NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/mideast/23821

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 6.2 KB | 130 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!qso.Colorado.EDU!perlman
From: [e-mail] (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Hamas
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Daily Planet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: qso.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:38:22 GMT
Lines: 117

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Gingerich) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>...
>>>>account that within a decade, the situation would most probably have
>>>>been reversed, due to large scale Jewish immigration  - not only new
>>>>arrivals, but also those who finally could get in after not having been
>>>>able to for years.  Think about it for a few minutes and you might
>>>>change your mind.
>>>
>>>Of course I am aware of this argument.  It was the argument used as
>>>justification for the unequal division at the time.  The problem
>>>is, why were the Palestinian Arabs obliged to accept the Zionist
>>>value system?  The purposeful gathering of Jews from other places
>>>might have been a cornerstone of Zionist thinking (regarded as
>>>"good" almost by definition) but I don't know why anyone else
>>>must regard it so, a priori.
>
>Well, since Brendan is on vacation and I'm getting tired of the insinuations
>you load your arguments with, Eric, I'll take up his banner for a moment.

Excuse me, Jonathan, there are no insinuations meant here.  You're
reading something into my arguments which patently are not there, nor
were ever intended.

>>A priori, perhaps not.  But considering that both British policy during
>>the war did just about everything to prevent Jews escaping the shoah to
>>enter mandatory Palestine, and also that Arab policy was even more
>>dead-set against such immigration (from what I know) it would be crass
>>at the least not to expect that to be something that the Jewish
>>population wanted very badly.
>
>Come on Eric, don't be coy.  Spit it out!  Is Brendan "crass", or maybe
>(nudge, wink) he's (gasp) more than "crass"!

Please read what I said once again.  Nowhere am I trying to insinuate
that Brendan himself is being crass.  I am attempting to argue from a
purely historical point of view, stating only hypotheticals.

> Then again maybe he hasn't
>_ever_ denied  that "the Jewish population wanted [it] very badly" -
>especially given that the Zionists by definition wanted it very badly
>regardless of outside circumstances; and maybe you're just enmerding up
>your silly argument.

Hardly.  And why is the argument necessarily one that is being
"enmerded" (and yes, I do get the insinuation which you're aiming back,
in a much less subtle way - I speak French and know quite well what
"merde" means).

>The rhetoric about Palestinians is just as insidious if not as personal.

Once again, how?  You're hardly being even-handed yourself. Nothing
personal was intended.  If you see that therein, you're reading into the
message something that patently isn't there, nor was it ever intended.

>The Palestinians where hardly in the best position to either succor or
>anticipate the impending genocide of Europe's Jews.

Impending genocide?  Jonathan, we're talking about 1948 here.  The
Holocaust had already happened, and the vast majority of the remainder
of Europe's Jews were refugees who had no wish to go back.  In addition, the
facts about the genocide were well known by early 1942, and still the borders
did not open, even when it's crystal clear that if they had opened, hundreds
of thousands of lives would have been saved.  Hardly a small figure
especially when you remember that there are less than 20 million Jews
world-wide, and that the Jewish population still has not returned to its
pre-WWII levels.

>  Their choice seemed to
>be between accepting continued disenfranchiment or struggling against the
>immigration.

Hardly.  They were following a leader who was working *actively* with
the Nazis - Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini.  He had eliminated - by murder
or sedition - nearly all his political enemies.  He had also incited
numerous riots against the Jewish population during the early 1920s and
into the 1930s (the rhetoric that they were riots against the British
primarily is just plain not true).  Why can you be so sure that they
would have been disenfranchised if they chose to work with Zionist
leaders during the war, or perhaps earlier?

>Given what did happen, it's hard to argue they were incorrect.

I take exactly the opposite point of view.  I think that, given what
did happen, it's very hard to argue they were correct.  Let's remember,
shall we, that the 1948 war was for Israel a war of survival and self-
defense.

>>I don't think that to accept the
>>partition forced acceptance of the Zionist value system.
>
>Yes, you _do_.  You do unless you are walking away from the argument you
>made above - that the partition was not disproportionate because we haven't
>counted the Jews who wanted to immigrate.  Something the Arabs wanted very
>badly not.

Hogwash.  Jonathan, I don't like things being read into my messages
which were never intended, let alone having them used to build up a
straw man to knock down, as you did here.  I think you owe me an
apology.


--
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman                  <[e-mail]>
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder


--
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman                  <[e-mail]>
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder