Conference taveng::bagels

    
    
    
    	No I won't delete the note.   It's apparent
    	inconsistancies speak for itself.
    
    
    	You are right, the issue won't go away,
    	what was the issue ?   You want to know
    	if my father would beat up my girlfriends ?  No
    	he wouldn't.
    
    	

    Yes, I think .0 is serious.  And no more inconsistent than half
    the other stuff found in many notes, er, conferences.
    
    The red-flag-waving is implicit in the nature of the topic.  The
    fundamental problem is that we always view the issues as "US vs.
    THEM".  Anything *they* say or do is automatically suspect, where
    *they* is the algebraic opposite of the first person.
    
    I, for one, don't want to see BAGELS turn into SOAPBOX on the issue.
    If anyone has any *novel* or *constructive* responses to .0, it'd
    be welcome.  Clearly, the base noter does not distinguish very well
    between personal, mideastern, and Western issues.  But these confusions
    tend to be simple... the "Jews for Jesus" topic in here got picked
    up by someone in CHRISTIAN, and one of the participants let his
    own personal prejudices slip rather blatantly.
    
    I think this subject has, in fact, come up in SOAPBOX, but I don't
    have time to frequent that conference.

    
    
    	I beg to differ, I find .0 rather amniguous.
    	He talks about Zionism first and then about
    	visiting his girlfriends house.
    
    	I still do not understand the point and
    	I think it needs further elaboration without 
    	sexism.  (IE: Come on GUYS).
    
    
    	Michael "The Actual Moderator"
    

Tarik, 

Ok, I'll bite...

Why is it 'the so-called state of Israel'?  
Was it also 'the so-called Roman state of Judea' 2000 years ago? 
How about 1500 years ago? Was it 'a province of the so-called 
Ottoman empire' 100 years ago?

I'm glad you're trying to contribute to the resolution of the Arab-
Zionist conflict.  Is that the one between Israel and certain other
states in the Middle East? Do all culturally Arab states want to be
tarred with the brush of being united in policy with  Syria and Libya?

How do you measure the 'economic power' of Jews in Europe?  

Even assuming that you have some way of measuring the economic
and political power of Jews in a polity, how come you shift to 
tones of moral condemnation at the very idea of 'Jewish influence'
being used to promote a policy, but accept as a neutral (if not
beneficial) law of economic nature that Iranian Gulf Oil be used
to influence policy?

Of course, I'm curious as to what numbers you have seen that show
that 'political and economic clout of the Jewish community in the US
has increased enormously'.  The next clause in your sentence I don't
understand at all -- 'the US position on the Middle East is second only to
that of the Soviet Union in the pecking order of foreign policy.'
In what sense does a position on foreign affairs have a place in
the pecking order?  Or are you arguing that the US shouldn't consider
the Middle East to be as important as some other foreign affairs?  Why?
(I'd tell you 'why not' except that it's not clear to me what you're 
saying.)

Again, what's all this about 'pro-Zionist' this, and 'so-called Zionist'
that?  Do the people you are referring to  have no nationality, statehood,
cultural identity, whatever, except that they are Zionists???  Do you 
mean Jews? Jews who live in Israel? Israeli citizens? Zionist Israeli
citizens?  What?
 
I hope you can manage not to confuse your like or dislike for Jewish 
girlfriends and their fathers with your thoughts on irridentism, 
self-determination, justice in international affairs, cultural and 
religious determinations of identity and nationhood, whatever.  
I think the one is a matter of taste (who really cares if you decide 
you do or don't like Jewish girls and their fathers) and the other 
is a matter where you are trying to convince people of the merits 
and justice of your arguments.  

Snide and disdainful as my writing style may seem, it mostly reflects
my impatience with your far-reaching unsubstantiated statements. I'd
VERY MUCH like to hear what substantiates those claims,
and how you think they relate to right action for citizens of 
(pretty) free countries, like the US and the UK, (including Jewish 
citizens, of course).

Oh yeah, what farce on the East Berlin bridge are you talking about?
I mean, where's the farcical content in it?   Do you suppose Shcharansky
was actually an American spy, or that he shouldn't have been traded
for a Soviet spy, or what?  Can you explain your reasons?

    And last of all, is it significant that the family of the Jewish
    girl you dated was 'Polish'?  (I'm just being curious here, I know,
    but I was wondering whether there was a rhetorical point in there
    somewhere about how Jews who emigrate  to  Israel and become Israeli
    citizens are 'really' Polish, or Russian, or Hungarian, or American
    people and belong back in those countries.)
    
    
			Hope to hear from you.
			Kathy

    Bis'ma'allah Tarik. I was wondering when one of our "cousins" was
    going to discover this notes file.
    I'm sorry to say I couldn't make much sense of what you said. So
    I'll give you my point of view on our "conflict" as an Israeli.
    Fact number one: The only way this conflict is ever going to be
    resolved is when we will sit down and TALK about it. I don't mean
    the "reconquering" of Haifa, but talking about realistic things
    and not the usual crap about the sacrifice of the "martyrs of the
    revolution". 
    Fact number two: If Israel didn't exist they'd have to invent it.
    Why, well it's nearly the only thing that unites the "Arab world"
    if such a thing exists. Who then could be blamed for the Iran-Iraq
    conflict, the Syrian-Jordanian problem,Algeria versus Marocco, Lebanon
    etc...
    Fact number three: Wealth? Shukran Tarik for mentioning that. In
    the heydays of OPEC what did the Arabs ever do for their "brethren"?
    BTW did you ever hear of a "Palestinian problem" before 1967 when
    Gaza was Egyptian and the West BAnk Jordanian? Israel managed to
    absorb tens of thousands of Jews that fled from Arab countries and
    Europe and gave them a chance for a new life in decency.
    Fact number four: Sadat caused us more problems by coming to Jerusalem
    and talking to us than the previous wars. Why? Because we had to
    return the Sinai in exchange for the 40 minute flight,and having
    been there and seen the blood shed it was an expensive 40 minute
    flight. But I beleive that it was worth it. Though the peace agreement
    is not what I would have hoped after all this time at least we're
    talking, Taba is going to arbitration, cooperation in agriculture
    is now common place. This is the future Tarik, talking, because if
    "you" keep talking about Jihad and martyrdom you will condemn us
    all to endless fighting. And we'll fight you, Tarik, have no doubt
    about that and till the end of time if necessary. 
    Together we can make the deserts bloom as they say in the States
    "Let's do it man"
    Shalom,
                     Greg 
    

Yeah!! That got you going!!

I wasn't aware that I was having an essay marked and that you were going to
take my each an every word apart, to examine it for flaws, but then I suppose
that's just my inability to write English coming out. Even so, I don't see any
of the 'inconsistencies' which you all seem to have taken for granted, but 
failed to point out. Nevertheless, for the hard of hearing I will restate my
argument without resorting to examples :- 

1  The Logic is this...
The process of setting policy in a democracy depends upon the ability of
pressure groups within society to influence the government. That is the way 
modern government works in the west (and I don't wish to open a debate on it, 
so just accept that for the purposes of this argument, even if you don't
agree). However, if you wish to change the position of a particular government
from outside of the country it governs, then it is simply insufficient to
attempt to persuade that government to change its policies if such a change
would bring it into conflict with one the interested pressure groups. You must
also change the viewpoint of the pressure group who got the government to adopt
that policy in the first place. With me so far? 

Now, Israel is supported economically and politically by the USA because this is
the policy of the US Government. The American Jewish community is one such of
these pressure groups which has helped to influence the government to do this.
So to achieve the objective of dismantling the Israeli state (which is one of
my objectives), you must first of all change the US policy of support towards
it. And in order to do that, according to the logic, you must change the
opinion and objectives of the pressure group which was involved in setting that
policy in the first place, namely the American Jewish community. Therefore in 
order to contribute to that process of changing opinion in the pressure group,
I must attempt to persuade as many US Jews as possible of the validity of my
point of view. So, as this notesfile exists, and we all believe that we are
living and working in democracies where freedom of expression is permitted,
here I am. Now I fail to see any inconsistency in that.



2  Some of the points raised in the replies...

Us v. Them? You're telling me it is. I know we're all separate individuals, but
the issue is not about individuals. It is about specific groups of people.
Haves and Have-nots, Jews and Palestinians, yids and wogs, call them what you
will. (Sorry to use the labels, but if you can't recognise them you can't begin
to solve the problem) And why is it so in this case? Because the very nature of
Zionism (a philosophy which seeks - and has seeked - to create a separate
nation state exclusively for the members of one particular religious group
labelled Jews) necessitates individuals identifying themselves as members of
that religious group or not. That is not to say that all Jews are Zionists, and
that all non-Jews are ipso facto non-Zionists, but you know what I mean. It so
happens that most Jews are Zionists, and most Arabs are against Zionism
(anti-Zionists?). So there are your two groups, and there is the Us and Them.
Mind you, the degree to which those groups act homogenously in reality comes
next. 

Arab Unity. I don't know of any Arab who pretends that it exists, even if some
do subscribe to the theory. Who said that this was an objective anyway? If you 
think that we (ie the Arabs) need Israel simply so that we can all congratulate 
ourselves on how united we are, then you must be dreaming! In any case, whilst
in material terms the inter-Arab conflicts are a waste of lives and resources,
the concensus on the Israel issue only serves to strengthen the validity of the
case; ie if you can get all these different people who can't seem to agree on
anything to be united on one issue then there must be some pretty heavy
arguments in its favour. Rather like the only thing that unites the different
tribes in South Africa is their stand against apartheid. (Anybody want to talk
about the Israeli-South African connection?) Also, point of reference: Iran is
not an Arab country. 

Figures on how powerful!!! Come off it, Kathy. If you know how you can measure
economic or political power then you should write a thesis on it, because I
have never come across a 'Metric of Power'. Here's a few suggestions though,
Wealth? (which then implies how do you measure wealth?) Square-footage owned?
Socio-economic groupings? Who can say? If you want figures on heads of large
corporations, for example, or no. of Jewish Cabinet ministers, I can get them
for you (now n-1 since we got rid of Leon Brittan!!). But then I'd bet you'd
accuse me of subscribing to the old 'Jewish Conspiracy' theory. I can tell you
one thing, though, I can't name one moslem Member of Parliament. Interesting, 
though, your obsession with figures.

Sinai? It wasn't 'yours' in the first place. Even the Butcher Begin recognised 
that.

The Bridge was a farce because like most things the media have been doing so
far this year (don't anybody even mention the name 'Westland'!!), it was
distorted and blown up out of all proportion. Indeed, as the BBC pointed out,
the actual exchange was timed so that it would gain maximum exposure in the US
by corresponding with the breakfast TV shows there. If that's not
sensationalising it I don't know what is. The media have missed the point, and
some might say deliberately so. What is important about the exchange is the
possibility of the reduction of east-west tension, not this Sharansky bloke. I
am not interested in his dream (soon to turn to a nightmare) of the promised
land. Which now leads into...

Confusion of US/European/Middle-eastern issues? If you can't recognise the 
links for yourself then re-read point 1 on this reply.

Foreign Policy pecking-order. Do you really believe there isn't one?

As for Jewish girlfriends? In the other notes it seems OK to describe your own
personal experiences so I thought I'd join in, in as lighthearted a way as
possible of course. This was also an attempt to show you how I have endeavoured
to minimise any prejudices I might have or have had. Obviously none of you seem
to see the amusing side of it (even though I can), so I'll try to avoid telling
you any more anecdotes. They're also a bit less amusing (like the time I got
the shit beaten out of me by a group of Jewish kids at school, who saw the
start of one of the Yet Another Arab-Israeli Wars as open season on any stray
wogs who got in their way, but I won't bore you... And anyway, no doubt you'll
all come back with similar stories from your childhoods). 

And as for sexism? You're absolutely right Mike, I shouldn't have put 'guys' 
so I'll withdraw that.

Sorry for not covering some of the other points, but another day perhaps. I 
must get on with some work in a moment.


3  Where now?

Judging by the ferocity and hostility of the replies I'm not so sure there's
much point in carrying on in this file, and I should get back to the more
entertaining noters. The impression I get from you that anybody who
diametrically opposes your conventional wisdom has 'got a problem', and is
therefore in some way intellectually inferior is disturbing to say the least.
It seems Greg's the only one seriously interested in tackling the issue, and
all credit to you. I agree, 'let's do it'! Thing is though, that whilst I can
talk about them, the only people in the end who can speak for the Palestinians
are the Palestinians themselves, not me. And you know what that implies.... But
what the f**k, why not? 


Shalom...

Tarik.

This is the "best" piece of sh*t I have ever read including all the 
anti-Semitic propaganda in the Moscow daily Pravda.  When reading it 
my first reaction was to analyze the piece and write a reply but in the 
process of reading I realize that it will be of no use:  Mr. Sadat had 
his mind set in his direction and any discussion is in vain.  Whatever 
we say, his opinion will always be that Israel should be "dismantled", 
the Jews killed, and the Hitler's dream to make the world Jewish free 
will come true.

So I suggest simply not to continue the "discussion".  However, Mike, please 
don't delete it:  When I read things like that, I realize it sharper 
what it means to be Jewish and it gives me a tremendous shot against 
potential homesickness for "Mother Russia".

Leo

    
    Sorry, I didn't find .6 to be either offensive or off the wall.
    I disagree with a lot of what he says, but it seems to me to be
    a reasonable and representative perspective of one person from the
    Arab world.  I'd urge all my brothers and sisters to try to better
    understand the viewpoints that Arabs (and not only the author of
    .6) hold.
    
    I do find it offensive that the author of .7, who has professed
    elsewhere his experience with totalitarian and history-rewriting
    systems, would choose to invent the vicious suggestion that the author
    of .6 shares Hitler's dream of a Jewish-free world.  Such a statement
    is neither productive nor informative, and it can only serve to
    nurture the hate and distrust on which Arab-Israeli tensions thrive.
    
    The notion that being opposed to current Israeli and US political
    positions is tantamount to being pro-Hitler is at best uninformed,
    and at worst virulently racist.
    
    --Don

Coming from a Political Science background, I've heard this "discussion" dozens 
of times before.  I'll agree with Tarik, that the topic is appropriate for this 
conference, but, come on folks!  Let's take back some of the emotion!

Tarik - 

If you'd like a "rational/logical discussion", promote (vs. provoke) it! When 
you use words like "Arab-Zionist", talk about power groups squashing the 
helpless, and describe your dating Jews as you do, I wonder whether you don't 
bring about your own victimization.  And please watch the sarcasm and 
condescending attitude, if you want to teach or learn anything.

CounterFlamers -

Sure, take the easy way out and pick apart arguments bit by bit.  That's not the
core issue here! You want to discuss something? Define an issue and discuss it!
Tarik's comments & opinions won't hurt you, and from the sound of it, you won't 
be convinced anyways.  Relax a bit and think before you respond.

A couple points I'm curious about ....

1.  I've often felt that U.S. Foreign Policy was based on a triad of Economic, 
Military/"National Security", and Moral issues with varying weights depending 
upon the specific policy.  I think the Economic and Military issues are fairly 
obvious, but deserve discussion in any case.  Perhaps we should center on the 
Moral issue - first, the idea of a Jewish State in isolation, and then view the 
state in the context of its non-jewish citizens/non-citizens and neighbors.

Does the "Jewish Lobby" exist as a politically or economically significant power
that is changing the morals of the world or does it (if it exists) reflect the
interests of others in an organized fashion? 

Frankly, the whole idea of attempting to establish a state by political versus 
military means sounds terrific.  Too bad it didn't finish that way.

2.  Are the Arab Palestinians a "people" or a "nation".  If they weren't twenty 
years ago, I think we can say they are now.  If so, should a state be 
politically established for them?  Should this state be Jordan?  Should it be 
elsewhere?  Should Israel be abolished to make room for it?  Should Israel 
simply make every Palestinian Arab a citizen, and by mere demographics, turn 
Israel into another Arab state over time?  Or should Israel become a Jewish 
state as France became a French state?  Do I oversimplify? Of course!  Lets talk
about theses issues instead of verbally attacking each other! 

I think that's enough for now.  Oh, by the way Tarik, you want humor?  How's 
this:

Israel should be moved from the Middle East to Montana.  True, there is no 
historical base, but it's easy to grow crops there, there are no hostile 
neighbors, and any Israeli who wants to visit the United States can do so 
easily!

- Dale

    Ladies and Gentlemen I certainly agree with .8. Censure has never
    been an effective way of blocking a discussion. I agree with Tarek
    that it's about time other issues than how to hang a mezzusa and
    the price of bagels in Connecticut should be addressed. Now just
    because some people object to Tarek's adjectives (myself included)
    I find that we have here an ideal opportunity to try and open up
    a dialogue on a very important topic. The topic is israeli-arab
    relations. I'd be grateful if Tarek could get away from inflaming
    the issue by using silly adjectives (you've made your point) and
    you know as well as I that that type of adjective such as butcher
    etc...is not really necessary. However, let me remind you all that
    during the Lebanon war there were several israeli papers a well
    as the Shalom Achshav movement expressed their own ideas of Begin
    and Sharon. They were not censured in Israel so I do not beleive
    we should start censuring here. As I told Michael, should I find
    that he or anyone else is censuring, despite what it says in note
    1.x I will terminate my association with this notes file. If all
    you people are willing to talk about is neutral stuff like where
    is the best kosher restaurant then that's fine by me.
    Tarek, back to you chabibi. At least you've honestly stated your
    position "the dismantling of Israel". To be replaced by what? A
    "secular" state like Lebanon? An islamic state like Iran, an economic
    mess like Egypt, a dictatoriship like Libya or Irak? A feudalistic
    heaven like Saudi? And who are you speaking for anyway Tarek?
    We gave back to Sinai to losing army. Ahhh Tarek the sight of the
    3rd Egyptian Army condemned to die of thrist, the israeli army 101
    kilometers from Cairo. When was the last time you saw a victorious
    army return territory to the vanquished. Let's see what Iran does
    when it reaches 101 kilometers from Bagdad... I haven't seen the
    Sakhalin islands returned to Japan, east germany reunified.....
    Why do you think Sadat went to Jerusalem? His country was broke
    and there was no hope of wining this conflict by military means
    and he was right. His army didn't get him to the edge of Gaza, talk
    did.
    We must Tarek talk of how to resolve the issue. The issue is not
    dismantling of the State of Israel. BTW, why wasn't the Palestinian
    issue ever raised whilst Jordan occupied the west bank (which was
    not internationally recognised) and Egypt had Gaza. I tell you why
    because there was no problem. But if we do not seriously talk
    about some sort of confederating the west bank with Jordan in a
    couple years there'll be nothing to confederate. Your extremism
    is pushing ours. We now have a whole generation of israelis who
    grew up with the west bank being administered by us and time is
    running out.
    Tarek, I'm not kidding, but if you don't abandon the idea of dismantlin
    Israel you'll be doing the Palestinians and others a great disfavor
    as well as us. You will condemn us all to perpetually fighting,
    and by the way who are you fighting for anyway Tarek? You have about
    as much in common with the Palestinians as I do with eskimos. Perhaps
    this is what finally dawned on the late Pres. Sadat. He was tired
    of spilling Egyptian blood for a cause he was no longer sure ever
    was or was worth the cost.
    So let's hear what your reasonable proposals are?
    Salam,
                                   Greg                            
    

  I believe the generally polite and reasoned replies which attempt
  to answer Mr. Sadat's rather fuzzy rantings are an exercise in
  futility or in Jewish religious terms a Bracha L'Vatala
  (translation-A Blessing in vain).
  Therefore in a different vain I offer this advice to him. Fold
  your tent buddy, get on your camel and buzz off.
  
  P.S. A w.o.g is a Worthy Oriental Gentleman - certainly a misnomer
  in your case.

Well, most of you spotted that I was in wind-up mode when I put the base note
in, but I thought that it was necessary in order to get the topic kicked-off in
a lively way! It was better, I think, than putting something like "given I have
my point of view, and you yours, have we anything we can discuss?" Far too
negative I would say. And also we don't want to get too bogged down in
semantics, (although obviously from time-to-time certain points will need
clarification) simply because most of the contributors won't have the time.
Still, now the preliminary mutual insults are over, I think we can actually
achieve some useful dialogue, although I also think it will be difficult to
contribute to the discussion without being emotional at times, simply because
this *is* a very emotive issue. (Thats why we need humour here, to relieve any
tensions generated, and to put a check on taking ourselves too seriously.)
Nevertheless I will try to be good. 

Yes, some good points raised there (and sorry Dale for the lesson on first year
political science!). What exactly do I mean in real practical terms by
referring to "self-determination" and "justice" for the Palestinians? I
wouldn't claim to have my finger on the pulse of current mainstream Palestinian
opinion, but I do think I have an idea of what might be acceptable to them and
what wouldn't. For example, as I hinted at, I would ideally like to see us
start from scratch again (hence "dismantling" Israel) to create a new state
(which would presumably include Gaza and the West Bank) for ALL the
inhabitants, regardless of religion and ethnic origin. Such a state would be
catapulted to the position of leader in the Middle East, and an example not
only to the rest of the Arab states of co-operation and (hopefully) democracy,
but to the whole world! Unfortunately at the moment it is just a dream. Apart
from the unacceptability of such a scheme to the existing state, even if it is
possible to persuade the Israelis to accept it, the inevitable scramble for
power during the period of transition to the new state would probably devalue
any benefits gained. Now if you were to ask me which of the suggested schemes
would be the most feasible, I think I would say the absorption of the
Palestinians into the Israeli state, although I would doubt whether there would
be any dramatic changes even after this had officially taken place. I'm not too
sure about that, though.

Taking the Sinai point, Greg, I don't think the German example is a fair 
parallel, and I'm afraid I must profess ignorance to the Japanese case. The 
German example isn't a fair comparison because it was the policy of the 
conquerers to keep Germany divided as a practical way to stop them doing it
again (although I'm not so sure it still is the policy). Also I think you 
should turn it round the other way, and say well look we (ie The West) did
return the captured land in the creation of West Germany and it is the Russians
who are at fault by failing to withdraw from East Germany. 

And finally please, let's "Pick it up and run with it" as the rugby types say.
Keep it going.

Tarik.

PS  Point of info: A WOG is a "WESTERN Oriental Gentleman", and is British Army 
slang for an Arab or African. Where you got "Worthy" from, I've no idea.

	From .8:

>    I do find it offensive that the author of .7, who has professed
>    elsewhere his experience with totalitarian and history-rewriting
>    systems, would choose to invent the vicious suggestion that the author
>    of .6 shares Hitler's dream of a Jewish-free world.  Such a statement
>    is neither productive nor informative, and it can only serve to
>    nurture the hate and distrust on which Arab-Israeli tensions thrive.

Well, though I first decided to refrain from a discussion, this one really
    set me going.  I wrote it before .12, but still can sign every word
    of it.

Let me remember some recent history which is everyday life for those 
living in Israel.  Nasser (sp?) promised the Arab world to destroy 
Israel and push the Jews into the sea.  When he demanded that the 
United Nations removed the international forces from Egypt-Israel 
border to start the invasion, the Soviet Union was the first to support 
it.  Only recently Arafat "promised" not to attack Jews outside Israel 
(which means that the attacks on civilians including children will go 
on in Israel itself).  Who supports it?  Who provide the terrorists 
with money and arms? Who are we kidding, ourselves?  I don't remember 
any leader of any Arab country saying that he will put up with existence 
of the state of Israel.

In one of the previous replies there was a correct question:  If Israel 
is "dismantled", what will happen to the Israelis?  I invite everybody 
to answer to this question.  There is no doubt in my mind.  Somebody 
got offended by my remark that it looks like a Hitler's dream.  What 
will you call this?  And BTW, millions of Jews in 30's didn't believe 
that Holocaust was possible.  Is it what we are going to do again?

Those of you who read net.religion.jewish may remember a posting by a 
Jewish lady about her life in Iraq.  I don't have it now, but I am sure 
that some of you may still have.  Her description may really teach a 
lesson to those who do not want to see the reality and continue to 
claim that if we show "understanding" then our enemy will become a good 
guy.  My whole point is that I was talking from a position of a person 
who saw and experienced Anti-Semitism on the government level.  These 
governments made Anti-Semitism their policies and there is no reason 
for them to change.

I wholeheartedly agree with TAV02::ROSENMAN "Am Yisroel Chai" in .11:

"Therefore in a different vain I offer this advice to him. Fold
your tent buddy, get on your camel and buzz off."

Flames?  Try!

    
    Greetings fellow noters;
    
    	Tarik,
    
    	I can't tell by the tone of your notes whether you were an Arab
    	interested in 'the cause' or if you were of Palestinian heritage
    	wanting to 'avenge the wrong done to you.' So please pardon
   	my ignorance in your position and basis of your views. 
    
    	If you would, there are just a few points that I would love to
    	have clarified for me as the way the facts of the middle-east
    	as I know them, are seen in the Arab mind.  That's probably
    	where all of the problems started anyway back in 1948, everybody
    	 was reading different newspapers and believed they each got
    	the country.  
    
    	1)  The current boundries in the middle east are predominantly
    	    the product of turn of the century European colonialism. 
    	2)  The area that had been mandated origionaly as Palestine
    	    consisted of the land occupying present day Israel and the
    	    Hashemite kingdom of Jordan.
    	3)  The aforementioned Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was origionally
    	    found (not as a united nation, rather a large concentration
    	    Hashemite beduins under the rule of King Hussein' grandfather)
            further south on the Arabian Penninsula, until they were
    	    displaced by the present day ruling family of Saudi Arabia.
    	4)  The area east of the Jordan River was given to him to reside
    	    in, it is renamed 
             $ rename/log  Palestine.East_of_Jordan   Trans_Jordan.*
             (the early british computers were very sophisticated)
    	    The lands are still under mandate by the British but now
    	    there are distinct name differences.
    	5)  The land East of the Jordan is given it's independance of
    	    the British in 1947 to be ruled by the present day monarchy.
    	    A country composing of 30% Hashemites and 70% Palestinians.
    	  (Arab homeland #1)
    	6)  In 1948 the land west of the river is split again and as
    	    soon as the British pull out we are attacked.  The land
    	    of the arabs are still under arab rule, different one this
    	    time though.  
        7)  Jews are not "European Invaders" to a Land they don't belong
    	    to.  Historicaly we are endemic to the middle east.
    	    ( I myself am a Syrian Jew and OTR I think Arabs in a Jewish
    	    land are treated a whole hell of a lot better than Jews
    	    in an Arab land).
    
    	It is quite late now and I must retire if anything else comes
    to mind I will be sure to write.  Dale I hope I was analytical,
    this is a topic I can really throw flame on.  Greg, I liked what
    you had to say.  Layla Tov & Mar Saalam.
    
    Bruce Cohen
    NYC
    
          
    	   		

    Ahhhhh finally we got rid of those adjectives and we now have some
    material to discuss.
    Tarek how about telling us a little of yourself? I'm not managing
    a marriage broking but just to get "a feel" for the person (as the
    actress said to the bishop...).
    So let us pick up the discussion again. An interesting point "about
    catapulting to the front of the middle east". Trouble is that according
    to the Koran, and please correct me if I read the wrong edition,
    but non-moslems are not able to own land or run for office since
    an "infidel" can never be higher than a beleiver. So I guess that
    wouldn't work too well.
    The sad part of the matter is the following. The Arab nation stretching
    from  Morocco to the Persian Gulf adds to some 20 odd countries.
    Their combined and some times individual wealth is staggering. What
    have they done to help their "brethren"? At the time of the air
    lift of Iraqi Jews there was a proposal to exchange populations
    for those Palestinians that wished, to go to Iraq. Nothing came
    of it. When Israel became a state, we went on record as asking the
    local Arab population not to flee. It was the Mufti who incited
    the crowd to leave in order not to get in the way of the conquering
    Arab army and they would all meet in Tel Aviv. We have time and
    again offered to meet with any Arab leader to talk peace. The trouble
    is who do you talk to? Will he still be around tomorrow?
    The interesting problem is the lack, until 1967 of a Palestinian
    problem. Without returning to the days of the Bible but let's start
    at the turn of the century. Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman
    empire.There wasn't a Palestinian entity then. When the Brits came
    and the League of Nations gave them the Mandate there till wasn't
    a Palestinian problem. The national aspirations of the Syrians,
    Egyptians and others never had the same aspirations as the Palestinians.
    The local Arabs were represented by outside forces such
    as the Mufti and king Abdallah who had about as much right to
    Transjordan as.... . From 1948-1967 the only Palestinian aspirations
    were those tolerated by the Egyptians and the Jordanians. Both those
    and other Arab countries used the despicable conditions they were
    intentionally keeping the Palestinians to further their own political
    games. And beleive had the Arabs under Nasser won in 1967, you can
    bet you bottom dollar that neither the Syrians, the Jordanians nor
    the Egyptians would have "given" Israel to the Palestinians. The
    north of Israel would have been included into "greater Syria", Jordan
    would have eaten the central part and Egypt would have extended
    the Sinai to include Tel Aviv.
    So the "aspirations of a whole nation" began at the earliest in
    1965 with the creation of the PLO and was allowed to live AFTER
    Egypt and Jordan no longer had Gaza and the West Bank.
    There is, in my opinion, no room for another state between Israel
    and Jordan. Since Jordan is for the most part Palestinian it would
    seem evident that the Jordanian option is the most viable. Furthermore
    Jordan is 78% of "Palestine".
    Now since
    king Hussain is klinging to some sort of federation since he doesn't
    want to lose his kingdom, and the only reason he has one is due
    to the Brits who placed him there to counteract the French influence
    in Syria and Lebanon. The only other alternative is send the Greek
    Cypriots back to Greece, the Turkish ones back to Turkey and thus
    give Cyprus to the Palestinians....but then again who do you count
    as a Palestinian?
                    Greg
    

Oh boy! Now you've done it, Greg! Inviting me to talk about myself? Little do 
you know about my already over-inflated ego! It must be the notes equivalent of 
the bloke who's ALWAYS in the photo whenever there's a camera around... More of 
that in a moment, but first some of the business.

I would say that your sequence of events Bruce is more or less correct although 
I wouldn't agree with you on your interpretation of the Jordanian breakdown; 
'Hashemite' relates more to the Al-Hussein family. However I hope you're not
submitting the list to me for approval!! That's also very interesting what you
say about Jews in Arab countries, and frankly I am surprised about that. You
must have some interesting experiences there which you might like to share. 

Greg: Who said anything about the Shariah? I agree the scenario which you
suggest wouldn't work (in fact it doesn't work in Islamic countries!), but I
cannot imagine the Palestinians wanting to impose it in the first place. The
Shariah is more associated with the Wahhabis and Shi-ites than the Sunnis, and
anyway you'd only be replacing one religious regime for another, which is not
the object of the exercise. I also agree that Palestinian nationalism didn't
manifest itself until the 1960s, in it's current form at least. (In the 1920s
and 1930s there was a movement, but its organisation and goals were quite
distinct from those of today's) The reason for this though is because up until
the early 60s the Palestinians had relied upon the other Arab countries which
had become their hosts to fight for them. When this policy was clearly failing
they decided to take matters into their own hands and organise themselves.
Therefore to suggest that their national aspirations only appeared after the
creation of the PLO in 1964 (and the weaker Palestine National Council) is to
suggest that the tail is wagging the dog! Also your statement that they fled in
1948 despite the Jewish assurances and to make way for the Arab armies is a
matter of historical dispute. You say they did, I say they didn't. They ran
away because they feared being massacred. Anyway, the argument of 'did they
jump, or were they pushed?' just doesn't fit. The fact is they fled from their
homes to seek sanctuary and were never given the opportunity to return. I don't
think much can be gained by arguing over this one because evidence to support
both versions of events can be produced as Bruce has said in .14(?). In fact
this is probably true with any historical disagreement. 

As for me? The Al-Sadat family is supposed to have originated somewhere in the
mountains of Iraq, and about 150 years ago one half migrated to Damascus where
my father was born, and the other to Egypt. So I am/was related distantly to
the late president. My grandfather took his family to settle in Jeddah at the
end of the 1920s, where my father grew up. He left in 1949, heading for the
USA. The experience of being deported twice from London (probably a world
record at the time!) meant that when they eventually did let him in, he decided
to stay (there's some logic in there somewhere...). Now my old mum, on the
other hand, comes from that frontier area of Yorkshire where the men are men,
and the sheep nervous. (You know, you think the Arab-Israeli fight has been
going on long enough? The Lancashire-Yorkshire thing's been going on for 500
years! Amazing, the capacity for human beings to invent a conflict even when
there isn't one. But I digress.) Et voila! Here I am (still the right side of
30). My early years were spent in Golders Green (when it was still a Jewish
suburb), although I'm sure I neither knew nor cared about that. We moved out to
Reading when my dad got a job at the infamous BBC Caversham Park (tune in to
the World Service and pick up a programme called 'Monitor' for further
details). And we're still here. Actually Reading is the only place I know of
outside London and Manchester which has a small permanent Arab community (as
opposed to student populations). I have visited the usual places in the
Middle East and lived in Jeddah for a few years (came back last May), but my
Arabic is still appalling. I first got interested in the Middle East as a
teenager, but only really started investigating it when I went to college. When 
I started work I lost interest in it, but the events of 1982 and the 'roots
experience' (as the Americans call it) renewed my interest, not least because 
of the scores of Palestinians I met in Jeddah. I have never been to Israel, and
always thought a) they wouldn't let me in, b) would I really want to go there
anyway? I've changed my mind on that though, and now I would really like to see 
it for myself, as I'm sure they would let me in (as long as they don't stamp 
your passport). I presume by the depth of your knowledge, Greg, that you are in 
Herzlia, well, *and* by the timing of your entries. So if I do come over I'll 
look you up!


Have a Wet One (as we used to say in Jeddah)!

Tarik.

    .15 was very interesting; glad you submitted it, Tariq!
    
    Just to throw some different-flavored fuel onto the fire:
    
    What we have here is a classical real estate dispute.  Who owns
    Palestine?  There are several claims, and all are potentially valid.
    
    The Hebrew claim goes back a few thousand years.  The Bible is pretty
    good evidence that we were there an awful long time ago.  It also
    tells us that we were preceded there by "Canaanites" -- I do believe
    that translates today to "Palestinian", though "Philistine" is the
    origin of the term.  If you're to believe Likud, the arrival of
    the Hebrews ended the stay of the Canaanites, and the whole area
    became solidly part of the Jewish kingdoms.  However, there are
    many scholars who note that in a tribal society as existed then
    and there, national boundaries were not firm, and there could be
    multiple tribes/nations coexisting in a given area, on a village
    by village basis.  Likud doesn't like that.
    
    The Romans evicted the Jews.  We didn't leave voluntarily, and we
    maintained our claim during the entire Diaspora.  But as the Roman
    empire collapsed, others moved in.  Hence the Ottomans ran the show,
    and the Crusaders fought for it, etc., etc.  During that time there
    were Arabs living there.
    
    The British conquered the area and defeated the Ottomans.  Now,
    the British system of land tenure (in use in the US as well) involves
    land deeds dating back to a royal grant of title.  The State of
    Israel was set up with British cooperation, and maintained British
    land tenure in effect.  Under those rules, the Palestinians didn't
    have title.  (Of course not.  They didn't need the King of England's
    permission to live there before the British invasion.)
    
    So there are conflicting claims as to who actually owns the land
    in Israel.  Did the Palestinians voluntarily give it up?  (Did the
    Indians in Kansas?)  On the other hand, the Jews were trying to
    get their own home back for 1900 years!  History has left a rather
    muddy legacy.
    
    So long as both sides insist on having an exclusive right to assert
    their own favorite land tenure on the area, there will be conflict.
    Peace requires that room  be made for both sides.  Moving Palestinians
    to other Arab countries is about as welcome to them as was the British
    sugestion to give the Jews Uganda.  Home is home!
    
    Of course, the idea of a "democratic, secular Palestine" is an
    oxymoron.  Look at the closest thing to it -- Lebanon!  The only
    thing that could keep Arabs and Jews from conflict within the same
    state is a third-party colonial power that they both could oppose!
    
    Which is not a serious solution.  Nor would Hussein voluntarily
    turn his kingdom over to another tribe, even if they outnumber him.
    In a federation, though, he'd at least have some say.
    
    Rubik's Cube must be solvable, since it started out that way. The
    Middle East isn't so easy.  Emotional flaming as we've seen from
    some sides -- it seems to dominate both sides who live there --
    doesn't help.
         salaam & shalom,
         fred

    No Tarek, I don't live in Herzlia. R2D2 lives in Geneva. I am Israeli
    though and so take a great interest in what goes on at home ( as
    the average Israeli I read at least 2 newspapers a day + the short
    wave radio)
    I presume you have a british passport. If you do there's no problem
    about visiting Israel. If you have an arab country passport you
    should contact the israeli consulate nearest you and find out what
    formalities exist. I know that they will not stamp your passport
    if you object to have an israeli stamp on it. You will receive an
    entry and exit paper with the date and place stamped on each. And
    that's it. You should go and have a look, after all I can't go to
    Mecca, yet we don't forbid anyone from visiting Jerusalem our holiest
    place...something to think about right? Even during the 19 years
    that Jordan had control over Jerusalem we were deprived of access
    to Jerusalem. Imagine us invading (yes the Jordainians in contravention
    of international rules invaded the west bank in 1948) Mecca and
    preventing the moslems from accessing Mecca.
    They were jumped or pushed? The polish people didn't abandon Poland
    when the germans arrived? Nor did the french France did they? If
    you care for your COUNTRY and have solid roots there you don't leave
    no matter who's at your doorstep. The Druse in Israel didn't leave.
    Assuming for te sake of argument that we accept to take back those
    palestinians that want to. Who would qualify? Only those who were
    born before May 14 1948? Or them and their families + friends?
    Demographically this would be suicide. The only reason I can think
    of appart from trying to stop war, to discuss a plan for the west
    bank is that due to the demography in Israel and that in the
    territories (west bank and Gaza) are completely lopsided. The result
    is that in about 50 years the arabs would be a majority. And what
    I personally don't want to see happen is for us to develop into
    a South Africa with apartheid laws and Kahane's running the country
    because they would be our only alternative to retain Israel jewish.
    And that's the whole point of Israel, a jewish jome for jewish people.
    Which, due to my being married to a gorgeous japanese-american for
    the past 14 years,is the reason I'm not living there. However I
    still beleive in my country and I try and go there as often as I
    can. But as much as it's not a home for you Tarek nor the palestinians
    it's not a home for my wife. And I accept that. But go and visit
    and contact the DEC people in Herzlia, I'm sure that you'll find
    we're not as bad as they depict us in Al Ahram.
                    Greg

    Certain clarifications to Greg reply this time coming from Herzelia.
    Don't be misled by Greg's euphormism "certain formalities". With
    your obvious Arab name British passport or not when you board your
    airplane- I don't think it will be El Al- your belongings and possibly
    your person will be turned inside out. I once had my tennis racket
    X-rayed. This is because several of your freedom fighters oops
    I realy meant cowardly terrorist murders who have killed more woman
    and children and fellow Arabs who didn't cave in to their blackmail
    than Israeli soldiers, have been known to carry machine guns, grenades,
    and detonating caps as part of their standard travel luggage. We
    in effect protect you from your countrymen whose bombs left to explode
    don't distinguish between tourists and Israelis. I suggest a primer
    trip to Belfast to get the gut feeling of the whole thing. However
    in all truthfulness we have got the situation better in hand through
    hard work and a good intelligence network made up in large part
    of Arabs who secretly subvert the PLO. For obvious reasons I can't
    go into some of the ruses we use to flush out terrorists.
    Now if you still feel compelled to search out your roots, once you
    pass through the "formalities" you will find yourself entirely free
    to travel throughout the entire country including East Jerusalem,
    Judea, Samaria, and Gaza areas which contain large Arab concentrations.
    
    -You pays your money and you take your chances-
    

    What I meant by "formalities" Mr. Rosenman was legal formalities
    such as visa if required etc... . I do not beleive that this notes
    file should discuss Bitachon issues of El Al or anything else, do
    you?
    On the other hand I do beleive that Tarek and others should be
    encouraged to visit our country as a way to encourage a dialogue
    so that maybe some day soon others will join what the late pres.
    Sadat started and maybe one day be consacrated as a general peace
    agreement.
               Greg

    Michael,
    
    From your reaction, I believe you might have misunderstood what
    Greg was saying regarding the discussion of "Bitachon" issues of
    El Al or anything else. "Bitachon" means security. I agree that
    such issues should not be discussed, only because our "Beloved"
    "cousins" and other undesirable parties are privy to these notes.
    
    When it comes to issues of security we MUST remain very tight lipped.
    It is known that our enemies can  benefit from any information as
    trivial as it may seem.
    
    My oppinion is that any issues (hostile or otherwise) SHOULD be
    aired. We have nothing to hide. 
    
    Let's just keep any security issues out of this or any note.
    
    L'hitraot....
    
    Cb.
     

    re .23
    
    Loose lips sink ships!
    
    Hi. I'm back and as soon as I figure out how this new fangled program
    works I'll jump back into the conversation.
    
    			Fred
    
    Mail to GRAMPS::LISS
    

    
    
    Tariq,
    
    I don't seem to understand,  are you here to discuss issues or to
    stand on a soapbox.  You criticize other noters for their manner
    in responding to your *points*, yet I tried to deal with issues
    with historical facts and you respond with acknowledgement and skirt
    the issues.  Let's deal with this topic and cut out the rhetoric.
    You said you disagreed with my assesment of the Jordanian situation,
    WHY ????
    Also, since this note was originated the peace process between Jordan
    and the PLO has been scrapped (I'm sure it was a result of the Zionist/
    communist/nazi/facist knesset involvement and had nothing to do
    with the principals involved) and an offer was made to the
    Israeli-Arabs to scrap their clinging to an organization that is
    concerned more about their world image than their own people, and
    to negotiate with the Israeli govt.  We shall see what comes of
    it.
    
    Secondly, I believe you misunderstood me.
    I was born here in the U.S. but many friends and other members of
    my community were born in and left recently from Iraq, Syria, Turkey,
    Lebanon (that's Damascus-west) Egypt, Libya et al.
    
    If you were not aware of any difficulties they faced there I would
    suggest you lay off of the Arak & Hashish and stick to  Kafe Turki
    and Sambusak.  Maybe I'll relate some of their stories somewhere
    else - like a new file: SYS$ATROCITIES:ABUSE_OF_HUMAN_RIGHTS.NOTE
    
    SHALOM/SALAAM
    
    Bruce
    

>        TODAH CHAIM...elementary hebrew for Moderator will be held at...

   	Greg,
    
    	Yes, my hebrew is lacking, then again, I was born and raised
    	in the US where the main language is English (Or should I say
    	American - no ;-}'s).  To expect that I am fluent in Hebrew
    	is a mistake and an obvious one alot seem to be making in this
    	file.  I am third generation raised in an English speaking
    	home by parents that are descended from Russia and Austria.
    	I am somewhat cognizant of German and some Yiddish, but
    	most Hebrew escapes me.  And of this I am not ashamed,
    	but would probably find it difficult to live in Israel 8-}.
    
    	So lets have some translations for these terms for, not only
    	myself, but the non-jews/hebrew-speaking-people reading the
    	file.
    
    	BTW, the same for the Arabic I keep seeing.
    
    	Michael
    
    	

PEOPLE,

I think that there have been many unnecessary adjectives and
sarcastic use of "quotes" in this note. 

There are PEOPLE on both sides of the reality whose only
REAL desire is to live there lives, safely and peacefully. 

There are PEOPLE on both sides who have unqualified hatred
for anyone on the other side.  I feel that there are two
reasons for this. 

The first being that they, or there loved ones, have been
personally touched by an inconvenience, non-nicety, or
atrocity perpetrated by the other side and they are
thinking/talking through their emotions.  This is a totally
understandable human trait.  And, yes, these things do happen
on both sides.  We could, of course, get into a debate as to
which side did more and which ones were worse but that won't
solve anything. 

The second reason for hatred is that PEOPLE read newspapers,
listen to the news and watch TV.  The media in the mid-east,
where the problem is by the way, is not objective in any
sense of the word.  Some are more and some are less.  A
person's perspective and thoughts on politically oriented
issues are almost never solely a product of personal
experience and interaction. 

OK now.... what is the solution.  The solution, I feel, is
to get the politicians to talk, debate, wrangle,
call-it-off, call-it-on, present ultimatums, diplomatically
retract ultimatums, leak things to the media, deny the leak,
etc. etc.... and in the end AGREE on a COMPROMISE.  All the
while, (and it will be a long while) preparing the people
for the COMPROMISE.  If in the end both sides are equally
dissatisfied this will mean that the best possible solution
has been reached. 

	alan_who_is_there_now

    Alan,
    	You are absolutely correct, I personally don't like facts
    tossed aside in favor of rhetoric though.  Youre idea is wonderful
    but you must keep in mind the situation and players.
    "he whom you negotiate with today might not be around after the
    ink is dry".  But in this I agree that my opinion is that of an
    interested bystander who's friend is somewhere in the crowd, I am
    not there.
    
    Bruce who_isn't_there_yet_but_would_like_to_in_a_few_years Cohen
    (Happy Purim)