From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Summary: Goldberg pulls ad hominem arguments out of thin air
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:14:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.171359.244@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg) writes:

# In article <RLK.92Nov15093227@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

# >In article <1992Nov15.063905.14605@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <dfs.721687784@lore> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:

# >   # >	That is not the point, although G-d has made certain promises
# >   # >that if X happens he will do Y.  Unless you are willing to call G-d a
# >   # >liar, we can force Y by seeing to it that X occurs.

# >   # Maybe you should spell out exactly what you think "X" and "Y" are,
# >   # rather than couching this in abstract language.

# >	   Why is this important?  Do you deny my claim?

# >Why not just give an example rather than trying to dispute every point?

#    Because he realises that the assumptions it's based on are indefensible.

	Thank you for the nonsensical ad hominem attack.

#    His claim is that the Jewish people's inheritance of the land of
#    Israel is both predicated on and in danger of revocation if the
#    present inhabitants, Caananites, are not driven out. The source for
#    this is explicit in the torah and the early books of nevi'im.
 
	Funny.  The source for this is the current geo-political realities
along with demographic projections.  Not your made up bullshit story.

#    What he fails to address, though, is the complete *halachic*
#    innaplicability of this condition (expulsion) to the Palestinians
#    (Israeli and non-Israeli). He knows what the counter arguments are.
#    According to Jewish tradition, the Arabs are Ishmaelites; the
#    expulsion order was only because of Canaanite immorality (see
#    the recent parsha on "when the Amorites have reached the full
#    measure of their iniquity"; Eshet Chayal implies that Caananites
#    lived in close proximity to Jews during the golden age of Solomon.
#    (It doesn't matter that it's a metaphor, the reference point of
#    the metaphor had to exist for the metaphor to make sense.)

	Wrong.  I failed to address this because people like you keep
using the smear argument.  I would love for this discussion to get
down to that level.  First you smear the late Rabbi with things he
never said, then you use the same tactic to smear me.

	You guys also fail to address the other issues and sources.

#    David Makowsky is arguing that if one doesn't accept his
#    particular X implies Y then one is rejecting the principle
#    of X implies Y. The onus is indeed on him to spell it out. 

	No where do I ever come even close to implying that.  What is it
that causes you to lie like that?  In fact, I have stated something
much different.  Oh, and if you decide to reply by using an example,
use the WHOLE example.

#    On the other aspect of this argument, that it's better to act now 
#    than later, he's claiming (although he won't spell it out and he'll
#    say that "I never said that", which he hasn't, but frankly, I am
#    not embarassed to be a "mind reader", any more than I am to assign
#    a mindset to anybody else who uses codewords)

	I have not used code words, and there has been nothing from me to
glide you to what you happen to think is in my mind.

#    he's claiming that
#    the world won't want to bestir itself to act against Israel if
#    it expels the Arabs and/or that God will protect Israel. 

	I never said the former (another LIE of yours) although I do admit
to believing in the latter.

#    That the world will not bestir itself is a result of the same
#    mistake that all the dictators make. They mistake an unwillingness
#    to go to war with a lack of "guts" to do so. Saddam Hussein made
#    that mistake. Galtieri made that mistake (Falklands/Malvinas) and
#    of course Hitler made that mistake.

	I am not making that mistake at all.  You are either lying again
or you are simply mistaken if you believe I did.   I merely stated
that while those things may happen (I am not ready to concede the
point by I do not want to go into that right now), the world will do
the same or worse eventually anyways.  Maybe I am right.  Maybe I am
wrong.  But what I have been saying, and what you claim I have been
saying have almost nothing to do with each other.

#    He'll cite Bosnia as a
#    counter example, with some justice, but it's largely irrelevant
#    as the Bosnian Moslems do not have an external constituency,
#    unlike the Palestinians.

	Well I also happen to believe that peace will be impossible
without divine intervention.  There are many reasons for this.  One of
them is that the most Israel can afford to give up is now where near
the least the Arabs can afford to take.  Maybe this is correct.  Maybe
it is not.  But if it is correct than your statement actually about an
external constituency actually supports my position.

#    I am at a loss as to why he cites Iranian
#    nuclear weapons. The things that will constrain Iran (or not)
#    from using them on Israel are independent of whether there are
#    Arabs in Israel. (One could even argue that the presence of
#    Arabs would inhibit an atom bombing of Israel.)

	I mentioned it because it has to do with what Israel's foes will
do.  You are correct that those things are independent of whether
there are Arabs in Israel.  It is also independent of how Israel
behaves, which was my point.

#    While I'm here, I might as well deal with racism and the Law of
#    Return. First of all, it's completely unecessary to invoke
#    affirmative action, which is a relatively new concept of group rights
#    as opposed to individual rights. This is because "citizenship" is
#    the one group right concept that has existed for decades, long before
#    the general idea gained currency. Every country that establishes
#    criteria for immigration leading to citizenship is engaging in an
#    "ism" of some type. No criterion, including, merit, is just. (Why
#    does a Bengali peasant not have the right to live in Canada's
#    moderate climate instead of being condemned to monsoons and
#    parasitical disease?) One can say, and I won't argue, that
#    borders constitute an "ism." However, Israel is no different
#    from any other country in establishing criteria for citizenship
#    immigration. Note that criteria based on "race" are no worse
#    because people who are not citizens of a given country have
#    no claim on "civil rights" from that coutry. People external
#    to a country cannot be discriminated against by that country.

	I disagree with your contention that people external to a country
cannot be discriminated against.  I do support the rest of the above.
However, whether or not a country has a right to do something, and
whether or not other countries do it is IRRELEVENT to whether or not
what is being done is racist, just, and/or discrimination.

#    As for racism, the Kach platform calls for drawing up a list of
#    regulations that Arabs could agree to and remain within Israel,
#    or be expelled. Acceptance/expulsion would be on an individual
#    basis. In other words, the political input of Arabs would be
#    different from that of Jews. Perhaps this isn't what David
#    Makowsky thinks of as racism. Call it Xism. The generality
#    of people will reject Xism as manifestly wrong. They will
#    consider it no better to be an Xist than to be a racist.

	That might be.  That might not be.  But what I have been trying to
get across has to do with racism, not Xism.
--
	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