Conference taveng::bagels

So, is Arafat or is he not the legitimate leader of the PLO? 

If yes, how can he be dissociated from responsibility for
what member-groups of the PLO in good standing do - (like Abbas', or
the people who bombed the Marine headquarters, or the ones who 
killed Streatham, the Marine on the hijacked TWA plane).

I don't think you can have it both ways - either he is the leader of
a political body that condones such acts and therefore has responsibility
for them (after all he's not just another member, he's the CHAIRMAN, right?)
or in fact he has no political power, and the PLO are the last people
that Israel should take seriously as a talking partner.  And the US
is perfectly right to consider him a security threat, as well as subject to 
arrest for the murders of Klinghofer and Streatham.

RE: .1

Noone else is going to come forward representing the PLO's constituency.
I agree that Arafat is as rotten as you say, yet he has stuck his neck out
and upset the Arab militant wing by his implicit recognition of Israel.
If some Israeli statesman/woman would stick his neck out equally far and at
least talk to the guy then I could forsee one of 2 possible good results:
1) Israel makes peace(!) with the PLO or 2) Arafat's double talk gets exposed
for all the world to see.

I think the only reason for not talking to him is the fear of legitimizing
a terrorist organization. Meanwhile innocent men, women, and children are
suffering. I don't feel it's very "Jewish" to stand pat and do nothing in the
face of such obvious suffering.

Dave

Hey, I'm speaking as an American here about Schultz's decision -
let's try to keep this conversation a bit focussed.  As a potential
victim of terror, I'm glad to know that my secretary of state refuses
to issue a visa to a guy who is responsible for the murder of American
civilians.

As for the rest:
Arafat sticking his neck out?  You must be kidding.  He is currently
in real trouble because there are de facto organizations with REAL
power arising on the West Bank who just might be interested in a real-world
solution that allows them to have some kind of state with some kind of autonomy.
Guess what - Yassir is in danger of getting kicked off his throne.  Not
because he is finally halfway getting pushed into a position where he *might
actually* end up talking to Israelis, but because he took so long to get 
pushed there, and resisted so hard doing anything to get there.

Finally, does anyone here for a moment believe that there are *ANY* 
Middle-Eastern governments that really want the establishment of a
Palestinian state?  

Re: < Note 594.3 by CSG001::ROSENBLUH >

I am a little confused; may be you can clear this up.

When Arafat says he wants to talk peace and that he represents the Palestinians,
you even refuse to acknowledge that PLO is a representative of the people.

But when some splinter group kills a person, Arafat is their leader.

I am confused. Who is having it both ways??????


And for some facts:
	The TWA hijacking was [and has been proven] masterminded and conducted
by the Hezbollah, allied to the Iranians. Logistical help was given and the
operation taken over later by Amal, allied to Syria.
	Arafat's supporters have been butchered by Amal in Lebanon; and Iran
is a vehement enemy of Arafat because of Arafat's close relationship with Iraq.
	So where do get the connection between Arafat and Robert Stetham?

perplexed
-parthi

PS: .2 [Dave]! Hope more people think as you do! May be we'll see the end to the
	misery, if not the animosity there!

    If Arafat wants peace and is not just protecting himself (which 
    he is extremely able at doing), or scoring political points, 
    as he realises that maybe his terrorist ways are not too
    productive, then in time he'll find a way to say that. 
    
    At the moment he speaks doubletalk and I don't think anyone really
    knows if he has changed. The world wants to believe that he is a
    different man and say that he should be encouraged. After 40 years
    in one role I think it only prudent to wait a little time to see
    if he is really sincere about the new suite that he now chooses
    to wear.
 
    It won't be easy for him to undo his past, and by some he'll never
    be trusted, but if he can rise to the role which the world wishes
    him to fulfil, and be clear in his stated objectives, it might not
    be that remote a possibility that he would have transformed himself
    into a desirable negotiating partner for Israel.
    
    Malcolm

    re: .0 ... Arafat wasn't there ...
    Eichman also didn't kill many Jews, and Khadafi too hasn't killed
    (I mean personally) any American.  May be I'm streching here the
    point a bit, but I think that you missed or try to confuse the point.
    The principle is of responsibility.  If you are the leader of George
    Habbash, Naif Hawatma (sp?), Abu Abbas and others alike, AND approve
    their terrorist acts (at least posteriori, if not always a-priori), AND
    claim to represent them in the political arena, then you are much
    responsible and ought to be treated as a terrorist and enemy of the
    USA.   
    
    What Schultz is trying to say is simple: It's not fair that Americans
    (and Israelis, and others) have to take extra precautions when
    traveling abroad and at home because of these princes of terror, while
    they go almost everywhere freely.  So, Yes-Sir, you're persona non
    grata here, unless you want to come to a trial! And I wish that
    many other leaders of the civilized world will show the courage
    to stand to PLO's hypocrisy.  Bravo George.
    
    Shaike
    

There was also an attempted assassination of Geroge Schultz that was
attributed to a PLO faction.

What does the TWA hijacking have to do with the murder of Leon Klinghofer?

Martin.

    I dislike Arafat deeply. However, even unwillingly, I have to bring
    in some comments and corrections to some of the forebrought arguments.
    
    By no law can Arafat be taken to court for the killing of Klinghoffer,
    until his involvement is proven. If YES, because he is the leader of
    the PLO, then who takes Reagan and Weinberger into court for the
    killing of Libyan civilians during the bomb raid?
    
    If Reagan has been given a white card after the Irangate/Contra affair,
    despite of having been the leader, a similarly fair investigation
    should be granted to Arafat. He may not always know what his 'colonels'
    are planning or doing.
    
    Proof and evidence have been found in Eichmann's case that he had
    ORDERED the massacre of the European Jews. No such proof or evidence
    has been submitted to the public in the causa Arafat/Klinghoffer
    or others.
    
    Shultz is holding the UN as hostage: in a vote, yesterday, on whether
    Arafat should be allowed to speak to the UN Assembly, ALL countries
    but three voted YES. The three: US and Israel voted NO, Great Britain
    voted blank. So, where is the respect for the rules of democracy?

    Chris

    LET'S KEEP THIS SIMPLE, PLEASE.  Just a Yes or No answer to the
    following should suffice!
    
    
    
    A question for the masses out there.....should any
    member of a self-proclaimed terrorist organization be admitted to the
    U.S., especially when the group has made threats and taken terrorist
    action against U.S. *** citizens and officials  ***  ?
    
    Another question.....How would you be reacting if the person rejected
    a visa was Qhuadafi (sp?)  ?????!  Or Khomeini????  I believe that the
    U.S. public would be jumping for joy, calling it something along the 
    lines of a patriotic stance against terrorism.
    
    And just one last question......Would you trust Arafat on a date with
    your sister?
    

RE: .all

I place myself amoung the faction which strongly dislikes Arafat and what he
stands for.  I really would like to see the US LEGITIMATELY keep Arafat out.
I am not sure that the current position does so.

One note on this, the US has always reserved the right to grant or withhold
visas for SPECIFIC individuals who request entry as diplomats (either to the
US or the UN).  The state department seems to be handling this as a rejection
of Arafat as an individual.  The description of his visit as a security risk
sounds a bit ludicrous, however.

L'hit,
Gavriel

    re: 6
    
    Nobody is taking Arafat to court.  I dare say that Reagan might
    be denied entry to Libya, or perhaps (heh, heh) permitted entry.
    
    On another note:  Today's N.Y. Times carries an OP_ED article by
    the daughters of Leon Klinghoffer.  In part, they say:
    
    "Arafat and the P.L.O could not possibly have repudiated their 
    commitment to terrorism when they gave a place of honor to the man
    who murdered Leon Klinghoffer.  Terrorism, the killing of innocents,
    is an unmitigated evil.
    
    "Abbas's participation at Algiers highlighted for us the absurdity
    of some media coverage describing a new P.L.O attitude toward 
    terrorism.
    
    "Far more impressive than ambiguous P.L.O rheteric would have been
    a P.L.O decision to bat Abbas from Algiers, to oust him from the
    P.L.O Executive Committee and, indeed, to turn him over to Italian
    authorities who have an arrest warrant out for him...." 
   

>	indeed, to turn him over to Italian
>    authorities who have an arrest warrant out for him...." 

You mean the same Italian authorities who held him and then released him?
What's this - a game of musical chairs?

perplexed
-parthi

PS: Arafat and date with sister. Should we stoop to such polemics? Reminds me
	of the "Would your sister date this guy?" pamphlets about Bush!

    I can think of the leader of an organization whose operative agency
    mined a civilian harbor because it didn't like the leaders of the
    country seved by that harbor.  That's terrorism.  I can think of
    the leader of an oarganization whose operative agency participated
    in mass killings of civilians for political reasons.  That's terrorism.
    I can think of the leader of an organization whose operative agency
    financed its operations by importing massive quantities of drugs
    into the United States.  That's not so nice either.
    
    But Reagan isn't on trial here, and in any case, that's not the
    UN's job.  Qaddaffi and Khomeini, as leaders of UN member states,
    are presumably entitled to enter New York for the purpose of addressing
    the UN.  The US can deny admittance to individuals who themselves
    pose a security threat to the US, but heads of hostile governments
    are not themselves normally viewed that way.  The UN would pack
    up its bags if that were the case.
    
    So why should Arafat be treated any differently?  You don't have
    to _like_ him to accept the terms of the UN agreement.  What, he's
    hiding a nuke in his pocket and plans to commit suicide by exploding
    it in Turtle Bay?  This is political foolishness.

    re: 12
    
    The Italian authorities who let Abbas go are not the Italian 
    authorities who have an arrest warrant out for him.  Your reference
    to "musical chairs" is much like Abbas's reference to automobile
    accidents in casually remarking on the wanton murder of a 
    handicapped man who was taking his wife (terminally ill) on a 
    last vacation.
    
    re:13
    
    Arafat is not the head of a hostile government.  He is not the head
    of any government. I can not believe that you really see any 
    parallel whatsoever between the acts and policies of the current U.S. 
    administration (however ugly some of them may be in your eyes) with
    those of the P.L.O.

    I agree with what seems to be the minority position, that the action
    against Arafat is political folly on the part of the U.S.  It only
    gains him sympathy he doesn't deserve, and in the eyes of much of the
    world increases his credibility.  And, considering the hyper-macho
    culture he comes from, it really elevates him to be treated as an
    arch-enemy of the big bad USA.

    Much better would be to let him come, limit his movements to the UN
    grounds and the place he chooses to stay, and guard his movements
    between those two places (and the airport).  In other words, treat him
    like the representatives of so many other countries (or, in this case,
    pseudo-countries) that we don't particularly approve of.  His presence
    would be much less a security threat than, for instance, the den of
    spies at the Soviet mission to the UN. 

    By the way, what the heck does the title of this topic mean?  TZ???

    			David

RE: #.6    
		You meant..


What Schultz is trying to say is simple: It's not fair that Americans
(and Israelis, and others=ARABS I HOPE.) have to take extra precautions when
traveling abroad 
                       .............................................

			and AT HOME which is where all my relatives 
			are.
    
Please, lets not try to twist words to favor a view.

Good day,
-Sultan    

re:#.8 

	Thanks, for looking at things more eveningly..

	Good day,

< Note 594.16 by SUTRA::LEHKY "I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool" >
                          -< "T"errible "Z"ionist ? >-

    
	Your close,   but in arabic those to letters mean something.

	I am sure some one TAVland can assist you.

	Good day,
	-Sultan

Re. 594.1

     This is precisely the point. If Mr. Arafat is not responsible for the
    actions of the member organisations of the PLO then, far from being the
    leader of the Palestinian nation, Mr. Arafat is not even the leader of the 
    PLO.
     It is interesting to see how an argument about political power has
    rapidly dissolved into an argument about the possesion of moral
    virtue. For a moment, the question "what is the case?" raised its head,
    only to be submerged by the question "what should be the case?". How
    the second question can be seriously addressed without answering the
    first is an absolute mystery to me. As for a complicated point, that
    the Arab nations are none too internally stable themselves and do not
    necessarily want an example of a successful uprising on their own
    borders; that question had to be dropped completely. Syrian fighting with 
    the PLO, the "war of the camps", Jordan's civil war in 1970? Forget it. 
    Let's talk about who thinks good thoughts.

                                                If the real does not match
                                                the ideal, so much the worse
                                                for the real.
                                                
                                                        G.W.F. Hegel

    I contend that the starting point for all useful thought about the
Palestine Liberation Organisation is the realisation that there are actually
two such organisations. I do not mean Fatah and the PFLP, nor Arafat and
Abu Mousa, nor the PNC and Fatah Struggle. I mean the ideal PLO and the real
PLO.
    The ideal PLO is the PLO as it should exist; that is to say, it is the
situation that demands the existence of the PLO. It is the need for a Palestine
Liberation Organisation. That need is simple and direct. There are, in the
various countries of the Middle East, millions of stateless people. The fate
of stateless people in the twentieth century is not a secret. [Please note
that by the ideal PLO I mean the actual and potential suffering of real
people. I do not mean the claim that Israel has violated some eternal 
principle of justice. I do not mean the claim that the existence of the state 
of Israel is illegitimate when judged by some moral standard or another. I
mean that real people are suffering real misfortunes.] Certainly the present
and future fate of the Palestinians calls out for a response, and who should 
respond if not the Palestinians themselves? This need is the ideal PLO and it 
is the inarguably legitimate and necessary PLO.
    The real PLO is the actual response given to the need for a PLO. Leaving
to one side the question of whether members of an ideal organisation would
assasinate one another, the current plight of the Palestinians shows that
the real PLO has not succeded in filling the need which called it into being.
Without sarcasm, one can say that the basic problem with the PLO is that it
is not very good at being the PLO.    
    The distinction between a real and ideal PLO reappears at the level of
polemics. If you will look carefully, you will see that apologists for the
PLO always talk about the ideal PLO, that is, about the sufferings of the
Palestinians. On the other hand, its critics talk about the real PLO, the
actually existing and markedly imperfect organisation. [A possible 
misunderstanding occurs to me here. When I contrast a real to an ideal PLO I 
do not mean that the ideal PLO is in someway imaginary and should therefore 
be ignored. By the ideal PLO I mean a very real and serious phenomena, the 
misfortunes of large numbers of people. If anything, I think a great deal more 
weight should be given to the ideal PLO than to the real one.] Both apologists
and critics are right; they are simply not talking about the same thing.

    	Don't you remember when Arafat and his freedom fighters went
    to the kindergarten in Israel and murdered the babies.

    The "real PLO" alluded to in .21 is many things.  It is now the
    Palestinian Government-in-Exile, which gives it about as much status
    at the UN as, say, the Kampuchean delegation (which, with US pressure,
    is the delegation representing the Pol Pot murderers and does not
    represent the government of Kampuchea/Cambodia).  
    
    It is also an umbrella organization by which numeous "operating
    agencies", with various different ideologies and tactics but a common
    goal of Palestinian statehood, negotiate their own differences. 
    Some of these agencies, like the PFLP, are more "radical" and dangerous
    than others.  The same could be said for the Israeli parties, and
    for the various Israeli pre-independence militias.  The Stern Gang
    wasn't exactly noted for its obedience to the Marquis of Queensbury.
    
    Most factions agree that Arafat is their titular leader.  Some,
    however, would like him dead. 
    
    From an unbiased perspective, it is quite fair to compare terrorism
    supported by Reagan with terrorism supported by Arafat.  Both have
    used terror in support of political goals.  Both have expressed
    a willingness, at times, to negotiate with their nominal enemies.
    Both have internal opposition.  Arafat, however, is weaker:  He
    depends upon external funding (Reagan has the IRS), so every step
    he takes is pretty much by definition a compromise between his Saudi,
    Iraqi and various other supporters.  Most of whom also do not
    particularly like to obey the Marquis.

Re "musical chairs"

	My use of the phrase "musical chairs" was to the Italian decision to
release Abu Abbas when they held him [immediately after the murder];
	and to now issue an arrest warrant.

	There is a school of though that says that a man cannot be prosecuted
twice. It was not a case of lack of evidence. They had all the evidence they
needed and yet made a political judgement [sic!] to release him. They now
cannot turn around and say "oops, the political climate has changed, we want
to try him now"!
	**THAT** was the musical chairs that I referred to.

	Your attempt to equate this as implying some sort of callous disregard
for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer....for the sake of decorum I shall not
state here what I think of that!

Thank you
-parthi

    >The same could be said for the Israeli parties, and
    >for the various Israeli pre-independence militias.  The Stern Gang
    >wasn't exactly noted for its obedience to the Marquis of Queensbury.
    
    One of the popular tactics of the day is to bring up the pre-independence
    underground as an example of how "we were as bad as the PLO", etc.  No
    way that I can buy that comparison, and please don't mention Deir Yassin
    x number of times, there is a lot of foggy evidence surrounding that 
    incident.  How many Maalots did the Stern group participate in?

    Many years ago I interviewed Natan Yellin-Mor(z"l), who took over the 
    leadership of the Lehi (Hebrew acronym for the Stern Group) after the 
    murder of Avraham Stern by the British.  The real history of that 
    organization contrasts sharply with the descriptions that you'd find in
    the Boston Globe or the N.Y. Times.

    David 

    re: 24
    
    It is gratifying to learn that you disassociate yourself from the
    acts of the freedom fighters led by Abbas.
    
    Yes, as you say, Italy made a political decision not to hold Abbas;
    subsequentially, a judicial decision was made to arrest him.  It
    is true that one cannot be tried twice for the same crime (under
    the concept of double-jeopardy).  But since Abbas was not tried
    once, it would seem that the warrant for his arrest is legally valid.

re Stern Gang, etc.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, (why even bother to say that, I'm sure
someone out there will correct me even if I'm right, let alone if
I'm wrong) but weren't both the Stern Gang and the Irgun refused
membership in and cooperation from the rest of the 'official Yishuv'?

    re: .27
    
    I don't know anything regarding the Irgun, but Lehi did not recieve
    "official" cooperation from the Yishuv, but in fact they did cooperate
    with several kibbutzim and other components of the Yishuv.
    
    David

    re: .25,.27,.28
    
    
    I vaguely remember reading someplace or hearing from someone that both
    Begin and Shamir were associated with a "less than reputable"
    pre-independence group. I'm not sure the truth of the assertion has
    anything to do with the current debate but was wondering if anyone
    could conclusively state whether the assertion was true or false. The
    reason I brought it up was that I've heard it offered as "proof" of the
    claim that the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom
    fighter is whether or not they were successful. If it's not true then
    I'd be able to refute it the next time I hear it.
    
    Thanks,
    Paul
    

re: 26
    
>    It is gratifying to learn that you disassociate yourself from the
>    acts of the freedom fighters led by Abbas.

I guess I should be delighted at being certified as a non-terrorist_sympathiser!

If I've got the strategy right
	- first try and convince that the Palestinians are not an entity
	- if fails, convince that they are all terrorists
	- if fails, assert that most are terrorists
	- if all else fails, bring in sarcasm to accuse that you are a
	  sympathiser of the terrorists yourself!

Silly me, how could I have missed this! Must be a masochist myself to discuss
this in here.

Have a very good day!

-parthi

    re:24 & 26
    
    Does Italy have the concept of Double Jeopardy?
    
    _Susan

    re 23:
    
    Fortunately the screen to which you typed your twist of history
    is more permissive than your readers.  You had a very good point,
    but it had nothing to do with reality.  Why wouldn't you read the
    facts before equating the liberalization fighters of Habash and
    Hawatma with the Stern Gang, which you should know were called the
    Lehi fighters?  Has it occur to you that throwing an old disabled jew to
    the sea, killing nurseary school kids in Ma'alot, and planting bombs
    in market places MIGHT BE different from attacking British military bases,
    releasing prisoners from a military jail in Acre, or even killing
    the British minister who, by refusing to let jews escape the Nazi
    hell in Europe sent them back to their death ?  If you would know
    the difference, I bet you wouldn't use such cheap demagogy.
    
    Shabat Shalom,
    
    Shaike
    

    Begin was in the Irgun. Shamir? don't know.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Chris

    re:.32
    I'm not going to start a huge digression concerning .23.  My point
    is that neither side has clean hands.  I think you'll find many
    people in Lebanon who view the Begin/Sharon regime as being
    terroristic.  And you'll also find Lebanese who fight alongside
    the Israelis.  (Not that one should confuse Lebanon with a nation.)
    It's all a matter of whose ox is gored.

    (The above paragraph specifically refers to the events of 1982.)

    Allow me here to just insert some resent events on the real acts
    of terrorism that is going on ( but shielded from the world by the
    strict censorship of the press ) in the Westbank and Gaza. It is
    a crime against humanity and an insult to common intelligence to
    say that the people of Westbank and Gaza are terrorests when they
    are clearly are the bravest freedom fighters on earth. The real
    terrorest in this case are Shamir and the Israeli Government, yet
    the US and its allies ( because it suits our political games) label
    them as friends and allies. 

>    Allow me here to just insert some resent events on the real acts
>    of terrorism that is going on ( but shielded from the world by the
>    strict censorship of the press ) in the Westbank and Gaza. It is
>    a crime against humanity and an insult to common intelligence to
>    say that the people of Westbank and Gaza are terrorests when they
>    are clearly are the bravest freedom fighters on earth. 


>     The real terrorest in this case are Shamir and the Israeli Government,
>     yet the US and its allies ( because it suits our political games) label 
>     them as friends and allies. 

	Indeed...

	Like when MY rental car was stoned from the rooftops this summer 
	while driving by on Derech Hevron, in a dark area at 11:00 pm -- 
	while my wife and kids were aboard and asleep.  Real bravery, right?

	Like gangs dropping *250* pound rocks onto civilian Egged busses from
	the rooftops.  (You thought they were pebbles, huh?) That's bravery, 
	right?

	Like firebombing civilian busses, trucks, and cars, right?

	Like, in the Arab quarter,  an Arab gang stoning and raping a Jewish 
	woman who was *living* with an Arab family, and who was theoretically 
	under the "protection" of the neighborhood?  What was her crime?
	Walking through the shuk on her way to the bus. She was a dancer.  
	She'll never be able to dance again, due to her head injuries.  She 
	can't even speak sensibly any more. (How do I know about her? She was 
	an acquaintance of my wife.)

	Just a couple of examples of real bravery. (But, if I would respond to 
	these acts,  *I'm* the terrorist, right?)

/don feinberg

re: 594.36

Don,
       I'm not really sure what to say in response to the terrible acts
you describe. Not having first hand experience with the events that are
going on, I'm torn between being angry at attacks on innocents and at
the same time wondering what options the folks in the occupied territories
really do have. I understand that they are under the same law that Palestine
was under while being governed by the British Mandate, which I'm not sure
was any enlightened standard. Should I see the folks there as being in
a similar state to French people under German occupation during World War II?
Should I instead see them as by nature unruly and ungrateful for the
wonderful benefits of Israeli occupation?  When, if ever, are the acts you
described justified?  I doubt if there is ever justification for the specific
acts you described but I can see that a case for general civil disobedience
could be made, especially if it is directed at the military,"para-military",
or folks actively brandishing weapons.

Paul

    re: 37
    
    Your comparison of the conditions of the Palestenians with those
    of the French under Nazi occupation is completely inappropriate.
    
    Under the Nazi occupation, 80,000 French Jews were shipped off to
    extermination camps and those French who were not collaborators
    suffered deprivations and misery the likes of which are not known
    on the West Bank or the Gaza strip.

    Paul,
    
    Are you kidding?  Pls don't put every occupation under the same
    umbrella.  What choice do the Palestinians have?  Talk about peace!
    Not hide under the "peaceful" terrorists of PLO and its branches,
    but rather elect representatives that would truly seeks a solution
    based on co-existence with Israel.  Would the Israelis agree to
    let them live independently?  You never know until you start serious
    negotiations.  Do you think that the Jews under British occupation
    of Erez-Israel, or the French under Nazi occupation of France had
    similar choice?  And, did the Jews or the French resort to stone
    women and small children?
    
    And if you still find ANY similarity between these 3 occupations
    that you list, don't you think that the Israelis are after all in
    Erez-Israel, out own land, which you can't say about the Germans
    in France or the Britons in Israel.
    
    Hanukka Sameah,
    
    Shaike
    
    Ps: Good job, Don.  Finally somebody to tell who the real victims are

    re: .34 which replied my .32 which replied your .23 (what a nice chain)
    
    > I think you'll find many people in Lebanon who view the Begin/Sharon
    > regime as being terroristic...
    
    Indeed I found.  And, by the same coin, you can find people (even in
    this country) who view Jews as p... and would offer various solutions 
    how to ged rid of them.  You've missed the point again: It's not
    so much what are THEIR views, but what are YOURS, and on what STANDARDS
    you base them.  And guessing your standards, I don't believe you
    would want to equate the heroic actions of the "liberation" fighters
    (see Don's examples in .36, and mine in .32) to those performed
    by the Lehi/Ezel organizations against the British occupation of
    Israel.  But if you would, pls don't say some people in Lebanon,
    just state clearly your standards.
    
    L'hitraot
    
    Shaike
     

    Re:.40
    
    Okay.  Let's face it.  The actions taken in Lebanon by the Likud-led
    army included acts of terrorism.  (The initial military action was one
    thing, but the push into Beirut was different.)  So both sides have
    done it.  So what?  Do we support terrorism because it's by "our side"? 
    
    The fact that the Nazis were worse, or that Idi Amin Dada was worse,
    does not right a wrong.  If I rob your house and tie you up, can
    I plead "innocent on grounds that I didn't commit rape or murder
    too"?  Or "innocent because I'm not Willie Horton"?
    
    And how, I wonder, are these Palestinians on the West Bank supposed to
    "elect" representatives?  They're under a foreign occupation, and don't
    exactly have free elections.  Last I heard (yesterday), Arafat himself
    stated that he recognizes the existence of Israel.  So he's waiting for
    someone to negotiate with, and since he's pretty clearly the consensus
    choice of the Palestinians, it's time to take him up on it.  Or call
    his bluff, as the case may be.
    
    Or are you waiting for the word "quisling" to be translated into Arabic
    so that you can find one to negotiate with?  An anti-PLO Palestinian
    delegation would today be viewed as no more representative than that
    particular Dane was in his time. 

RE:  .-1

>Last I heard (yesterday), Arafat himself
>stated that he recognizes the existence of Israel.  So he's waiting for
>someone to negotiate with, and since he's pretty clearly the consensus
>choice of the Palestinians, it's time to take him up on it.  Or call
>his bluff, as the case may be.

	Hmmm.

	I heard a tape of part of the formal ceremony with the Swedish
	PM, in which Arafat said -- in English! -- that he essentially
	"recognizes [garble] state bracket Israel bracket".  At least
	that's how I heard it.  I heard later that it was, indeed,
	"bracket Israel bracket".

	But he held a news conference later in the evening.  He was asked
	by the foreign press about the statement. He refused to elaborate
	on it, to confirm that he said it, or even to repeat it.

	Now, just exactly _what_ was it that Arafat was saying?

/don feinberg

  RE: 594.41
    
   >    are you waiting for the word "quisling" to be translated...than that
   > particular Dane was in his time. 

   Vidkun Quisling was the puppet governor of Norway, not Denmark.

    re: .41
    
    We were speaking about equating one liberation group (Lehi, whom
    you prefer to call the Stern Gang) with other terror groups, and
    I tried to convince you that it's absurd based ON THEIR ACTS.  What
    Idi Amin has to do with that, or even the Israeli war in Lebanon?
    As to how they can elect representatives: I can bet that Israel
    would agree to a free election of a delegation for peace talks.
    In fact that's what Israel proposes.  Israel wouldn't talk to people
    affiliated with PLO, because of it's goal and means.  As a side,
    if you really want to know how the PLO became recognized by the
    Palestinians in Israel as their rep., check the list of murders
    during the '70s in the occupied/liberated teritories.
    
    A final (hopefully) clarification: I can understand when a Palestinian
    feels opressed by the Israeli occupation and opts to fight the rulers
    (army, political appointees).  But killing inocent civilians, especially
    kids (on the sole ground that when they'll grow up they might be
    soldiers that help the opression) is terror.  And saying that that's
    okay because another group (your Stern Gang) was considerd terrorists,
    or some Lebanese would consider the Israeli army terrorists -- It
    think that's absurd.
     
    Shaike

    re:                      <<< Note 594.38 by DELNI::GOLDBERG >>>
                         -< Inappropriate comparison >-
    
    >Your comparison of the conditions of the Palestenians with those
    >of the French under Nazi occupation is completely inappropriate.
    
    
    I didn't think >I< was comparing the two. I was asking as someone who
    is outside the situation whether or not that was an accurate
    comparison and I received your answer and a couple of others which
    pointed out that, 'no, the situations were dissimilar'. I certainly
    don't condone attacks against children or random violence against
    passers-by.  Looking back at it, my question was a pretty stupid one
    since I should have seen the distinctions more quickly.
    
    How do the readers of this conference feel about Shaike's (.44)
    distinction between attacks against "rulers" vs "innocent civilians"?
    If the Lehi (I'm not up on all the history) made such a distinction are the
    parrallels such that it would be viewed as more "honorable" if the
    Palestinians restricted their attacks to "rulers"?
    
    I don't support terrorism in any form if terrorism is defined as
    attacking "innocents". The line between terrorism and freedom-fighting
    (which presumably is what Lehi did) can get pretty confusing. Blowing
    up a hotel without warning presumably is terrorism, blowing up a hotel
    with adequate warning is presumably freedom-fighting.
    
    Another question: Is this a case where the ends justify the means? I
    don't think so. 
    
    Paul
    

    re: 46
    
    The term "freedom fighter" is, I think, of fairly recent coinage
    and is, in my opinion, a public-relations euphimism.  Since it 
    cannot be clearly defined, I don't think it can be intelligently
    applied.
    
    I know that there is someone out there who will stop me if I am
    wrong when I say that the Stern Gang never called themselves 
    "freedom fighters".  Also, I do not think that they were held in
    any great repute by the other underground fighters. Can someone
    clarify the distinction between the Stern Gang, the Irgun Zvei
    Leumi, the Palmach, and other pre-Israel fighting groups? And 
    what, if any, were their relationships with one another?

    If crime fighters fight crime...
    and fire fighters fight fires...
    what do freedom fighters fight?
    
    			George Carlin, SNL

    This comes up regularly.
    
    Definition:
    	Freedom Fighter.  Somebody on the side of the speaker.
    
    	Terrorist.  Somebody on the other side.
    
    Computer scientists may use the term "relative addressing".
    
    Re:.-2 or so,  Just because the Israelis have committed acts of
    terror against Arabs doesn't mean that the PLO acts are okay, either.
    BOTH sides have done wrong.  I thought I had made that clear.  Now
    by saying that Israel wants free elections among the Palestinians,
    but the PLO won't do, is oxymoronic!  It's a bit like the US position
    in 1956 that elections to unify Viet Nam are only okay if Ho Chi
    Minh is not included.  Of course, Ho was by far the popular choice,
    so the election didn't occur, and far worse consequences followed.
    
    YOU CAN'T PICK YOUR ENEMY'S LEADERSHIP FOR THEM!

    Re: .41
           
DELNI::GOLDSTEIN "Dept. of Nugatory Research"        24 lines   8-DEC-1988 12:12

>    				Last I heard (yesterday), Arafat himself
>    stated that he recognizes the existence of Israel.  So he's waiting for
>    someone to negotiate with, and since he's pretty clearly the consensus
>    choice of the Palestinians, it's time to take him up on it.  Or call
>    his bluff, as the case may be.

    
    I heard Arafat's news conference last night (more exactly pieces
    that were shown in the news).  A reporter asked a question:  "Do
    you now recognize Israel's right to exist?  Just Yes or No".  Arafat
    answered:  "I recognize peace".
    
    I am sure about the quotation.
    
    The news commentators -- it was Public TV channel -- noted that
    Arafat again skipped the issue and refused to answer.
       
    So, what does he really recognize?  With the acceptance of the UN
    Resolutions on Middle East, does he also renounce Palestinian Charter
    that states that the armed struggle is THE ONLY way for PLO?  Is
    he supporting Abu Abbas in Achille Lauro hijacking and because of
    that talks to him at the PNC meetings?  I can keep asking, but please
    answer these questions for a starter.
       
    Regards,
    Leo