From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:37:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: ennews.1992Nov17.003730.18077
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <dfs.721935109@troi> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:

# In <1992Nov15.081218.392@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
# makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
 
# [Makowsky]
# ># >	But affirmative action IS racist.
 
# [Skoll]
# ># Not by my definition, which I posted earlier.  I can repost it if you
# ># wish.
 
# [Makowsky]
# >	I remember your defintion.  However, even by your definition, it
# >is still racist.
 
# You remember incorrectly.  Let me dig up my definition...
 
# >Let me define "racism" - the discrimination against people based
# >on their race, religion, or cultural identity.
 
# >Let me define "discrimination" - the differing treatment of people
# >in areas of political rights, housing, and freedom of movement.
 
# I fail to see how the Law of Return treats Israeli citizens differently
# in the areas I mentioned.

	I will tell you how.  It does not even apply to citizens at all.
It only applies to non citizens.

# It treats non-citizens differently, for sure;

	Correct.  It discriminates against them based on their religion,
which is EXPLICITLY racist even according to your own defintion!

# but virtually every country in the world has immigration laws which treat
# potential immigrants differently based on a variety of factors.

	Just because every country does it does not make it right, less
racist, or less discriminatory.

# ># >So if that is your comparison,
# ># >Israel's law of return is racist.  By the way.  Lets say Israel did
# ># >not have a law of return.  What would you have said if Rabbi Meir
# ># >Kahane (HY"D), when he was in the Knesset, proposed one?
 
# ># This is entirely hypothetical, and thus meaningless.
 
# >	It may be hypothetical but it definitely is not meaningless.  In fact,
# >it is one of the few items of discussion in this thread with any real
# >"meat" to it.
 
# ># However, I'll
# ># play along:  If Kahane had proposed the law, I would have supported it.
# ># As I said in another previous posting, I do not care who says or
# ># does something; I care only about what is being said or done.  Just
# ># because Kahane was racist doesn't mean that he lacked, from his
# ># viewpoint, a sense of ahavat Yisrael, or that all of his ideas were
# ># bad.
 
# >	I am having trouble believing you here.  Are you honestly telling
# >me that if he proposed that law, which discriminates against Arabs and
# >favors Jews, you would support it?
 
# The Law of Return discriminates against non-citizens of Israel, not against
# Israeli citizens.  That's the difference.

	As I said above, it only applies to non citizens.  It does not
apply at all to citizens.

# [...]
 
# ># >	One of the late Rabbi's arguments is that Israel cannot survive as
# ># >a democratic state (for one thing, if you let all of the Arabs vote,
# ># >eventually they will run the country).  For whatever reason, it seems
# ># >to me that whenever democracy clashes with Judaism, youbelieve Israel
# ># >should reject Judaism.  Am I correct?
 
# ># You are offering an either-or choice which I don't have to make.  I,
# ># and most others, believe it is perfectly possible to have a democratic
# ># Israel which still protects and serves Jews throughout the world.
 
# >	Oh really?  What do you do about the demographic situation which
# >will give Arabs increasing clout and one day total control?
 
# Well, what about it?  Either they are citizens or they aren't.  The only
# solution to this is to find ways to make peace with the Arabs so that
# as Jewish state in the Middle East becomes an acceptable part of reality,
# rather than something to destroy.  This is clearly the best hope for the
# long-term survival of Israel.

	Peace or no peace, what do you think the Arabs are going to do
when they become a majority?  Build more synagogues and increase the
aliya fund?

# ># However, to answer your question, I could not support a non-democratic
# ># Israel, especiallly one run on the basis of religious law.
 
# >	With or without religious law, does that mean you would rather see
# >the Jewish state of Israel be no more if by allowing full democratic
# >rights the Arabs could vote it out of existence?
 
# No.  A democracy is not simply the "rule of the majority."  It also implies
# protection of minority rights, and, as such, Israel could not be "voted
# out of existence."
 
	I disagree with your impolied defintion of minority rights as it
relates to democracy.  However, that is irelevent.  Do you actually
think that a majority of Arabs would not vote it out of existence?

# ># Not at all.  How a person picks a marriage partner is his or her
# ># own business.  If, however, they denied people employment, or
# ># tried evicting them from their homes, then they would be racist.
 
# >	Even if they use the same criterion for denying people employment
# >or evicting them from their homes that they do for a marriage partner?
# >Are you claiming the criterion can be the same but one be racist and
# >the other not?
 
# Of course.  The picking of a marriage partner is an entirely personal
# choice.  However, denying people employment imposes your values on
# others.  It also creates social problems, hatred and mistrust.  If you
# cannot undestand that it is actions which are racist, not (only)
# motives, then we can't continue this thread.

	I agree it is actions and not motives.  WHich is why you just made
my case for me.  Why aperson (to get married or to find an employee)
discriminates is not the point.  It is the action (selection/rejection
of a bride, hiring/rejecting of an employee) is what is
discriminatory.

# [...]
# ># Again, that's hypothetical.  Judaism does not call for government
# ># coersion in such instances.

# >	Do you actually believe that Jewish law does not call for such
# >coersion in a Jewish state?
 
# Israel is not a Jewish state in the sense that Jewish law applies there.

	If that is the case, than what differentiates Israel from a hebrew
speaking Portugal?

# So whether or not Jewish law calls for government interference in private
# matters is irrelevant as far as the State of Israel is concerned.

	Only if your claim about the applicability of Jewish law is
correct.

# ># In fact, it is a long-established principle
# ># of Judaism to follow the laws of the secular government except when
# ># those laws would cause transgression of Jewish laws.
 
# >	But this is a transgression of Jewish laws?
 
# There is no secular law which says that Jews MUST intermarry.  So, there is
# no conflict between the secular law of Israel and Jewish law in that area.
 
	But the secular laws permit intermarriage, thus creating the
conflict.

# Again, Israel does not have the power nor the mandate to enforce Jewish
# law on a largely non-religious population.

	Oh really.  Do you know anything about marriages in Israel?  I
think not.  Guess what the criterion are for Jews getting married.  Or
Muslims.  Or Christians.  Guess what the criterion are for secular (or
even non Orthodox among Jews) weddings.  Hint.  They ain't allowed.
PERIOD!

# ># If you have
# ># any Jewish sources for government coercion, please cite them.
 
# >	Do you really believe ther are none?
 
# Give me ONE!  You state that there are some, so name them!  Stop beating
# around the bush.


	I actully think there are, and eventually I might get the time to
dig them up.  However, my thinking was more along the lines that since
Jewish law forbids them, it is implied that a Jewish state must also.

# ># Judaism is entirely legitimate.  I have grave doubts about Kahane's
# ># interpretation of it.
 
# >	Fine.  You have just demonstrated your weakness in interpreting
# >it.
 
# Have I?  I've given sources and state precedences.

	Huh?  You have made assertioins and given ZERO sources or
precedents.

# You have yet to name
# one Jewish source for your viewpoints.

   I have named at least two.  The Bible and Maimonides.

# We'll let the readers of scj
# decide whose interpretation is weaker.

	Fine by me.

# ># You're talking nonsense again.  You keep repeating this "doomsday"
# ># scenario, without any evidence to back it up.
 
# >	Oh really?  What about Demographics?  Is the world really about to
# >fall head over heels in love with Jews and their state?
 
# Not if they follow Kach, that's for sure.  I don't care if the world
# falls in love with Jews or not.  What I care about is that Jews strive
# for justice, without compromising our lives or security.  In my opinion,
# Kach's policies are the epitome of injustice, as well as catastrophic
# to the survival of Israel.

	What you fail to realize is that IF Kach is right, their policies
are the more just for everyone, including the Arabs.

	You only consider Kach's policies.  You do not consider whether
the results of not adopting them are better or worse.

	The Rabbi wanted to strive for justice.  By the way, I wonder what
your opinions of King David are.  Was he a war like, unjust, anti -
Jewish racist?  Do you have any idea about the role of pasivism in
Judaism?

# >	Why do you think Iran (and other Arab countries) are trying to get
# >the bomb, among other things?
 
# First of all, Iran is not an Arab country.

	Agreed.  However, if for this type of discussion you do ot think
that Iran can be included with the Arab states you are either a world
champion nit picker or just plain ignorant.

# Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all
# ruled by disgusting, oppressive dictatorships.  They would probably love
# to see the destruction of Israel.  The way to fight them is through diplomacy

	How are they supposed to fight them through diplomacy?

# and by arming Israel to the teeth.

	Oh really.  Just how is that going to be accomplished with no
money?

# I see no problem with that.

	Oh, but there is.  At the very least the Arabs will one day be
able to wage a long war of attrition.  No arming of Israel to the
teeth will be enough in the long run.

# On the
# other hand, that does not imply that Israel should kick out Arabs,

	Those are SEPERATE issues, except to the extent that Israel's Arab
population serves as a fifth column.

# or refuse
# any chance of peace with its neigbours.

	Peace is not going to be refused.  It is not possible for it to be
offered.

# It is possible to maintain a
# strong position without being racist.


	I agrree.  It is also possible to have a debate on this issue
without even mentioning racism.

# [...]
# >	Ah, but Yugoslavia supports my point.  You have two (actually
# >more) ethnic groups that for their own protection need to be seperated
# >(which implies expuslions).
 
# I guess you'd love South Africa, then.

	THose are TOTALLY SEPERATE issues.

# What you are supporting is
# Apartheid, in the true sense of the meaning. ("Apartness.")

	I do not care how you label it.  It should be judged on its own
merits.

# It just
# doesn't work - one group inevitably ends up dominating the others, and
# perpetual misery is the result.

	That is the point.  To END any possibility of domination, which
would lead to a holocaust eventually.

# >We have seen other examples of this.
# >This does not mean that these actions (of expulsion) are just.  It
# >means that the consequences of not doing them are even less just.

# I fail to see how the genocide of Bosnian Muslims is "more just" than
# any other possible consequences.

	You also fail to see the argument.  The fact is that if one group
was expelled and did not live amongst the other, there would be no
genocide.

# [Rest of boring, stupid exchange deleted.]
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,il.board,talk.politics.mideast