Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion.jewish,net.nlang.africa
Subject: Re:Re:The definition of terrorism is NOT flexible!
Message-ID: <2273@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 11:04:27 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2273
Posted: Thu Dec 19 11:04:27 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 06:13:32 EST
References: <25@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 37
Xref: watmath net.politics:12581 net.religion.jewish:2887 net.nlang.africa:194

>>By the way, how would you qualify ex israeli prime minister Begin's
>>and israeli foreign affairs minister Shamir's squads in 1946-1947.
>>They accomplished several violent bombing, stabbing and killing
>>raids on the local population of what was at that time a British
>>protectorate. (The British had once put a "wanted, alive or dead"
>>posting on Begin's head)  
>>Now, was that TERRORISM or FREEDOM FIGHTING to establish the state
>>of Israel ???
>>Was that GOOD or EVIL ???
>> 
>>Please, do not accuse me of anti-semitism, anti-zionism or
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>anti-jewishness. These are established historical facts. 

> How could anyone accuse you of anti-Semitism? Your posting appears to be 
> totally unemotional and well documented. ;-) [FREDERICK LISS]

Why the smiley, Fred?  What did Aouriri say that was anti-semitic (as you
imply)?  Is calling Begin a terrorist (which indeed he was) an act of
anti-semitism?  The posting *was* objective and well documented.  It pointed
out the fact that some Jews did engage in terrorism as part of a movement to
establish a Jewish state.  Is this incorrect?  Is Aouriri telling lies? 
Making up stories to slander Jews?  I think not.  Would you rather we
rewrite history so as to forget that one part of the Zionist movement (though
by no means the thrust of it) did engage in terrorism?  Or, as Aouriri,
Marcel Simon, and myself have pointed out, is it "freedom fighting" when
your side (the "good" side) engages in acts of violence, but terrorism
when anyone else does.  If you define your terms based on petty localized
definitions of "good", you encourage others to do the same, and what you
get is divisive violence that threatens the entire world.  Frankly, I think
ANY petty divisive so-called "nationalistic" movements are fractious and
dangerous for this reason.  "Fight for our group against that other terrible
group.  Give us the right to our own homeland where we can be in charge and
all the rest can suffer as we have..."  And so on, and so on, and so on.
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr