Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watlion.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!watnot!watlion!drsimon From: drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Forced Landing Message-ID: <7568@watlion.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 21:48:42 EST Article-I.D.: watlion.7568 Posted: Mon Feb 24 21:48:42 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Feb-86 08:06:26 EST References: <251@aero.ARPA> <11000121@uiucdcsb> <52@cad.UUCP> <618@ihlpl.UUCP> <57@cad.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 186 A recent posting has criticized the frequency with which the Arab-Israeli debate in this newsgroup degenerates into shrill invective and vicious accusations. I sympathize with that writer's opinion, but I would like to point out that those of us who feel strongly about the issue face the following dilemma: Suppose that someone is repeatedly making vile accusations against your mother, twisting the truth, embellishing it with lies, and using malicious language. You have three alternatives: you may ignore the attacks; you may respond with calm reason; or you may respond in kind. Most of us agree that the first approach is best, until the frequency and virulence of the attacks require some kind of response. Then, a calm, reasonable reply is the best. Of course, when it's your mother they're running down, the temptation to be somewhat more emphatic than mere reason entails can be quite compelling. "But", you ask, "wouldn't giving in to this temptation be playing right into one's tormentor's hands?" Would that it were that simple! For example, what if the attacks take place in front of a large audience (the usenet, perhaps) ? If you reply with reason, or, worse, try to ignore the attacks, how long does it take before the spectators start to suspect that there may be some truth to the accusations? We all like to flatter ourselves that we find reason more persuasive than innuendo or invective, but, in fact, innuendo beats reason every time on the debating floor. Let's take the following typical anti-Israel posting as an example; I'll respond with nothing but earnest, rational defenses to the given arguments, avoiding all counteraccusations, name-calling, or rhetorical tricks. Let's see what happens.... > > Jewish settlements were mostly built on choice land taken away > from tennant farmers (see for example "Zionism, False Messiah" by > Nathan Weinstock, publ. by Ink Links 1979, p. 80). > "Your mother stole land from poor tenant farmers!" Jewish settlements were mostly built on land purchased from wealthy landlords, using money collected by Zionist organizations worldwide. Some of that land was, no doubt, farmed by tenants. Nevertheless, the accusation is rather distorted. > > From the same reference (p.250), "the Haganah adopted a ruthless > reprisals policy in order to terrorize the Arab population, > blowing up large numbers of houses in the Old City of Jerusalem > and in often absolutely inoffensive Arab villages." > "Your mother blows up innocent people's houses!" This accusation is too vague to respond to with references. However, the author quoted here is the same author whose credibility was badly strained by the previous accusation. > As a further example, from David Hurst's "The Gun and the Olive > Branch" (Faber and Faber 1977), about the terrorizing of Iraqi > Jews in 1951, "They learned that the three explosions were the > work not of Arab extremists, but of the very people who sought > to rescue them; of a clandestine organization called 'The Movement', > whose leader ... had received this letter from Yigal Allon, ..." > The full story is told on p. 157. > "Your mother blows things up and blames it on other people!" This accusation refers to an incident of which I've never heard, and strikes me as not only hard to swallow, but suspicious in its lack of details (What explosions? What 'Movement'? What did Yigal Allon write? To whom?). Of course, I can't PROVE that nothing of the sort ever happened. That's why accusations like this are made. Even if they amount to nothing, the damage is done. (What's this I hear? My "sweet reason" is starting to seem unconvincing?) > > From Livia Rokach's "Israel's Sacred Terrorism:A Study Based on > Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary" (AAUG 1980) the following quote > by A former prime minister of Israel, "I have been meditating on > the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, > and on the many clashes we have provoked which cost us so much > blood, ..." The book describes a wide range of Israeli acts of > provocation. I believe the original Hebrew text is available in > Israel, though not in this country. > "Your mother even admits it!" Is the quotation accurate? What is the context? To what incidents is he referring? The Israeli army is not like North American armiesin that the soldiers are all conscripts, and include Israelis from all walks of life. Incidents and hostilities cannot simply be "invented" in such an army, nor can provocations be engineered, without the entire country knowing about it. If it really happened the way this quotation IMPLIES, shouldn't Moshe Sharett be a national villain in Israel, for all those "clashes" he initiated "which cost (Israel) so much blood?" How long could such a policy have been allowed to continue in a democratic country? ("Still," you think to yourself, "that quotation seems pretty damning. I mean, If it IS true....") > > In his book "The Zionist Connection" (North American 1978, p.840), > Alfred Lilienthal lists nine people killed in the span of one year in > 1972-1973, including Palestinian playright GHassan Kanafani, poet > Kamal Nasser and writer Wael Zuaiter. Israel's Mossad claimed the > credit for most of these incidents, many of which took place in > Europe. Since that time, many others have fallen in the same manner. > "Your mother kills poets and playwrights!" The Mossad is a top-secret intelligence organization, which doesn't even reveal the name of its current chief. It goes without saying that it doesn't reveal anything about its activities, let alone take credit for acts that would be embarrassing to Israel (such as, say, the murder of innocent poets). It has been rumoured that Israel did in fact assemble a hit squad to assassinate the men who took part in the 1972 massacre of athletes at the Munich Olympics. I haven't a clue whether or not it is true; it has certainly never been acknowledged by any branch of the Israeli government. ("Yeah", you think, "but that doesn't mean it DIDN'T happen just like he said...") > > > It is also worth while to note that long before the recent > > > rash of incidents in the mediterranean and Europe, Israel > > > shot down a Libyan commercial jet in a manner not different > > > from the Korean airliner incident. As usual, there were plenty > > > of people to rationalize its action, which caused the death > > > of over 200 innocent passengers. > > I must confess my ignorance here (I'm sure someone else can address this.) > > The incident took place on February 21, 1973, and resulted in the death > of 110 (not over 200, sorry) passengers and crew (Lilienthal p. 372). > "Your mother shoots down civilian aircraft, just like the Russians." Well, I just happen to be informed about this one; I've read the UN International Civil Aviation Organization's report on the incident, so I can respond with the whole story: The Libyan airliner referred to had strayed way off course into the middle of the Sinai Peninsula. It also apparently had radio trouble, making it unreachable by voice communication. Israeli jets intercepted it, and, using the standard international visual signals, ordered it to follow and land at a nearby military airstrip. The airliner almost did land, but at the last second, it pulled up and flew away--apparently (the flight recorder later indicated) the pilot was unsure whether the runway was long enough for a landing. Because of recent threats by terrorist organizations to commandeer a passenger jet and crash it into an Israeli city, and because of the suspicious appearance of the aborted landing, the plane was shot down. It was a terrible mistake, for which Israel formally and publicly apologized. ("Still", you think to yourself, "they DID shoot down an airliner, just like the Russians, sort of...") > > The references I have quoted are corroborated by others. > "What's more, everything I said about your mother is true, and my friends will back me up. They saw it, too." This is the punchline, of course. If enough people corroborate each other's stories, anything is believable. That's how the Holocaust revisionists back up their claims that Hitler's massacre of Jews never happened. Source after scholarly source is cited, each one quoting the other, and so on...but wait! Am I implying that the author of the above article is on the same plane as the anti-holocaust pseudo-historians? What a malicious accusation! I ought to be sticking to pure reason, not casting aspersions. The evidence presented here has all been rather suspect, and its sources have all been less than inspiring in their impartiality. But that's not the point, is it? The ideas have been planted in your mind, and even if SOME of it IS true, well, then.... Notice that I have not once resorted to hurling countercharges at those who are determined to prove Israel the root of all evil, but who never bother to defend their friends, the PLO and Israel's Arab neighbours. It is an unfortunate but unassailable fact that it is easier to level accusations and denigrate your opponent than to defend the reasonableness of your position in the face of these attacks. For this reason, "defences" of the positions of the PLO or other groups invariably focus on Israel's alleged crimes. Any attempt to defend the conduct of Israel's enemies (of which terrorism is only one component) would be hopeless; the only hope of the PLO supporter is to drag Israel's reputation down to the point where she seems no better than her opponents. Is it any wonder arguments in defence of Israel tend to become just as full of invective and counteraccusations as the attacks against which they defend? Daniel R. Simon