Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!eugene
From: eugene@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Kligerman)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Leaving Israel alone
Message-ID: <982@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 18:55:03 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.982
Posted: Thu Apr  4 18:55:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 19:14:07 EST
References: <577@lsuc.UUCP> <8@aquila.UUCP>
Reply-To: eugene@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Kligerman)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 62
Summary: 

In article <8@aquila.UUCP> chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) writes:
>David Sherman writes:
> > ... Israel poses no threat to Iraq nor any of the other
> > countries in the Middle East, if they'd only leave it alone.
>
>Sure, and any invading country is really peace loving, if only the original
>inhabitants would turn over their homes/possessions/et cetera, and
>leave the invaders to enjoy them in peace.

Invaders? Original inhbitants?  What a load of bullshit.  How quickly
a world forgets that in the 1920 - 1940's there were a number of pogroms
throughout what then was Palestine, and several Jewish communities were
destroyed (e.g. in Hebron).  I should also point out that all that was
happening with at least tacit blessing of the 'non-biased' European country
namely England.

>I am sure there are good internal reasons for all the atrocities.

Whoa!  Since you were speaking of 'belligerent' nations such as Israel,
I assume that the word 'atrocities' applies to that country as well.
What atrocities are you accusing Israel of?
I am continually amazed and astonished at how Israel is accused of all
mortal sins.
Unless you are prepared to support your views, don't throw words such as
'atrocities' around (I, and a lot of other people) get extremely offended.

>I still stand by my labelling (oh so long ago!) of Israel as a belligerent
>power. And lumping Israel in with South Africa, as I did, make sense
>given the high level talks and visits between these two countries.

And U.S. is belligerent because it has high level contacts with both
Israel AND South Africa?
Don't bother answering that.  I know your answer, Chris.

I see, the countries that do not have 'increasing evidence of the poor
treatment of ...' are not really belligirent?

Without much surprise, I noticed that in your original list you included
such countries as S. Africa, South Corea, etc.
Strangely enough you forgot to mention Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran,
Libya, Nicaragua, etc.
I guess that those countries do not have 'increasing evidence ...'
Your original list was rather one-sided, to say the least.

Frankly, I am not sure of your definition of belligirent.
Is a country 'belligirent' when it deals with its own citizens in its own
way?  I always thought belligerence by definition is directed 'outside'.

P.S.  Soviet Union is, of course, non-belligerent.  So I certainly don't
      see any reason why every citizen carries an internal passport around
      (yes, with the nationality being in a prominent place).
      After all, all in Soviet Union are equal -- their rights are
      guaranteed by the Soviet Constitution.
      (Somewhere, there is a big smile ":-))", but I don't feel much like
      smiling right now.
      much when talking on the subject).

--

Eugene Kligerman, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

UUCP: {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsri!eugene