Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    There is precedent for this - the government of West Germany has been
    paying compensation to German Jews for many years.  My fathers'
    parents were receiving it up till at least a few years ago, and my
    grandmother may still be getting it.  It's not a lump sum, nor a
    lot of money.
    
    The concept of a people paying for wrongs done by past generations
    is actually quite common, though rarely does it take the form
    of outright payments.  Consider "Affirmative Action" as practiced
    in the US by means of quotas.  Or various groups claiming that they
    should benefit from unequal treatment because of the dozens/hundreds/
    thousands of years (pick one) during which they supposedly (and often
    did) had the short end of the stick.  Why are people astonished when
    the descendants of the "oppressors" are not pleased with having to
    pay for sins they did not commit?
    
    Like with most of life, there are no pat answers here.  I see value
    in the arguments on both sides.
    
    					Steve

Why should descendants pay for the wrong doing of their ancestors... you are not
responsible for what they did.  The descendants can't change history!



Xtine

    THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS BIGOTRY, ALL ETHNIC GROUPS ARE OWED AN APOLOGY, 
    NOT BLOOD MONEY OR 30 PIECES OF SILVER. EVERY ETHNIC GROUP WENT THRU A 
    SIMILAR CAMP IF YOU WILL. THE IRONY IS THAT IF JAPAN AND GERMANY AND
    ITALY HADN'T MADE US DEFEND OURSELVES; GHETTOES AND BIGOTRY WOULD NOT
    HAVE BEEN BROKEN UP. CONCENTRATION WAS WIDESPREAD. WE SAW INJUSTICES
    AND REALIZED BLACKS, YELLOWS, TANS AND WHITES ARE HUMAN AND RATED THE
    RESPECT AS HUMANS.
    
    THE AFRICANS WERE SOLD INTO SLAVERY BY THEIR OWN CHIEFS TO SLAVE
    DEALERS
    
    COMPENSATION WAS OFFERED IN THE FORM OF A ONE WAY TICKET TO LIBERIA BY
    THE THEN PRES. ROOSEVELT.
    
    THE AMERICAN INDIANS STILL HAVE A CASE.
    
    GERMANY AND JAPAN COMPENSATED THE VICTIMS SOMEWHAT. THE HAVE EMERGED
    MORE POWERFUL THAN US.  BANKS AND PROFIT CAUSE THE WHOLE SCENARIO.
    
    COMPENSATION IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE PALESTINIANS. THEY WANT THEIR
    COUNTRY
         WHAT RIGHT HAS THE U.N. GOT TO GIVE THE JEWS (ISRAEL) SOMEONE
    ELSES LAND. THIS ONE WILL NEVER BE SETTLED.  THE U.N. GIVES NEW YORK
    TO THE PALESTINIANS WOULD GO OVER PRETTY WELL. IT GOES ON

Does a few hundred or few thousand dollars spread over many years really make
a difference?  Other than a certain sense of "moral smugness"?  

 I agree with Kris Hatashita's father in this; "There is justice in the offer; 
there is no justice in the accepting".

					Nigel

I get heated up about this subject so I will keep this short.

I want to know when they are going to do something about the continuing
 injustice against the american indians. Nothing has been done for them.
Attitudes have changed about blacks and that is one of the greatest
social changes that has occured in my lifetime but we still have egg on
our faces in that treatment of indians hasen't improved at all.
I say "our faces" because if the american government is what we think it is
we are all responcible for allowing it to continue.

I agree with Kris's father and like the way he thinks.

-j

    Just curious, Jerry... 
    
    What is it you want done?  Said?  By whom?  To whom?
    
    -dwight

    I think that you are wrong in saying that the decendants cannot change
    history....if they can't...WHO CAN???
    
    Jill
    

    
    
    	I agree that ' decendants ' can't change History of or for
    thier race, However they can change and have changed thier 'FUTURES'.
    
    	Like my father did better in life than his, and I've done better
    	than my father, and my son's will do better than I etc. and with
    	each generation the social constraints will change for the specific
    	'Race' etc. etc.
    
    	And I agree that the wrong people ( the ones offering the
    compensation/apology ) aren't the ones who should be.
    
    	(i.e. if your brother beats you and takes something from you) it's
    	not the same when your mother says, Oh he's sorry and then replaces
    the item herself, as it would be if the brother had done it.
    
    	Oh! well, just remember we should all be renting from the INDIANS!
    
    						-=MAC=-
    NuFF said!

    >> Oh! well, just remember we should all be renting from the INDIANS!


    Land belongs to no one, including the Indians.  They too, fought over
    land among each other, but lost to the white man.  One day, we may
    lose it to someone else.

    -dwight

    I'm all for compensating Holocaust survivors and Japanese Americans
    whi were interned during WWII. I am not in favor of compensating their 
    offspring. 
    
    Kate

Re: .3

    
>    COMPENSATION IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE PALESTINIANS. THEY WANT THEIR
>    COUNTRY

What does that have to do with the subject under discussion?


>         WHAT RIGHT HAS THE U.N. GOT TO GIVE THE JEWS (ISRAEL) SOMEONE
>    ELSES LAND.

They didn't. They simply recognized that the land always belonged
to the Jewish people. So would you, had you bothered to read some
history. If that fails, read the Bible. 

Do get your facts straight before you go shouting all over the net.

-- Ron

    Dwight,
    We kicked this around once before I think....
    Mostly I'd like to see the standard of living improved to at least the
    poverty level. Many home still do not have simple pleasures we consider
    standard like running water,modern sanitation(toilets -vs-outhouses)
    electricity,ect. The reservation near my familys land in So. Dakota
    and those I have visited here in colorado had neither for a good percent
    of the population. Many homes are the quansit(sp?) huts feft over from
    WW2 and have little if any insulation others are scrap lumber shacks
    with anything from tin to canvas roofs. 
    Who should pay? Someone won't like me for this but we the collective
    people of the united states are the ones. We do the same for many
    poverty level groups with low cost housing,welfare,ect.
    Yes, We fought them for it and won by such cheap tactics as giving
    blankets infected with desease filled blankets(germ warfare us? never!)
    and starvation(the killing of the buffalo). Sweet victory is ours so
    we take the spoils. We helped the Japanese rebuild,sent medical supplys
    and other acts of humanity that still haven't been extended to the
    indians. Above all of that we took their identity from them made them
    speak our tongue,dress as we do. Granted many have gone back but many
    customs were lost never to be revived either the elders were killed
    off or in some cases whole tribes made extinct.
    Prejudice exists too, openly, only the are so few voices crying out they
    can't be heard there just isen't the lobby power in DC.
    I haven't heard any TV ad's calling for support for the American Indian
    educational fund remember " a mind is a terrible to waste".
    
    If we intend to help one group and overlook another is there truly
    equality and freedom for all? Not the way I see it.
    
    Sorry to drag this down a rathole, Jerry
                                                                     

    Although the monetary payment may be nice, I think the best reason for
    making the descendents of the abusers (Germans for the Holocaust,
    American and Canadian governments for citizens with Japanese
    ancestries) pay for the sins of their ancestors is to keep REMINDING
    them that society won't ever let these events happen again (in other
    words, they shouldn't even THINK about repeating history).
    
    And thank you, Ron, for putting Mr. Leo in his place. Maybe if people
    like him were in the same position as the Germans etc., they'd think
    twice before making such statements as he did. And I certainly hope
    he's one of only a handful in this company who feels that way.
    
    Nancy- 

    Re .14
    
    Why is concern about the expropriation of the Palestinians such
    a terrible thing?

                                                   
    Liam

Re: .15

>    Why is concern about the expropriation of the Palestinians such
>    a terrible thing?

To answer your question: had the Palestinians been expropriated,
concern over it would not have been such a terrible thing. Since
they haven't, it's kind of a moot question. 

Here's why.

First, you probably mean "expropriation of the Palestinians' land".
As far as I know, no one has expropriated the Palestinians 
themselves.

Second, no one has expropriated a Palestinian's land, either. 
Arabs can --and do-- own land in Israel. They own the land, even 
though they do not rule the country. Being a minority in a 
Democracy, this is not particularly surprising.

What I suspect (do correct me if I am wrong) you wanted to say, was 
that Palestinians should be given rights to the **country**and should
be allowed to rule it. If so, I wonder why. Could you possibly
explain? The Land of Israel (which **they** are pleased to call
'Palestine') was always the Jewish people's land. It never belonged
to the Arabs. They always lived in it as guests, a small minority.

The Palestinians want something that is not theirs. They have no
valid claims. Throwing bombs in supermarkets will not validate their 
claims. During WWII, they aligned themselves with nazi Germany. That 
didn't do much for their cause, either.

-- Ron

to .16
    
    >explain? The Land of Israel (which **they** are pleased to call
>'Palestine') was always the Jewish people's land. It never belonged
>to the Arabs. They always lived in it as guests, a small minority.
 
    Could you clarify this?  I went to school with an Arab who claimed
    the exact opposite.
    
>    During WWII, they aligned themselves with nazi Germany. That 
>didn't do much for their cause, either.
    
    Could you clarify this one as well?  This is the first time I've
    heard about Palestine/German alignment.  What do you mean by alignment?
    
    Kris

Re: .17

>	The Land of Israel was always the Jewish people's land.
>
>    Could you clarify this?  I went to school with an Arab who claimed
>    the exact opposite.

Read the Bible. Also, any history book covering the period.

The Arabs didn't even exist as such when the people of Israel set up 
their kingdom in the area.


> >    During WWII, they aligned themselves with nazi Germany. That 
> >    didn't do much for their cause, either.
>
> Could you clarify this one as well?  This is the first time I've
> heard about Palestine/German alignment.  What do you mean by alignment?

Again, a history book would provide the information you want.
Briefly, the Mufti signed a pact with the nazis. The Arabs provided
help to Romel's troops in the desert. 

The Arabs' only interest was the extermination of European Jews. 
Their goals are still the same: PLO declarations intended for 
internal consumption talk again and again of the annihilation of 
Israel and 'Pushing the Israelis into the sea'.

-- Ron

>Read the Bible. Also, any history book covering the period.
    
-- Ron,
    
    I'd like to read the bible but as a reference it is 2000 years old.
    Can you give a reference for an unbias more recent account. 
    
    Kate 

Re: .19

>    I'd like to read the bible but as a reference it is 2000 years
>    old.

Quite true. Of course, the events we are talking about occurred well
before the Bible was canonized. In comparison, it is recent.


>     Can you give a reference for an unbias more recent account.

Are you saying the Bible is 'biased'? (you didn't append a smiley
face...) It couldn't be against the Arabs, as such. Arguably, they
didn't even really exist at the time.

Seriously, the religious aspect aside, the Bible can be viewed as
both a great literary work and a historical document. Regardless of
the age of a historical account, it is going to rely heavily on the
Bible. Also, possibly, on more recent archaeological finds (which
all support my previous statements).

If you are interested in a good account of the Palestinian/Israeli
conflict, try reading 'From Time Immemorial', by Joan Peter. It's a
rigorously conducted study of the subject, thoroughly researched and
abundantly documented, that makes for fascinating reading. I am sure
it's available in any library. 

-- Ron 

    Re.1016.0  
    
    >> Why Japanese-Canadians..etc..
    
    What about the Koreans, Chinese, Canadian, Australian victims
    of Japanese atrocities during the same war ? 
    
    Especially the Koreans ? Some say that the apology by Japan's
    current Emperor ( Akihito sp?) to Roh  is not enough when they consider
    the following historically documented accounts.
    
    A Special Report by LLOYD SHEARER,(P/M)
    ---------------------------------------------
    "IN World War II the Japanese and Nazis committed some of
    the most frightful atrocities in history. 
        
       The Silence has been broken periodically in Japan since 1975,when
    HARUKO YOSHINAGA, a film producer, tracked down 35 of those involved.
    As a result American and Japanese writers  demanded information
    from the State under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act
    and published their findings.
      In 1937, it had been revealed, the Japanese high command ordered
    the construction of WORLD'S FIRST MAJOR biological warfare complex,
    40 miles south of Habrin, Manchuria in the village of Pingfan (China)
    Code-named UNIT-731, it consisted of 3,000 soldiers, scientists,
    and Japanese RED CROSS nurses, all under..   (in the name of Science)
    the command of Maj. SHIRO ISHII, a surgeon and graduate of Kyoto
    University, Ishii had initially talked his superiors into letting
    him organize a GERM WAREFARE CENTER at Harbin Military Hospital.
    
      Unit 731  cultured the germs/virus CAUSING: Typhus, Typhoid, Antrax,
    Cholera, Plague, Salmonella, Tetanus, Botulism, Gas Gangrene, Small-
    pox, Tick Encephalitis..etc. These bacteria were later injected
    into 3,000 Chinese and Koreans. Later on, Australian, American and British
    prisoners of war, were also used as guinea pigs.
    
    The grotesque experiments included:
    
    1) Infected women prisoners with syphilis, having them impregnated
    by male prisnors, then DISECTING the live babies and mothers.
    
    2) Draining the blood from prisoners' veins and substituting HORSE
    blood.
    
    3) Exploding gas gangrene bombs next to prisoners tied to stakes.
    
    4) Immersing prisoners in ICY WATER at -40 degrees F. Their frozen
    limbs were then soaked in hot water, whereupon the tissue crumbled
    and the limbs were amputated. These experiments were designed to
    produce scientific information on frostbite.
    
    5) Exposing prisoners to X-rays until they died.
    
    6) Herding infected prisoners into gas chambers, then disecting them 
    to determine  the progress of their various diseases.
    
    7) Vivisecting prisoners to complete data on human edurance of pain.
      
      
       In August 1945, when Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender
    of Japan, many of the enlisted men in UNIT-731 were so fearful
    of retribution by the advancing Americans and Russians..that they
    swallowed cyanide pills at a Manchuria railroad station - which
    indicates even the enlisted soldiers knew what they were doing.
    Others who preferred to live swore a lifelong vow to secrecy.
       
      At war's end U.S. military-officials gleaned hints of these 
    heinous experimemts and began a search for Maj. Shiro Ishii,
    by then a Lt. General....
    
    Meanwhile in Tokyo Dr. Edwin Hill and Dr. Joseph Victor - interrogated
    Shiro Ishii and twenty other germ warfare specialits at the Unit-731
    from Oct. 28 to Dec. 12 1947.  They were shocked by the number of
    experiments the Japanese had conducted over the years.
    
    (Question: What if these experiments were the genesis of present day
               "unknown maladies" ? Should victims be compensated too ?)
    
    In April 1982 the Japanese government acknowledged the existence
    of UNIT-731 for the first time in public.
    The admission followed the publication by Seiichi Morimura with
    Masaki Shimosato which has sold 1.4 million copies in Japan in less
    than a year. In addition to detailing the experiments at Pingfan
    it points out that some of Japan's medical and pharmaceutical 
    firms' elite - like Ryoichi Naito, president of Green Cross, which
    developed the 1st artificial blood and Hisato Yoshimura, one of
    the authorities on human endurance to cold - are all alumni of the
    UNIT-731..."  
            p.s. There is a picture of the Unit-731 in this parade issue
    showing naked frozen bodies under a shed outside the camp - it
    appears to be winter with long icicles hanging from the roof and some
    one in a white lab coat standing by. (page 10,)
    
     (From  Parade Sunday magazine issue of Oct.17th 1982 pages 10 & 11 )
    
   

    RE:.16
    
    >HISTORY AND FACTS 
    
    IF YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR HISTORY YOU ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT
    
    THE BIBLE SAYS THAT PALESTINE BELONGS TO ISRAEL?
    
    >NO REPEATS OF HOLOCAUSTS?
    
    WHAT ABOUT ETHIOPIA, CAMBODIA AND ABORTION MURDERS?
    
    THESE ARE FACTS AND YOU ARE OPEN TO THE NET BUT BADMOUTHING SOME
    COMMENTS SOUNDS INAPPROPRIATE

    Re: .22
    
    > HISTORY AND FACTS 
    
    I'm wondering if you have a firm grasp on either.
    
    > IF YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR HISTORY YOU ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT
    
    That's a pretty original line. Did you just think it up?
    
    > THE BIBLE SAYS THAT PALESTINE BELONGS TO ISRAEL?
    
    Are you agreeing or disagreeing with your own statement. It's hard
    to tell, since you have a question mark at the end of the sentence.
    
    > NO REPEATS OF HOLOCAUSTS?
    
    > WHAT ABOUT ETHIOPIA, CAMBODIA AND ABORTION MURDERS?
    
    Ah, yes, the favorite "abortion is murder" canard, and its comparison
    to the Holocaust.
    
    > THESE ARE FACTS AND YOU ARE OPEN TO THE NET BUT BADMOUTHING SOME
    > COMMENTS SOUNDS INAPPROPRIATE
    
    No, these are *your opinion* of the facts, and I'm not sure you even
    have the "facts" right.
    
    You are right about something, though: the Net *is* open to people, and
    badmouthing comments is allowed. Badmouthing people is not. There is
    a difference.
    
    BTW, please try to refrain from entering comments in ALL UPPER CASE.
    It's really hard on the eyes.
    
      Alan
    

Re: 1016.22 by CRISTA::LEO


>    >HISTORY AND FACTS 
>    
>    IF YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR HISTORY YOU ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

Not necessarily, but possibly. I am not sure what you are trying to 
say here. Care to elucidate your point?
    

>    THE BIBLE SAYS THAT PALESTINE BELONGS TO ISRAEL?

To be a bit more accurate, the Bible says that the 'land of Israel'
(which you refer to as Palestine) belongs to the 'the people of
Israel' (often referred to as 'the Jewish nation'). 

    
>    >NO REPEATS OF HOLOCAUSTS?
>    
>    WHAT ABOUT ETHIOPIA, CAMBODIA AND ABORTION MURDERS?

I don't know who said that there were no other holocausts. I do not
know much about Ethiopia and Cambodia. Do any of them come even
close to 6,000,000 exterminated by an efficient killing industry? 
    
As to abortions, most are not murder, unless you choose to define 
them as such. Even if you do, are you saying they somehow justify
--or even are comparable with-- the holocaust?

-- Ron

    re .24
    
    I would be inclined to agree that the "Land of Israel", which 
    some people call Palestine, belongs to the "People of Israel", 
    which some people call Palestinians.
    
    The rights of the Americans, Europeans and others who migrated to
    Israel under selective and discriminatory immigration policies are
    more doubtful.
    
    The holocaust was a horrific and criminal tragedy, but it is not 
    just that the Palestinians should pay for the crimes of European 
    Nazis.
    
    
    Liam
    

    True enough, Liam.  But should they pay for the sins of Palestinian
    Nazis, such as the Mufti of Jerusalem?
    
    						Ann B.

    
    The land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, according to the
    Bible... Following that line of thought, were there not people
    living there when the Jewish people came out of the desert? (Reference
    the book of Joshua)  Do the Israelites owe reparations to these
    people?
    After the Romans leveled Jerusalem ( A.D 78 ?) and the Jewish people
    were scattered until the Zionist movement began to reclaim the land,
    what of the people who occupied Palestine in the interim? Do the
    Israelites owe these people anything?
    Palestine/Israel is a land with a long, bloody history- no reparations
    will change that, or alter it's future.
    History is cyclical...
    
    				Jim

Re: .25 by TRIBES::LBOYLE,

    
>    I would be inclined to agree that the "Land of Israel", which 
>    some people call Palestine, belongs to the "People of Israel", 
>    which some people call Palestinians.

I am afraid you've got it wrong... 'The people of Israel' (which are
the Jewish nation) are NOT called 'Palestinians' (which are Arabs)
by anyone. At this point, there are MANY more Israeli born Jews
(called 'Sabra's) than Israeli born Arabs (called 'Palestinians'). 
    

>    The rights of the Americans, Europeans and others who migrated to
>    Israel under selective and discriminatory immigration policies are
>    more doubtful.

There is no country that I know of that doesn't have 'selective and
discriminatory immigration policies'. This includes this good old US
of A. And for good reasons.

The Americans, Europeans and others who migrated to Israel **are**
the 'people of Israel' (that is, members of the Jewish nation) to
whom Israel belongs.

    
>    The holocaust was a horrific and criminal tragedy, but it is not 
>    just that the Palestinians should pay for the crimes of European 
>    Nazis.

No one is asking them to. On the other hand, it is not just that
the Jewish nation's land be given to 'Palestinian', most of which 
have never even been there.

-- Ron

Re: .27 by CRISTA::MAYNARD,

    
>    The land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, according to the
>    Bible... Following that line of thought, were there not people
>    living there when the Jewish people came out of the desert? (Reference
>    the book of Joshua)  Do the Israelites owe reparations to these
>    people?

Care to point out any of the tribes that lived there at the time,
that still exists today?


>    After the Romans leveled Jerusalem ( A.D 78 ?) and the Jewish people
>    were scattered until the Zionist movement began to reclaim the land,
>    what of the people who occupied Palestine in the interim?

Yea, what about them? 

At the end of WWII, there was a small number of Arabs
('Palestinians', if you will) living in Israel (then called
'Palestine'). They did not rule the land, which had been governed by
the British, preceded by the Turks. 

There was also a small number of Jews. The Zionist movement, intent
to resurrect a Jewish independent state, brought about a migration
of holocaust victims back to their homeland. When Israel became a
state (May 1945) 7 Arab states attacked, with a proclaimed intent of
'killing all the Jews' (which, at the time, sounded kind of familiar
to the holocaust survivors). 

The Arab inhabitants ('Palestinians') were encouraged to leave, by
the advancing Arab armies, with the promise that they could come
back in a couple of weeks, after all Jews were 'pushed into the
sea'. To further motivate them, there was also talk about looting
all the Jews' property and raping all their women. Many
'Palestinians' did leave. 

The Israelis had a secret weapon, though - they had no choice. They 
fought well and when the dust settled, they had control of their land.


>   Do the Israelites owe these people anything?

The Palestinians that remained, a small number, became minority
citizens of the new state of Israel, with equal rights and all but
equal obligations. They and their descendants still are. They are
welcome to stay as citizens. They happen to be a minority, with a
proportional representation in the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament,
(assuming all Arabs vote for Arab parties). That's the extent of
what Israel 'owes' them. 

Those that left (being 'the enemy') never came back. Their
descendants, the vast majority of whom were born elsewhere and
never saw Israel, now claim to be 'Palestinians' and are voicing a
claim to 'Palestine', which was never theirs nor their ancestors'. 

The Palestinian argument is that the country belongs to them, as
descendants of the Arabs who USED TO live there but never had their 
own state there. I fail to see the logic. 

-- Ron 

<Care to point out any of the tribes that lived there at the time,>
<that still exists today?>


	Not having a degree in geneaology, I could not give you the family
trees of the Palestinians, or for the Jews who immigrated from other 
countries. Can you guarantee that every Jew now living in Israel, can
trace their ancestry back to the original inhabitants?

>    After the Romans leveled Jerusalem ( A.D 78 ?) and the Jewish people
>    were scattered until the Zionist movement began to reclaim the land,
>    what of the people who occupied Palestine in the interim?

<Yea, what about them? >


Whether you like to admit it or not, these people were displaced. And it's
not a numbers game. Whether there are a lot of Palestinians, or whether
there are only a handful, diaspora has nothing to do with numbers.



<The Palestinian argument is that the country belongs to them, as >
<descendants of the Arabs who USED TO live there but never had their >
<own state there. I fail to see the logic. >


You fail to see the logic purposefully. Historically, Palestine was a
Roman province- not a Jewish state. Zionist claims based on the Bible
fail to mention that. As far as I can tell, the Jewish argument is that
the country belongs to them as descendants of the Jews who USED to live
there but never had their own state there.
But this is not a note for debating the right of Israel to exist. That point
is moot.
This note  is for discussing reparations- what does a conqueror owe to
the conquered?

					Jim

-- Ron 

	Back to the subject.

	One thing you can do for someone you owe
	is to give them regular monthly payments.
	Make them dependents.  Few will ever amount
	to anything then.

	The lump sum permits people to use their
	own heads.  A guaranteed college education
	would be another way.

Re: .30 by CRISTA::MAYNARD, 

>	Whether you like to admit it or not, these people were
>	displaced.

Not true. They left of their own accord.


>	Historically, Palestine was a Roman province- not a Jewish
>	state. Zionist claims based on the Bible fail to mention
>	that.

Not true. The Land of Israel was a Jewish State before Rome or
Romans even existed. The Muslims conquered it much later, in the
7th Century.

By the way, the name 'Palestine' was coined several hundred years
AFTER canonization of the Bible, after the Philistines. This extinct
tribe lived on a portion of what is Israel now (the Gaza district),
that is referred to as Pleshet (or Land of the Plishtim) in the
Bible.


>	As far as I can tell, the Jewish argument is that the
>	country belongs to them as descendants of the Jews who USED
>	to live there but never had their own state there.

Wrong again. The Jews did have a state there --actually, a kingdom--
as told in detail in the Bible. 


>	This note is for discussing reparations - what does a
>	conqueror owe to the conquered?

Not really. The base note offered for discussion the question of
whether sons should be held liable for parents' sins. Then, .3 made
the statement that "COMPENSATION IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE PALESTINIANS.
THEY WANT THEIR COUNTRY" (sic). In my reply, I pointed out that what
they want is NOT their country (it never was), but someone else's. 

If you are interested in a note and wish to respond, I suggest you
at least skim over the the base note. It does help to know what you
are responding to. If you wish to follow up on a discussion, at
least familiarize yourself with the subject. The Britannica offers
less than a page on 'Palestine'. Surely, that's not too difficult? 

-- Ron 

        RE:0   TITLE:
    
    -< Sins of the father paid by the sons ? >-
    
    
     What about the daughters ? What about payment from the daughters ? 
     What about the sins of the daughters ?
    
     The sons of the Axis powers were raised by both the mothers and the
     fathers. Sons and daughters (in some nations) are represented 50/50 in
     the work force. The Nazi and Japanese loot were enjoyed by both the
     mothers and the fathers ( Back Home - Berlin/Tokyo).
    
     What if the title had been: 
    
     "Sins of the Parents paid by the Children  " ?
                                      [Offspring]             Pensez-y-s.v.p!
    
     BTW: Since some Italian-Canadians were also incarcerated during
          WWII in Ottawa, Ontario were the survivors also offered the
          monetary compensation ?
    ,     Also, what about the Koreans and Chinese who were used in those
          heinous medical experiments ? Have the Japanese offered any
          compensation ? (I remember the apology to Roh ) 
          (I don't know if they have been compensated that's why I'm asking)
     
    
           FaZari ( As spelt/spelled in Meech Lake - Not ELF)

Re: .34 by CSC32::M_VALENZA,

This is getting better and better.

>    I suspect that, once groups like the Stern Gang and the Irgun had acted
>    at such places as Deir Yaseen and the King David Hotel, the Palestinian
>    Arabs had considerable incentive to leave "of their own accord."

Once again, someone manages to put their horse either under 
the cart or right smack on top, blowing buzz words that have nothing 
to do with the case but smack vaguely detrimental.

The Dier Yaseen affair happened years AFTER Israel's war of
independence, long after the Palestinians under discussion had
already left. 

To balance your error out, the King David Hotel was blown way BEFORE
the war of Independence. No Arab was hurt, nor was one intended to.
The King David Hotel served as residence and headquarters of the
British occupation authorities and was as legitimate a target as I
can think of. the attack was directed solely against an aggressor
(no one claimed --or claims now-- that the Land of Israel belonged
to the English). 


>    then perhaps the people who really need compensation are the
>    descendants of the ancient Canaanites.

Or maybe the Philistines, whose name has been borrowed to describe 
the area far exceeding the modest habitat of their tribe...

Problem is, none of the Phillistines, Hittites or Canaanites has
survived to this day. At least, that we know of. The Bible quotes
you offered explain why and these were comparatively small tribes to
start with.

Whom should we compensate?


>    Given this precedent of divinely mandated genocide, who knows,
>    perhaps Menachem Begin was just following God's will when he
>    engineered similar atrocities in the 1940s.

Atrocities? Menachem Begin was waging war. He happened to be a very
conscientious person who believed in such thing as 'the purity of 
our arms' and 'the Arabs are our cousins'. His organization never 
carried out a single action against civilians.

If you call his actions 'atrocities', how do you characterize
placing bombs in super markets and bus stations, or strafing the
line at the airport with a sub machine gun 

-- Ron

    Just my opinion (for what its worth).  I think it is very difficult 
    for anyone to claim ownership of a land base on the fact that 
    one's ancesters once lived on that land two thousand years ago.  
    Otherwise, there will be chaos--American Indians would want their 
    land back; the Italians would want their Roman Empire back, and on 
    and on--complete chaos.  I feel territorial dispute should be settled 
    base mostly on status quo, meaning who is currently living in the disputed 
    area now.  For that reason I do feel that Israle has the right to exist.  
    If they had only a weak claim when they founded Israle, they have a 
    very strong claim now.  I mean after 40 years and generations of young 
    Isralies born in Israle, Israle has earned the right to exist.  
    However, since Israle is now in control of the area where the 
    Palestinians had lived for centuries, I do believe it is the Israle's 
    responsibility to find a settlement for the people still living in the 
    refugee camps.  I understand Israle's concern of its security, but still 
    since Israle is in control today, it is up to Israle to find a way. 
    
    Alf     

    Several replies have been deleted from this note as the topic had
    evolved into a historical debate.
    
    Try to remember this is Human Relations not Soapbox and most of the
    folks that read this conference are interested in the human aspect of
    topics.
    
    Thanks
    
    Joyce
    CoMod
    

    Perhaps compensation can serve as a step toward reconciliation, as well
    as an act of justice.  History not only lives on (to use one of Alfred
    North Whitehead's terms) in "objective immortality", but also in the
    subjective consciousness of human individuals and human societies.  As
    such, it can indeed survive for a very long time.  When resentments run
    deep, reconciliation is often a difficult process; in what ways can the
    act of acknowledging past wrongs serve as a tentative step towards
    reconciliation?
    
    It is probably appropriate that the Middle East has come up in this
    discussion, since the problems associated with building reconciliation
    often seem about as intractable as those anywhere in the world.  It is
    perhaps easier to identify examples of spiraling resentment and
    retaliation than to identify the solutions.  I certainly don't have any
    panaceas in mind, but it still might be useful to contemplate the ways
    in which spiraling resentments have fueled one another, in the hope that
    those more intelligent than I can work out the paths to reconciliation.
    
    One unfortunate series of incidents from the history of that region
    involves the forced expulsion of many Arabs from Palestine in 1948
    (which was one of several reasons for the existence of the Palestininan
    refugee population).  David K. Shipler, the Pulitzer Prize winning
    author of the 1986 book "Arab and Jew", discusses these expulsions in
    some detail in his book.  He includes there the text discussing one such
    incident that Israeli authorities censored from former primer minister
    Yizhak Rabin's 1979 memoirs.  Since I don't know if this text is still
    censored in Israel or not, I will not repeat it verbatim here, out of
    deference to the international nature of this network.  In summary,
    though, the text describes the forced evacuation of the communities of
    Lod and Ramle, with a total population of about 50,000.  In one passage,
    Rabin quotes Ben-Gurion's chilling response to the question of what is
    to be done with the residents of those communities:  "Drive them out!"
    Which they then proceeded to do.
    
    In the censored text, Rabin makes the interesting point that there were
    soldiers in the Yiftach Brigade (which carried out the explusions) who
    were deeply offended by this action because it violated their moral
    beliefs, and some refused to take part in the action.  Shipler also
    cites accounts from other sources that indicate that "many elderly
    people and small children, without sufficient water, died in the
    overpowering heat during the forced march."  Shipler also mentions other
    examples of forced expulsions, discovered from various declassified
    Israeli Foreign Ministry documents.  Citing the research of Jerusalem
    Post reporter Benny Morris, he identifies expulsions by the Haganah (the
    precursor of the Israeli army) in Khirbet Azzun, Ad Dumeira, Arab
    an-Nufeiat, Arab al-Foqara, and many other communities.

    While all of this was clearly tragic, the unfortunate reality is that
    the nexus of actions good and bad often transcends short-term aims.
    While these expulsions may have served immediate goals, even aside from
    the moral implications, they also contributed to the cycle of
    resentment in far reaching ways.  Shiper provides one concrete example
    of this:  George Habash, who was studying in Beirut when his family was
    driven from Lod, later became the head of the Popular Front for the
    Liberation of Palestine, one of the PLO's most radical factions.

    The implications here have a converse side as well.  Karma works both
    ways, I believe.  Harold Loucks once said that an act of love that
    fails is just as important as one that succeeds, and I think that this
    vision can be expanded to include any positive action.  The nexus of
    reconciliation may not have an immediate impact, but perhaps in the
    long run it will pave the path to peace.  How to accomplish this with
    concrete action is another question, of course.

    A further example of the negative karma of terror can be seen in the
    infamous Deir Yassin Massacre of April, 1948.  This incident actually
    followed on the heels of the Arab League's brutal massacre of the Jewish
    residents in Gush Etzion.  The Gush Etzion massacre was particularly
    terrible, involving rape and torture, and certainly must have enraged
    the Zionist factions.  Whether it was, in turn, precipitated by
    atrocities on the other side I have no knowlege; clearly the cycle of
    violence and hostility was very severe at the time.  Nevertheless, the
    importance of the Deir Yassin massacre, as horrible as it was in and of
    itself, lay in the resulting acceleration of the refugee process for
    Palestinian Arabs.
    
    In any case, Shipler believes that the tragic massacre of Arab civilians
    at Deir Yassin was a spontaneous outburst, which of course in no way
    justified it.  The Irgun had demonstrated its capacity for terror during
    the King David Hotel bombing nearly two years earlier, which killed
    nearly 100 people, not all of whom were British.  In the case of Deir
    Yassin, Shipler cites the testimony of Meir Pa'il, an intelligence
    officer for the Haganah who witnessed the massacre, and who said:

        It was a massacre in hot blood, it was not pre-planned.  It was an
        outburst from below with no one to control it.  Groups of men went
	from house to house looting and shooting, shooting and looting.  You
	could hear the cries from within the houses of Arab women, Arab
	elders, Arab kids.  I tried to find the commanders, but I did not
	succeed.  I tried to shout and to hold them, but they took no
	notice.  Their eyes were glazed.  It was as if they were drugged,
	mentally poisoned, in ecstasy.
    
    Pa'il's report, with photographs, did disturb the Haganah, which was
    more moderate than the Irgun and the Stern Gang.  What was significant
    about this incident, however, was its propaganda value.  As Menachem
    Begin pointed out in his memoir "The Revolt", the Deir Yassin massacre
    was "worth half a dozen battalions to the forces of Israel....In the
    result it helped us.  Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel.
    Kolonia village...was evacuated overnight....Beit-Isla was also
    evacuated."

    Begin's comments emphasized the short-term benefits to his cause.  The
    ensuing panic among the Palestinian population accelerated the flight
    from the area, and thus did serve Begin's purposes.  The long term
    effects are another story, of course.  And this brings us back to the
    question of reconciliation.

    Personally, I don't know if or when compensation for victims of
    atrocities is appropriate.  It becomes much more complicated when a
    situation is not a simple matter of black and white.  I do believe that
    any course of action should keep in mind the end goal of reconciliation
    as an alternative to perpetuating a cycle of resentment.  If some form
    of collective repentance serves that goal, whether it be mutual or
    unilateral (as the situation requires), then so be it.  The American
    Jewish writer Marc H. Ellis has recently attempted to formulate a vision
    of human liberation in terms of his own Jewish religious faith.  In his
    book, "Toward a Jewish Theology of Liberation", he writes:
	
        The counterpart to Israel as an autonomous presence is Palestine,
	and a Jewish theology of liberation begins to speak of Israel and
	Palestine together.  That Israel is a state has less to do with
	religious principles than with national organization of the modern
	world.  The Palestinian people likewise deserve a state, and Israel
	ought to participate in its rebirth through recognition and material
	help if the Palestinians request it.  A Jewish theology of
	liberation is unequivocal in this regard:  the Palestinian people
	have been deeply wronged in the creation of Israel and in the
	occupation of territories.  As we celebrate our empowerment, we must
	repent our transgressions and stop them immediately.  If this is
	done today, perhaps a hundred years from now we can speak of a
	confederation of Israel and Palestine and how out of a tragic
	conflict a healing took place to the benefit of both communities.

    This vision of healing is, in my view, an important first step towards
    reconciliation.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .41

>    Several replies have been deleted from this note as the topic had
>    evolved into a historical debate.
>    
>    Try to remember this is Human Relations not Soapbox ...

Difficult to remember, when your reply is followed by almost 150
lines of very distorted and one-sided 'historical' discourse. 

.42's author took care to quote from several books. I haven't
checked for his accuracy and don't much care. Many books deal with
the subject, quite a few --just like .42's author-- highly anti
Israeli. But I suspect the books quoted from were fairly balanced,
only the quoting isn't. 

We got this long list of Israeli 'atrocities' and just one mention
of the Gush Etzion incident (even then, the author 'does not know if
some Israeli deed did not prompt it'. It seems he knows for sure no
Arab action prompted the Israeli atrocities'). 

We then get a detailed description of the Deer-Yassin crime. Of
course, it was perpetrated by enraged citizens. If you wish to
condemn Israel for Deer-Yassin, please start by condemning the US
for the Manson murders. I won't even mention Mai-Lai - presumably, 
we are all guilty...

Not one word about Syrian soldiers having fun electrocuting
prisoners; Kaukagy's officers mutilating bodies; commercial
airplanes being blown out of the sky, replete with their load of
hundreds of civilian passengers, by the PLO; of Arab terrorists
cutting through a crowd of people with sub machine guns. All the guy
can talk about is Israeli 'atrocities'... And he does it in a
seemingly evenhanded way - the unenlightened could possibly even be
convinced. 

I suspect we have here a light case of anti-Semitism, but don't
really know or care. I doubt a discussion will cure the fellow, so
won't bother. However, he is by no means alone; there are quite a
few others who would like to find Israel guilty of any crime
imaginable. (And, if it isn't, manufacture 'facts' to show that it
is). 

Now, place yourselves in Israel's shoes. In this situation, would
you budge an inch? Would you 'negotiate' over your right to exist
with people who would rather see you dead? Would you 'compensate'
the people who wish to wipe you off the face of the earth? 

-- Ron 

The following was extracted (without permission, I am sorry to say)
from another notefile.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw this news item in a magazine:

	"On 12 December 1985 a chartered Arrow airliner crashed on
	takeoff from Gander, Newfoundland, killing all on board -
	248 troopers from the 101st Airborne returning from a
	sensitive mission in the Middle East.  *Islamic Jihad* said
	they blew it up..." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Two question arise:

1. Does killing off 248 Americans in one fell swoop qualify as an
   atrocity?

2. How should we compensate Islamic Jihad?

-- Ron

    This discussion resembles Soapbox not only in subject matter, but also
    in style.  I have no problem with differences in the interpretation of
    history, but it is, to say the least, interesting to be the object of
    ad hominem noting outside of its native domain in Soapbox (and in the
    third person, no less--rather than being addressed directly, I am
    so characterized as "the author", "the person", and "the guy").

    Continuing this discussion therefore probably isn't very fruitful,
    particularly given the ad hominem insinuation of anti-Semitism (perhaps
    Yitzhak Rabin and Marc H. Ellis also suffer from "a light case of
    anti-Semitism").  The events that immediately preceded the founding of
    the state of Israel in May, 1948 are largely a matter historical
    record.  I am surprised that someone who proclaims with such dogmatic
    finality that all of the 700,000 Palestinian Arab refugees left "of
    their own accord", and who repeatedly refers others to the historical
    evidence, would show such a lack of interest himself in determining the
    accuracy of citations clearly indicating that there were in fact many
    Palestinians who were driven out by the Haganah or who fled in panic
    after the Deir Yassin massacre.

    Certainly none of these events mitigates the suffering of the Jewish
    people over the preceding thousands of years.  As one who has shown a
    great deal of interest in Jewish history and religion, I take strong
    exception to the charge of anti-Semitism, which is unwarranted and
    blatantly offensive.  Contrary to insinuation, I never denied the
    existence of, or condoned, acts of terror committed against the Jewish
    people within Israel, either prior to May 14 1948 or after.  In fact, I
    have freely admitted that the Deir Yassin massacre was preceded by (and
    I presume at least in part prompted by) the Gush Etzion massacre, the
    later event having preceded the founding of Israel by one month.

    As one who abhors violence, I believe in the strongest possible terms
    that both massacres were immoral and unjustified, regardless of
    provocation by the other side.  However, condemning these acts does not
    preclude attempting to understand their causes and effects.  In fact,
    doing so is crucial to any consideration of the self-perpetuating cycle
    of violent retribution, which makes any reconciliation between peoples
    so difficult to accomplish.  Since I believe that human history often
    persists objectively in the present, pursuing the path of
    reconciliation therefore requires at least some understanding of the
    past.  I especially believe that the search for reconciliation in the
    Middle East is imperative.
    
    Edmund Hanauer, a U.S. Jew, is the director of Search for Justice and
    Equality in Palestine/Israel, an organization committed to this goal. 
    In the 1970s, his organization arranged for dialogues between U.S. and
    Israeli Jews, and Palestinians.  In a recent magazine article, he
    quoted Martin Luther King:  "Either we live together as brothers and
    sisters or we perish together as fools."  That is the basis of my
    belief in reconciliation.  Whether or not compensation is a legitimate
    means to that specific end is the question I posed without offering an
    answer (because, frankly, I don't just don't know.)

    Those who know me are well aware of my views on violence in general,
    and thus would not presume that I endorse terror by any side, whether
    it be by the PLO or the Irgun.  However, had there been any doubts or
    concerns about my position, prejudicial characterizations expressed in
    the third person would not have served as a means of clarification.

    -- Mike

Re: .45 by CSC32::M_VALENZA,

Having read reply .45 carefully, I still maintain that:

1. The author's view on the Mid East situation is extremely one-sided 
   and distorted (he claims to be conversant with the issues. How
   come he never bothered to mention the 1932-1936 'events' in
   Israel and the Tel-Hai massacre, to mention just two examples?).

2. Such views (and the total disregard of the convenient half the 
   facts) being fairly prevalent, I can understand --if not 
   sympathize with-- those who oppose compensation to 'Palestinians'
   who claim their parents were evicted out of the country in 1948. 

-- Ron

    I have disabled further replies to this topic, as continuation of
    the current line of replies does not seem fruitful.  If someone would
    like to add something relevant to the base note, please send me mail.
    
    			Steve