a group of
    Palestinian women.  The women fled, screaming, the rest of the
    Palestinians assumed the cornerstone folks were coming from the
    direction the women were fleeing from, and then they threw the
    stones.
    
    The involvement of the Border Police is not surprising,
    given their general reputation for disregard for Arab life.  I
    note also that Newsweek says the Israelis were shooting
    people like fish in a barrel, and besides shooting a 4 or 5
    year old child, shot out a tire and warning light on an ambulance
    as well as shooting in the back a Palestinian helping to put an injured
    person in an ambulance.  The Israeli news of Oct 8th, carried on
    SCOLA a couple of days ago also clearly showed a Palestinian
    shot in the genitals;  for at least the last year, the Palestinians
    have been making the charge that that's a practice of the Border
    Police.
    

Following a suggestion in one of the replies, I changed the title of
this note from "Temple Reconstruction?"

Martin
co-moderator.

	As a general nit - a large proportion of the Border Police are Druse,
who hate the Palestinians with a passion unmatched by most Israelis. This is due
to the treatment the Druse have gotten over the last few centuries... How does
it go - "ye saw a wind, and ye reap a hurricane" or some such.
	Karen's account of the proceedings ignores some insignificant things like
the fact the the Temple Faithful were in Silwan, that the Arab religious council
knew there'd be no march a day in advance, that the stoning started after the
Silwan muezzin called for the attack (Silwan is a long ways away from the Temple
Mount entrance), and so on. Of course, it's consistent with the credibility of
the hidden bodies story...

DG

re: last few by NRADM::YOUSEF and RACHEL::BARABASH

The question of WHY we (Jews) believe as we do, and why others (Moslems,
Christians, or anyone else) believe as they do, while always facinating, is, 
in this case, irrelevent.  More often than not, these beliefs are not based
on provable logical arguments; they are based on subjective views of G-d, 
history, and the Bible (Old, New or Koran).

Criticizing others beliefs will not solve anything in this context.  It usually
just makes things worse.

				Louuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

    Re: the credibility of the hidden bodies story
    
    Even Israeli news sources note this
    practice.  For example, the most recent weekly edition of the Jerusalem
    Post has an article about the IDF soldiers convicted of beating a
    Palestinian to death, and note that the soldiers were charged with
    assault rather than murder because the body was taken away from
    the hospital before an autopsy could be performed.
    
     
    

	Oh, I see. Is it like all those bodies that were attributed to the
Israeli bullets, and turned up killed by Palestinians themselves, or dead of
long-term illness? Also, 9 people don't just disappear. Either they were killed
on the Mount, or they are still alive. I am sure mr. Arafat has a name list..?
I mean, he is a, shall we say, less than credible source for hard news, so some
more data would be nice, lest you look like trying to pin a blood libel on the
authorities...

DG

.35>                        ... the most recent weekly edition of the Jerusalem
.35>    Post has an article about the IDF soldiers convicted of beating a
.35>    Palestinian to death ...

Either you or the Post has gotten the facts a bit confused here.  (The Post
often has this problem, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)  The
soldiers were charged, convicted, and sentenced for beating the man, but *not*
for having caused his death (murder, manslaughter, or whatever).  The reason
was that, as you pointed out, his body was taken away before an autopsy could
be performed; with no autopsy, the prosecution could not prove the cause of
death.

Those following events in the territories might care to consider how often any
army, engaged in military operations anywhere, has charged its soldiers with
mistreating enemy civilians.  The Israeli army's record on this is a long way
from perfect, but it's probably better than that of any other.

I am curious about Israel's policy on autopsies. Since Orthodox Jews
and Moslems find autopsies repugnent, I would not expect them to be
routinely required. Does anyone know what's going on?

Dave

Definitely a rathole.

But since you asked, the fact that Orthodox Jews find something
"repugnant", does not mean that it doesn't happen in Israel with
frequency.  Orthodox Jews tend to be against abortion too, but Israel
has one of the highest abortion rates in the world (at least among Jews,
the Arabs are smarter than that...)

As for autopsies, perhaps "routinely" is too strong a word, but they
are done quite regularly, certainly for any suspicious or crime-related
deaths, and it *is* a point of contention (one of many) between the
orthodox and the non-.

Sid

    Getting back to the investigating panel or board
    selected by the Israeli government to probe the
    recent events at Temple Mount:
    
    Who heads the investigating panel? Is the panel
    chairman in fact a former Mossad chief, as suggested
    by the Australian SW broadcast mentioned in 986.7 ?
    

    The much discussed (?) Temple Mount probe report
    is rumored to be set for release to the public
    today, according to CNN TV news.
    
    Who did you say heads the probe panel ?
    

NPR, this morning, reported that the probe report supports the contention that
the stone trowing was the immediate cause of the incident.  It faults the police
for being unprepared, thus causing the situation to get out of control to the
point where live ammunition was needed.

Gav

    Re: -.2
    
    > Who did you say heads the probe panel ?
    
    We didn't, you did: 
    
    From -.3
    
    >    Who heads the investigating panel? Is the panel
    >    chairman in fact a former Mossad chief, as suggested
    >    by the Australian SW broadcast mentioned in 986.7 ?
    
    
    Looks like you gloated a lot.  Will you please make your point?

    Here's some fresh information:
    
    According to an October 27th New York Times article
    (on pages 1 & 5), the panel probing the Temple Mount incident
    is (was?) headed by former Mossad (Israeli intelligence)
    chief Zvi Zamir. The NYT article identified the other two probe
    members as being former Israeli government officials as well,
    but didn't name them or their government capacities. I'd guess
    the panel included additional staff to conduct the probe, but
    the number of staff beyond the three members was not discussed.
    
    The NYT on page 5 provides a photo of Mr. Zamir hand-delivering
    the report in the form of a folder or booklet to Shamir,
    both seated, with the Israeli flag as backdrop.
    
    A companion article also on page 5 gives perhaps 10 paragraphs
    of excerpts from the recently released probe report. One excerpt
    explains that the firing of a teargas shell or cannister into
    the nearby hospital maternity ward was accidental, due to a
    soldier's fall while running. Another excerpt asserts that
    the critical wounding of a nurse and ambulance driver tending
    the wounded was due to the soldier's (shooting) being unable to
    see the ambulance. One of the two articles states that all the
    dead were buried within a day or so of the incident, and (consistent
    with earlier entries here) suggests that no autopsies (meaning
    probe-specific ones?) were performed.
    

I'm glad such a capable person was put in charge of this investigation.

Dave

    The information (.44) may be fresh, but still, what was your point in
    .41?  Were you happy that capable people were doing the investigation
    or upset by it?  Did you think in advance that the result would be
    biased and wanted the PLO conduct the investigation?  Did you agree
    with the UN policy to condemn Israel first and send the investigation
    team later?
    
    So what did it mean in .41:  "Who did you say heads the probe panel ?"?
    
    Leo

    New York Times, Wednsday Oct 31, Page 1, bottom right corner (3 columns
    with picture)
    
    	20 Die in India as Hindus Storm Disputed Mosque
    
    AYODHA, India, Oct. 30 - Thousands of police officers and paramilitary
    troops armed with tear gas, riot sticks and guns fought off determined
    bands of Hindu militants today who stromed this holy city......
    .....
    Six of those killed today died in the area of the mosque when troops
    fired on them....
    
       ------------------------------------------
    
    When is the UN going to start debate on a resolution condemning India?
    
    	-Barry-
    

Let me give the standard reply to Barry's question:

The UN is concerned with "international" relations ONLY.  Thus what goes on in
India, while unfortunate, is none of the UN's business - it is an "internal 
affair" of India and would be an invasion of their sovereignty if the UN would 
get involved.

This explains Israel's objections to the UN investigating incidents in 
Jerusalem:  The UN considers Jerusalem 'occupied territory' and thus fair game 
for UN involvment, but Israel considers the city sovereign Israeli territory.

    I wonder if we see a UN resolution condemningnthe USSR (extracted from
    AP newswire):
    
Associated Press Fri  2-NOV-1990 18:57                        Soviet-Moldavia

   KISHINEV, U.S.S.R. (AP) - Ethnic tension exploded into violence
in eastern Moldavia on Friday when Moldavian troops clashed with
Russians and Ukrainians. At least three people were killed and nine
wounded, officials said.
    
   At about 5 p.m. Friday, troops from the Moldavian Interior
Ministry opened fire after the separatists threw stones and other
objects from behind a barricade on a bridge in Dubossary, said
Moldavian Interior official Lt. Col. Yevgeny V. Zaporozov.
   Zaporozov said he was told by hospital official that three
people were killed and nine wounded by gunfire.
    
   From 100 to 200 Interior Ministry troops opened fire on the
separatists. Zaporozov said the dead and wounded were Russian or
Ukrainian volunteers, and no Interior Ministry troops were among
the casualties.
    
   Moldavia, a republic of 4.3 million people bordering Romania,
declared sovereignty last June and is trying to separate from the
Soviet Union. But it also faces its own crisis produced by two
internal separatist movements.
    

    re: .49
    
    Leo, there is more than ample proof that other countries, and
    especially Israel's neighbors have used, use, and will use much more
    violent and excessive means to suppress dissent, etc.  No matter, the
    world will always point the finger at Israel for reasons that should be
    obvious to all of us.
    
    --David

The following is copied from an article in the November 1 edition of The
Jewish Advocate of Brookline, MA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           A Report Concerning the Incident on the Temple Mount
                             By Roger Hurwitz
                         Special to The Advocate

   The following are the conclusions of a report issued by B'Tselem, the
   Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the West Bank and the
   Gaza Strip, concerning the incident on the Temple Mount, Monday, October
   8, 1990. In this incident 17 Palestinians were killed by Israeli border
   police, after Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall were pelted with
   stones thrown by Palestinians on the Temple Mount.

   The conclusions were published in the Mideast Mirror, Monday, October
   15, 1990. Headquartered at 18 Keren Hayesod St., Jerusalem, it is
   associated with Israel's citizen's Rights Movemement, a left-of-center
   Zionist party which holds five seats in Israel's parliament.

   Its staff includes lawyers and experienced civil and human rights
   workers. Its executive committee includes Member of the Knesset Dedi
   Zucker; civil rights attorney Joshua Schoffman and Dr. Edy Kaufman,
   former director of the Truman Institute at the Hebrew University.

   B'Tselem is a beneficiary of the Ford Foundation, the New Israel Fund,
   the Kaplan Foundation and several other foundations, and has been
   honored by the Carter Center at Emory University for its work in human
   rights. Its publications include an annual report on violation of human
   rights in the administered territories and special reports on subjects
   such as tax collecting in the territories. Informed observers consider
   B'Tselem's reports serious, professional, and well-documented, although
   the findings and conclusions are often disputed.

                         ------------------------
                               Conclusions
			 
   We do not have enough facts about the sequence of events on the Temple
   Mount and about the actions of the security forces. We have not cited
   facts about which we had doubts or which were unclear and we have
   stated our reservation about any such facts that we have cited. The
   testimonies collected by B'Tselem point to a series of faults (specified
   below) which apparently occurred during the actions of the police, the
   Border Police and their superiors. We believe that each of these faults
   must be examined thoroughly by whatever body has been appointed or will
   be appointed to investigate the events on the Temple Mount.

   1. The Temple Mount incident exacted a very heavy price in human life
   and in injury to persons who were in the vicinity of the Temple Mount.
   These lethal results are consistent with well-documented situations of
   indiscriminate firing into a large crowd of people.

   2. The small number of casualties among the security forces and Jewish
   civilians, and the relatively light character of their wounds, raises
   questions about the degree of danger that confronted the security forces
   personnel and the people whom they were charged with protecting -- and
   thus about the justification for the acute reaction.

   3. If there were stages in which concrete mortal danger existed, these
   were a brief stage at the outset of the riot, this being the stage in
   which most of the security personnel and the worshippers were hurt --
   yet precisely in this stage virtually no use was made of live fire.

   4. As the testimonies show, in the stage of the security forces'
   counter-attack, shooting took place in bursts of unaimed fire from the
   hip, spraying a large area. This is an extremely dangerous and
   prohibited form of shooting, and according to a ruling of the Supreme
   Court, it constitutes an act of criminal negligence on the part of those
   who did the shooting.

   5. According to our investigation, the firing continued even while the
   crowd was dispersing in every direction and many were fleeing, as well
   as at the stage in which ambulances and medical teams arrived at the
   scene.

   6.  The investigation shows that no gradual use was made of alternative
   means to live ammunition, and that no attempt was made to talk with
   people who were on the Temple Mount and who might have been able to calm
   the situation.

   7. The investigation shows that no hierarchy of common supervision and
   fire-control existed at the site, and if there was such a hierarchy it
   did not function properly. According to their own testimony, security
   forces personnel opened fire without being ordered to do so. There was
   no source with the ability to order and oversee the execution of the
   standing rules of engagement.

   8. Ambulance and medical teams were hit in the course of the shooting.
   Whether this was deliberate or whether it occurred as a result of
   indiscriminate fire, it constitutes a grave violation of universally
   accepted humanitarian and legal principles.

   9. In B'Tselem's assessment, the information given to the public about
   the events was for the most part imprecise, thus raising the suspicion
   that attempts were made to hide facts, mislead the public, give
   "backing" to the security forces and evade responsibility.

   A commission of inquiry has been set up which has no powers and which is
   not headed by a judge, meaning that it has no independent standing. This
   committee will not be able to compel witnesses from the Arab population
   -- who for various reasons will hesitate or even refuse to cooperate
   with an examining committee -- to appear before it.

   Furthermore, the prime minister, the police minister and other ranking
   political figures have publicly communicated to the committee the
   message and the expectation that it will find that the security forces
   acted properly.

   B'Tselem believes that only a judicial Commission of Inquiry, with the
   power to compel witnesses to testify before it, will enjoy the
   independent standing that will enable it to disregard the kind of
   message that the present committee is getting from the Israeli
   government, which with good reason views the matter as extremely
   sensitive and important -- an issue with far-reaching implications for
   Israel's international standing and its connection with the holy places
   in Jerusalem.

    Mr. MCALLEN                                      
    
    We have been patiently waiting for you to come with a reply to my entry
    .46 for more then ten days by now.  Please consider this as a polite 
    reminder that at least I would like to hear your answer.

    Regards,
    Leo
    
================================================================================
Note 986.46           Riot and Shooting at the Temple Mount             46 of 51
HPSPWR::SIMON "Curiosier and curiosier..."           10 lines  30-OCT-1990 19:38
                            -< Was it your point? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The information (.44) may be fresh, but still, what was your point in
    .41?  Were you happy that capable people were doing the investigation
    or upset by it?  Did you think in advance that the result would be
    biased and wanted the PLO conduct the investigation?  Did you agree
    with the UN policy to condemn Israel first and send the investigation
    team later?
    
    So what did it mean in .41:  "Who did you say heads the probe panel ?"?
    
    Leo

The Zamir Commission report came out about a week ago.  The basic findings were
as follows:

1)  The rioting was initiated by the large mob gathered on the Temple Mount,
    who physically attacked the policemen stationed there.  The Temple Mount
    Faithful were not present, as the security forces had not let them in.

2)  The police were extremely ill-prepared.  The Commission found that the
    police command had received intelligence reports that such an outbreak
    might take place, but that no advance measures had been taken to deal with
    it.  The Commission specifically blamed
	a)  the Inspector-General of the Police, the highest-ranking uniformed
	    official;
	b)  the Commander of the Southern District (which includes Jerusalem),
	    who reports to the Inspector-General;
	c)  the Commander of the Jerusalem Police, who reports to the Commander
	    for the Southern District.

3)  I'm not sure whether or not the Commission explicitly stated this, but
    there was at least a strong suggestion that the high casualties were a
    direct result of the lack of preparation on the part of the security
    forces.

Following a subsequent Cabinet meeting, the Police Minister announced that
there would be organizational changes, and hinted at personnel changes as well.
Last I heard, it was still uncertain exactly what would happen to the 3
officials mentioned in #2.

>    The Commission found that the
>    police command had received intelligence reports that such an outbreak
>    might take place, but that no advance measures had been taken to deal with
>    it.

It seems that after almost every security failure (from the Lockerbie air
bombing to the Temple mount, now with Kahane, and let's not forget the 
Yom Kippur War, and even Pearl Harbor), there comes a report that shows that
there were "intelligence reports" warning about it which were ignored.
Logic would indicate that intelligence communities are always flooded with
"reports" like this.  The difficult part is evaluating what is real and
what is not.  It seems unfair to blame them based on the fact that a
warning may have been received.  Would you suggest that every time there is
a rumor of a plan to hijack an airliner all commerical planes be grounded?

.53>    The Commission found that the
.53>    police command had received intelligence reports that such an outbreak
.53>    might take place, but that no advance measures had been taken to deal
.53>    with it.

.54> Logic would indicate that intelligence communities are always flooded with
.54> "reports" like this.  The difficult part is evaluating what is real and
.54> what is not.  It seems unfair to blame them based on the fact that a
.54> warning may have been received.  Would you suggest that every time there is
.54> a rumor of a plan to hijack an airliner all commerical planes be grounded?

Your analogy is flawed.  The police commanders did not just hear "rumors"; they
received solid intelligence reports that there was likely to be violence at the
Temple Mount on that particular day.  While you or I might not be able to
accurately evaluate such reports, that is one of the things that a senior
police official is supposed to know how to do.

No one ever said that intelligence evaluation was an easy job, nor that
officials responsible for it should always know in advance exactly what will
happen in any given situation.  But the Commission, which was made up of people
familiar with this sort of problem, felt that in this particular instance the
police command should have known to be better prepared.

    Greetings,
    
    The following is personal opinion.  If inappropriate, please let me
    know and I'll delete.
    
    That said...
    
    It seems to me that it's a contradition in terms for the group writing
    the report posted in .51 to call themselves an Israeli Human Rights
    organization, since it seems that if you're an Israeli, your human
    rights don't carry the same weight as others.
    
    Steve

    Re: .56
    
    Many years of experience with Notes Conferences, has taught me that
    after reading notes like .56 :-
    	1.  Count to ten
    	2.  Ask polietly if it is a wind-up 
    
    Steve, my-lad, have you nothing better to do than waste valuable
    bandwidth, on wind-ups ???
    
    If it is not a wind-up, could you please elaborate the very terse
    comment. The way I read it at first glance, it looked like the opinion
    of some very extreme terrorists.
    
    >>                                 if you're an Israeli, your human
    >>    rights don't carry the same weight as others.
    
    They don't believe that Israeli do have human rights, and therefore
    thay can go around murdering them.
    
    						... Puzzled from Putney

re: .53 the Zamir Commision report 

Did the report say anything about the behavior of the police, given the fact 
that they were woefully unprepared?

To put it another way, let's pretend for a moment that the police commanders 
had NO reliable intelligence about the impending riot.  Would the reaction of
the police on Har HaBayit then have been acceptable?

IMHO these are two seperate issues:

1) Why they were unprepared
2) given the fact that they were unprepared, how did they react?

re .56 & 57

I think (hope) .56 is trying to point out an irony.
nuff said.

re: .57

I didn't think I wrote .56 in a puzzling manner, but I will explain what I 
meant.

In .56 I said...

================================================================================
Note 986.56           Riot and Shooting at the Temple Mount             56 of 57
DELNI::SMCCONNELL "Next year, in JERUSALEM!"         13 lines  12-NOV-1990 17:44
                                   -< IMHO >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Greetings,
    
    The following is personal opinion.  If inappropriate, please let me
    know and I'll delete.
    
    That said...
    
    It seems to me that it's a contradition in terms for the group writing
    the report posted in .51 to call themselves an Israeli Human Rights
    organization, since it seems that if you're an Israeli, your human
    rights don't carry the same weight as others.
    
    Steve

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

Because it seemed to me (upon reading the report posted in .51) that the 
human rights of the Israelis didn't carry much/any weight with the creators 
of that report, who call themselves an Israeli Human Rights organization.

I personally (again, just my opinion) find that label an oxymoron.  The 
Israelis were worshipping G-d.  I'd say that's a pretty basic human right.  
To be stoned by people while trying to worship G-d seems to me (again, my 
opinion) to be a violation of human rights - in this case, a violation of 
the human rights of the Israelis who were stoned.

I found it odd that a group calling itself an Israeli Human Rights group 
didn't give much weight to the violation of the human rights of the 
Israelis at the wall.  I think everyone recognizes the tragedy of the loss 
of life that day and no one wants to down play it - but it seems (to me) 
that there has been next to nothing said about the fact that innocent 
people worshipping G-d were stoned without provocation and for no apparent 
reason.  I'm overstating myself...

As for your reply .57:

>    Many years of experience with Notes Conferences, has taught me that
>    after reading notes like .56 :-
>    	1.  Count to ten

I sincerely wish to apologize if my opinion angered you.  I did try very 
hard to stress that it was only my opinion and that if it was 
inappropriate, I'd delete it.

Please note that the following "disclaimers" appeared in .56...

>   -< IMHO >-
>   The following is personal opinion.  
>   If inappropriate, please let me know and I'll delete.


---------

>    	2.  Ask polietly if it is a wind-up 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what a "wind-up" is.

>    If it is not a wind-up, could you please elaborate the very terse
>    comment. The way I read it at first glance, it looked like the opinion
>    of some very extreme terrorists.

If you consider supporting the right of Jewish worshippers to worship 
without being stoned an 'extreme terrorist opinion' - then your first glance 
impression would be correct.  I don't think that's what you really feel 
though - is it?

    
>    >>                                 if you're an Israeli, your human
>    >>    rights don't carry the same weight as others.


If the above (out-of-context) quote is all you saw in .56, I can see why 
you'd think I'm a terrorist.  In fairness, you should look at *all* of what 
I said...

>    It seems to me that it's a contradition in terms for the group writing
>    the report posted in .51 to call themselves an Israeli Human Rights
>    organization, since it seems that if you're an Israeli, your human
>    rights don't carry the same weight as others.

Read in context, I hope my opinion is clear.  If not, perhaps my opinion 
re-edited would help...

It seems to me that it's a contradiction in terms for the group writing the
report posted in .51 to call themselves an Israeli Human Rights
organization, since IT SEEMED TO ME AFTER READING .51 that IN THEIR
OPINION, NOT MINE (which is why I point out the contradiction in the first 
place), Israeli human rights don't carry the same weight as others. 

If you're still puzzled, please let me know.

Steve

	I think .56 was written as a sarcastic comment on the morality of our
international judges/executioners...

DG

Re: .57

>    Steve, my-lad, have you nothing better to do than waste valuable
>    bandwidth, on wind-ups ???

As others have pointed out, you've misunderstood Steve's intention.
Steve, from my encounters with him, is a sincere fellow who has an 
aversion to hypocrisy, and who is starting to realize that Jew-hatred
(and its inevitable child, self-hatred) is one of the few sciences 
which is not subject to logical arguments. 

Jem

    Jem,
    
    Thank you, my friend.  That was most kind of you.
    
    Someday, you'll have to teach me how to sum up ideas that can take 
    almost 100-lines of text - into a paragraph that makes sense.  My 
    attempts (thus far) have obviously fallen a tad short ;-)
    
    Dear Puzzled from Putney ;-)
    
    (sorry to sound so "Dear Abby-ish", I don't know your name...)
    
    Looks like we both misunderstood eachother a bit.  My *few* years in
    Notes Conferences have taught me that there are 4,582 better mediums of
    communication.  Since we're in this one, perhaps we can both try harder
    to look past the screen.
    
    Steve
   

    I didn't find any reference to this in previous replies, so here it
    goes:
    
    The Item 1 in the report (see .51) referres to "indiscriminate" use of
    live ammunition.  The next day the report authors issued a correction. 
    The translation into English was incorrect, it should have read
    "unsupervised".
    
    It was briefly mentioned in the radio report.
    
    Leo

Looks like an apology is in order, as I thought that Steve's note was saying 
the absolute opposite to what, I now realize, he meant.

It's probably due to the fact that I am so used to people attacking Israeli
organizations and standards, that I don't always realize that someone might be 
being saracastic.  I know of organizations that will automatically discount
reports from Israeli Human Rights Organizations, because it is an *Israeli*
organization.

Steve, a wind-up is a note that someone puts into a notes conference, just
to start the fur flying. Its the opposite of a rat-hole. 

Regards,
					.... Monty from Ra'anana

<endnote>

.58>	re: .53 the Zamir Commision report 
.58>
.58>	1) Why they were unprepared

As I noted in .53, the Zamir Commission said that the senior police command
failed to do their jobs properly.


.58>	2) given the fact that they were unprepared, how did they react?

The police reacted as any normal human being would when suddenly and violently
attacked by a large mob:  They panicked.

Had they known that a riot was likely to occur, on the other hand, they could
have been ready for it.  They could have had enough manpower to deal with the
mob in a way that would have involved fewer casualties.  They also could have
limited the number of people allowed on the Temple Mount that day, to reduce
the difficulty of controlling any riot that might occur.

     Thank you for printing the summary of the B'Tselem report.  I appreciate
being able to read an analysis which is not filtered through the U.S. media,
nor through the Israeli government.  It suggests to me that there is a lot
more to learn about what happened, which could only be answered by a group 
able to question everybody - Palestinian leaders as well as Israel security
agents, and to have detailed answers.

     If such an event of such moment had happened here, many people would have
demanded an investigation led by knowledgeable impartial people.

>If such an event of such moment had happened here, many people would have
>demanded an investigation led by knowledgeable impartial people.

What makes you so sure about that?  There have been numerous incidents in 
U.S. history that contradict your assertion.  Is the U.S. the only democracy 
in the world?

--David 

.66>	If such an event of such moment had happened here, many people would
.66>	have demanded an investigation led by knowledgeable impartial people.

When I was growing up in the United States, the Ohio National Guard fired into
a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, killing 4 people and injuring others.  There
was a whole lot less "investigation led by knowledgeable impartial people" than
what followed the Temple Mount incident, where rioters violently attacked the
police.

>... a crowd of peaceful demonstrators

Actually, at Kent State at least some of the demonstrators were
throwing rocks.  But the analogy is a good one.

Interestingly, the reaction of the National Guard more or less put an
end to campus demonstrations. I wish the same could be said about the
"iron fist" putting an end to the intifada.

>If such an event of such moment had happened here, many people would have
>demanded an investigation led by knowledgeable impartial people.

>> What makes you so sure about that?  

     For instance, the rioting at Attica prison.  For that matter, the general
American public does not seem very sympathetic to prisoners, and certainly not
to those under maximum security.  Also Watergate aroused a considerable outcry, 
and more investigation than the president would have liked; in response to
Irangate the investigation, I think, was less successful.  

>>                                     There have been numerous incidents in 
 U.S. history that contradict your assertion. 

     I don't know which incidents you have in mind, there has been much 
unrequited injustice in this country (as in all others).  I said
"many people would have demanded an investigation", not that their demand
would have been met!

>> Is the U.S. the only democracy in the world?

     Actually, I come from another proud democracy, Britain.

     It is *because* Israel is basically a democracy that its citizens can and
do form organizations, such as B'Tzelem and Rabbinic Human Rights Watch,
to seek the truth.

The Police Minister has announced some changes, as a result of the Zamir
Commission findings that I summarized in .53:


1)  Jerusalem will be made a police district, separate from the Southern
    District.  This had been discussed for some time, long before the Temple
    Mount incident, and seems to be a good idea on its own merits.  A Southern
    District that includes Jerusalem, Gaza, and Eilat, is too large to be
    properly managed.

2)  The commander of the Jerusalem police is being kicked upstairs, to be in
    charge of manpower for the national police headquarters.  This should
    minimize the possibility of his messing up riot control in the future.

3)  His boss, the commander of the Southern District, is taking early
    retirement.

4)  His boss, the Inspector-General of the Police, is staying in place.  I've
    seen two explanations for this:
    a)	Deploying police on the Temple Mount was more the responsibility of
	lower-level people than of his, so he's less to blame.
    b)	For several months, he's been involved in a highly-publicized
	investigation of alleged illegal activity by members of a certain
	political party.  Removing him, or even repremanding him, might be seen
	as responding to political pressure for the investigation to be halted.


All in all, the minister's response to the recommendations may be less than one
might have hoped for, but we could have had worse.  Politicians (and not just
in this country) tend to be reluctant to hold underlings responsible for their
mistakes, as this might set a dangerous precedent: politicians being held
responsible for their mistakes.

I disagree with some of your statements about Kent State, but this definitely
is the wrong topic (not to mention the wrong conference) to pursue this.  I'll
reply through Mail.

Did anyone see 60 Minutes last night on CBS?

They had a story on the Temple Mount incident.
I found it to be extremely one sided and anti-Israel.
Somehow, I'm not surprised.  The main focus, of course,
was on the 2nd half of the story - how the police handled
the situation.  The fact that Jews were attacked by stones
at the Kotel on a major Jewish holiday didn't seem very
important.

One of their major sources of information was a 13 year
old Palestinian kid.  They seemed to believe everything
he had to say.  They also interviewed the head Rabbi of
the Kotel.  They didn't seem to believe him, especially
when he said that he thought it was a miracle that not
a single Jew was hit by a stone.  They seemed to believe
a Palestinian when he was asked whether or not the
Palestinians were shouting "kill the Jews."  The Rabbi
claimed that he heard these words loud and clear.  They
didn't seem to believe him.  Who do you believe?

They let Benjamin Netanyahu throw in a few words here and
there.  That was nice of them.  They let Teddy Kollek
do most of the talking for the Jews.  That was even nicer
of them.

        -Rafi

    Yes, those crazy 60 minutes people.  Imagine their believing the film
    they'd dug up showing that all the Jewish worshipers had been taken to
    safety before the stones were thrown at the police.  And how bizarre
    that they believed the tourist's video tape containing the actual
    calls from the religious leader asking the Palestinians to take refuge
    in the mosque, when calls to "kill the Jews" make such better copy.
    
    Of course, the commission's allegation that the Palestinian nurse was
    "to sick" to testify about being shot was even denied by B'Tselem,
    who witnessed the commission interviewing her, as well as by herself
    directly to 60 minutes, but I guess B'Tselem runs around making stuff
    up too.
    

TV Desecration of Israel
from the Jewish Advocate, 12/6/90

Last Sunday night, December 2, 'Sixty Minutes' aired one of the most
vicious, venomous pieces of anti-Israel propaganda ever seen on 
broadcast news.  Mike Wallace - known for his previous attempts to 
whitewash the brutality under which Syrian Jews live - "investigated" 
the Temple Mount killings on October 8.

Wallace's report asserted - contrary to every other news report -
that no Jews were wounded at the Western Wall.  In fact, he claims,
the Jews had already left the Wall when the Palestinians began to 
throw rocks.  Wallace is shown, complete with yarmulke, interviewing
Rabbi Meir Yehuda Getz, the rabbi in charge of the Wall.

"How is it that no Jews were wounded?"  Wallace asks skeptically.
"It was a miracle," the rabbi answers.  Wallace, who clearly does
not believe in miracles, uses this answer to further his point that
there must have been no Jews at the Wall, since none got hurt.  (In
fact, reports varied from 11 to 20 Jews being hurt.  A 'New York 
Times' photo on p. A12 on October 9 shows women running from the 
Western Wall plaza, which in the photo is covered with rocks.  Other
reports estimated that 20,000 Jews were praying at the Wall at the
time of the attack.) 

Showing footage of Israeli police shooting at Palestinians, the
'Sixty Minutes' report did its best to make the police look like
Nazi Gestapo men persecuting innocent victims.  One interview -
with a young woman with a British accent wearing a kaffiyah - even
suggested that the Palestinians were throwing rocks BECAUSE the
Israeli police were shooting at them!

Brief clips of Benjamin Netanyahu defending Israeli actions did 
little to "balance" this segment.  The main Israeli figure 
interviewed was Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek, whose criticism of
the police as an Israeli was used against Israel.  This tactic, 
using Jewish self-criticism against the Jewish state, is a common 
one among those who seek to delegitimize Israel.

If the police did indeed "overreact" - and who wouldn't, faced 
with 3000 rioters armed with rocks and metal bars? - it may have
been this "overreaction" that prevented any Jews from being 
killed.  Ironically, it is Israel's ability to protect Jews from 
mass murder which indicts the Jewish state in the eyes of the 
world.  If there had, indeed, been a mass of Jewish corpses at 
the Wall as a result of the rioting, would the world be more 
sympathetic?  It calls to mind a very famous statement from 
former Prime Minister Golda Meir:  "If we have to have a choice
between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image,
we'd rather be alive and have the bad image."

The 'Sixty Minutes' segment only served to further discredit
Israel in the eyes of the world, so that the Jewish state can
be set up to be pressured into creating a Palestinian state in
order to get Iraq out of Kuwait.  The show, whether it intended
to or not, aids and abets Saddam Hussein.

    As Wallace noted in the report, the Israeli government was unable to
    produce the name of one Jewish worshiper hurt at the
    Wall, let alone 11 to 20.  Where are all these people who were injured?
    
    As he also noted, although most of the worshipers were evacuated
    before the stones were thrown at the police, a small number were put
    in the tunnels and later evacuated -- those were the people later
    shown running from the area after the end of the disturbance, when
    there were stones on the ground -- n.b., on the ground, there is
    no footage of stones being thrown and "civilians" there simultaneously.
    
    The commission also claimed that the Palestinian nurse shot
    and teargassed in the ambulance was too sick to be interviewed by
    them, when not only does she say she was interviewed, but B'tselem
    had a representative present during the interview and has publically
    called upon the government to explain the commission's ignoring her
    statement.  With this sort of credibility gap, even Benjamin Netanyahu
    and his pet rock won't make much headway.
    
                                                               

  As Wallace noted in his report, from their positions atop the Temple Mount,
  the rock throwers could not see whether or not there were worshippers at
  the Western Wall.  Thus they were all guilty of attempted murder.  And the
  police were correct to stop the murder attempts -- by any means necessary.

  As for the phoney Arabic sound track which accompanied the video, I have
  read a number of eyewitness accounts which differ in many details, but which
  all agree that the words emanating from the Al Aqsa muezzin's loudspeaker
  on that day were "ichbat al Yahud" -- slaughter the Jews.  Rabbi Getz, the
  only Jewish eyewitness interviewed by Wallace, confirmed this.

  -- Bill B.

Karen,

  A simple question.  Why is the word "civilians" in your note .77 in
  quotation marks?  Do you regard all Israeli Jews as legitimate (i.e,
  military) targets for attack?

  Secondly, and on a lighter note, can you expand on the issue of
  Netanyahu's pet rock?  What are you talking about -- it sounds
  humorous.

From the 12/9 broadcast of 'Sixty Minutes' here are a couple 
of the many angry letters they received as a result of their 
previous week's "report":

" ...Too bad you couldn't find your swastika arm band to wear
during that report ..."

" ...It was vicious propaganda aimed at the heart of Israel ..."

" ...A distorted portrayal of that tragic event ... that disregarded
Israel's side of the story ...  The incident was painful CBS' flawed 
report will not contribute to the healing wounds ..."

" ...What happened on October 8th was a tragically violent chain
of mutual provocations and overreaction.  I regret that Mike Wallace
deliberately used me to build the credibility of partial truths
he presented as final judgment ..."  Teddy Kollek, Jerusalem

\B

    Re: -.1
    
    Where were the letters published?
    
    Leo

    Re. .81
    
    The letters were read by Morley Safer on CBS's 'Sixty Minutes',
    12/9 broadcast.
    
    \B

    Re: various (it's the end of the week...)
    
    Civilians in quotes was to emphasize that they were not the police.
    
    If the police run towards an area where civilians are (that is,
    might be but weren't), and the Palestinians continue to throw rocks,
    and therefore the Palestinians are murderers of civilians, what does
    that make the Israelis who bomb Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon?
    
    Pet rock:  every (?) clip of Ben had him holding up a rock.
    Probably the excerpts were all from the same interview, but it did
    look strange after awhile.  And now, back to Ben and his rock....
    
    video:  my impression is that it is easy to tell if a video has been
    tampered with.  In any event, do you have evidence to present
    in support of actual tampering?  There are plenty of earwitnesses
    (I told you it was late) who contradict the rabbi's testimony.
                                               

.83>    video:  my impression is that it is easy to tell if a video has been
.83>    tampered with.

The person holding a video camera controls what is recorded and what isn't.  If
he is working for a television news organization, his primary motivation
(assuming that he's unbiased) is to make a tape interesting enough to get shown
on the news.

The person who edits a news story decides which portions of a videotape to
show, what background narration to add, and in what order to show the clips.
His primary motivation (again assuming a complete lack of bias) is to put
together a coherent story that is interesting enough that the viewers won't
decide to go to the bathroom while waiting for it to end.

Does aiming the camera only at selected parts of the scene, cutting the tape
into short segments and shuffling them around, and adding interpretive
background narration consitute what you call "tampering"?  Either way, there's
no reason to believe that the result of these efforts will be an accurate
portrayal of what actually happened.

The Temple Mount Faithful again requested permission to pray on the Temple
Mount, this time on December 17 (2 days ago).  As was the case the preceding
time, this request was denied.

What was different this time was that the police took precautions.  A large
force was placed in the Temple Mount area *before* any trouble might start.
And the entry of young Arabs from the territories into Jerusalem was
restricted.

As a result of proper preparation, there was no trouble.  There was no stone-
throwing, no riots, no shooting, no deaths, no injuries.  The Temple Mount
Faithful ("over 20" of them, according to the report that I saw) were kept away
from the Temple Mount, while their leader was interviewed by the press.

The police, having learned from their past mistakes, did exactly what they were
supposed to do: protect the safety of the public.

    Re: .77
    
    >As Wallace noted in the report, the Israeli government was unable to
    >produce the name of one Jewish worshiper hurt at the
    >Wall, let alone 11 to 20.  Where are all these people who were injured?
    
    Ms. Kolling is by now famous for producing the "sources" for the events
    she likes to see, such as quoting Wallace to prove Wallace's
    information.  Let's see:
    
    *************************************************
    
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount incident on 60 minutes
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 19 Dec 90 10:23:48 GMT
 
I would like to present an article published in the Jeruaslem Post on
Friday, December 14.
 
TEMPLE MOUNT: REWRITING HISTORY
-------------------------------
 
It is all too easy to pick on Mike Wallace's conduct surrounding the
production of the 60 Minutes program on the Temple Mount as indicative
of bias, tendentiousness, and willfulness. His main production consultant
in Jerusalem was David Kuttab, an avid PLO supporter and propogandist;
he sought no Israeli advice. His associates told a Jerusalem municipal
spokeswoman they were planning to present the Palestinian side of the
story.
 
In a personal phone conversation, Wallace claimed he could not get Israeli
officials to respond to Arab allegations. In fact, he and his correspondents
rejected all Israeli offers of cooperation. He insisted to the government
press office that he wanted to interview only pollice officers, though he
knew that the ongoing police investigation prohibited such testimonies. He
also ignored a video tape containing clear evidence that during the 15-minute
rock barrage on the worshippers' plaza at the Western Wall, not a single
policeman was on the wall- which disproves the Arab claim that the rioters
were aiming the rocks at the police, not the worshippers.
 
It is also easy to wonder about Wallace's blind faith in the evidence of the
Palestinians. When PLO leader Yassir Arafat shows a drawing of an old coin
and claims it is the expansion map of Israel, when the PLO's Farouk Kaddoumi
declares it was Mrs. Klinghoffer who killed her crippled husband and pushed
him and his wheelchair overboard from the Achille Lauro, and when Abul Abbas
claims that his gunmen killed 500 Israeli officers in their attack on the
Tel Aviv beaches, Wallace and his colleagues dismiss the stories as
embarrassing Arabian nights fantasies. Yet when an Arab health worker calls the
members of the Zamir commission, three of the most respected men in Israel,
"liars", he obviously believes her and seeks no Israeli rebuttal.
 
Wallce deftly employs the usual tricks of tendentious journalism that Wallace
so deftly employs. To present the Arab side, he takes a "typical" rioter, a
cultured, Western-educated blond boy of 13, son of PLO-affiliated Sari
Nusseiba, who came to "defend the Temple Mount" that fateful day. Is there a
viewer who would not rage at police who would shoot at this sweet little boy?
Others representing the Palestinian side are a doctor, a woman photgrapher
a wounded kid and that injured health-worker in the hospital. The message
was clear: Israeli targets were women and children. Somehow, Wallace forgot
PLO chieftan Faisal Husseini, who must have been there only to defend
Nusseiba's boy, and 3000 other rampaging men and women.
 
The Israelis, on the other hand, are represented by an ultra-orthodox rabbi,
who to most Americans must look like a Neanderthal throwback, and by two
officials. One is Deputy Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who, in a breach
of television ethics is shown as if he had been interviewed for the program
when in fact only file footage of his appearance on the day of the riot was
used. The other is Mayor Teddy Kollek, whose words are used out of context in
an ugly excercise of disinformation- about which more later.
 
One wonders why Wallace did not interview Israeli witnesses, like a little
13 year-old girl, a little like Jamal Nusseiba, whose American accent is even
better. Footage of interviewswith Israeli witnesses taken immediately after the
riot is available, and it is easy enough to trace them. Wallace claims that he
strenuously tried to get the names of the Jewish injured and could not. It took
me one phone call to get a list of the eight who were treated at the Hadassah
hospital, including adresses, phones, and identity card numbers.
Surely Wallace's legmen are at least efficient as I.
 
Inadvertantly, Wallace's witnesses confirm a central Israeli contention: that
the riot was premeditated, and that the 3000 rioters- who, one must assume,
were not all soft spoken 13 year-old boys- had brought racks and boulder
in "rubbish buckets" to the Mount, and that they were led by ringleaders,
"sheikhs going around with loudspeakers", as little Nusseiba described them.
Young Nusseiba of course assures Wallace that the Arabs were only going to
respond if attacked. Considering that in the past 3 years Palestinian Arabs
have initiated rock-throwing in over 60,000 reported incidents, this would have
indeed been a commendable first.
 
But it is foolish to expect a superstar like Wallace to be content with the
tricks of the standard bash-Israel productions. Wallace is a man with a
mission, which justifies much greater enormities. His main prupose was twofold:
to prove that the Israeli police provoked the riot, and that they used live
ammuniton before the rioters threw rocks at the worshippers. First he asserts
that the rioting, which caused several police injuries and the torching of the
police post on the Temple Mount, began only when a tear-gas cannister exploded
out of the blue. "Some of the women", volunteers Wallace, "feared that
signalled the approach of the radical Jewish group". (How does he know?)
 
But just in case some viewers might not think that the muffled sound of a tear
gas cannister does not quite justify a major riot, Wallace uses Mayor Teddy
Kollek to reinforce this provocation thesis. Wallace: "The Israeli government
.. tried to persuade the world that this was an unprovoked riot by the
Palestinians." Kollek: "We have an ideological government, and I think that
wherever you have ideological governments you run into trouble."
 
What Wallace does not tell his viewers is that this Kollek reply was not given
asz an answer to that question. It was part of a long exchange during the
interview in which Kollek, as is his wont, expressed his blunt opinion of the
government. To splice it out of context and create the impression that Kollek
agreed that the riot was provoked was a blatant inversion of the truth and
beyond the pale even by television's loose standards. After seeing the program,
Kollek, whose declared confidence in the Zamir commission's integrity is never
mentioned in the show, protested to CBS. Complaining that he was deliberately
used by Wallace, Kollek charges that in rushing to assign blame, Wallace edited
out the truth.
 
Wallace's second undertaking is to prove that rioters threw rocks at the
Western Wall worshippers- which was, after all, what incensed viewers around
the world- only after they were mowed down by live ammunition. None of his
witnesses says so. Only Wallace himself asserts that what made the mob stone
the worshippers was seeing comrades shot down by the police.For this, too, he
uses a spliced bit of Kollek, this time in an even more underhanded manner.
Kollek:"[There was] a great number of young men running against [the police]
with chains in their hands, with sticks in their hands, and they felt
threatened." Wallace:"And, as a result?" Kollek:"As a result they acted as you
know they acted." Wallace: "They shot." Kollek:"Yeah."
 
The only trouble with this exchange is that Kollek was referring to the police
shooting after they had been chased away by the mob from the Temple Mount,
after they had witnessed the 15-minute barrage on the worshippers plaza at the
Western Wall, after they had lost contact with the two policemen in the police
post and feared for their lives, and after they returned to face the raging mob
on the Temple Mount by forcing there way through the Mugrabi gate. Wallace
simply placed this segment before descrabing these events, and followed Kollk's
description with his own: "Seeing people shot down by the Israelis on the
Temple Mount drovew the Palestinians into a frenzy, and once the Israelis had
retreated off the Temple Mount, the young Palestinians were able...to let loose
a barrage of stones over the wall."
 
Which aside from being a prevarication is also ludicrous. Had the police used
live ammunition, the crowd would have behaved exactly the ay it did a half hour
later when the police did use live ammunition: it would have dispersed in
panic.
 
 
 
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======

More from the Post:

in the Int'l edition on the 15th, there is an article by David Bar-Illan 
titled "Mike Wallace: not your run-of-the-mill antisemite" where he talks about
Wallace's history of supporting ANY underdog and his various interviews with
folks like Assad, Brezhnev, Arafat, etc, as well as AIPAC.

The following week, Mike replied in the 22nd issue with further analysis by
Bar-Illan.  Wallace claims not to be a "self-hating Jew" and that he is "proud
of his heritage" and "committed to Isreal's integrity and safety as any Zionist"

They are both interesting articles; sorry I don't have the energy to type them
both in here at the moment...

Waky