From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Brendan is a racist anti-semitic bigot
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:03:55 GMT


In article 14354@colorado.edu, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.064919.16070@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>
>>In article 28949@ennews.eas.asu.edu, makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>>>	I believe Brendan's own words here condemn him.  I have deleted
>>>most of his article, even though I had planned to reply to it
>>>(possibly even agreeing with him on the relevence of 242).  However,
>>>he has repeated here an anti-semitic theme of dual loyalty amongst
>>>Jews living in the United States in his own words (no source, not that
>>>this matters except here he cannot even attempt to blame someone else).
>>>I am including only the relevant paragraph.
>>>
>>>	I am doing this because I believes it throws more fuel on the fire
>>>of Brendan's bigotry with respect to another thread where I have
>>>pointed this out.
>>>
>>>In article <1992Sep8.015156.11937@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>>
>>># The word "the" was left out on purpose; no doubt about it.  However,
>>># I don't believe the same can be said about Jerusalem.  Just because it 
>>># isn't mentioned by name doesn't mean it was left out.  As to what Goldberg 
>>># has retrospectively claimed [I am still waiting for someone to provide an 
>>># actual quotation or reference]: Goldberg did not constitute the Security 
>>># Council in 1967.  Moreover, his behaviour at the time (more like he 
>>># represented Israel than like he represented the US) disqualifies him from 
>>># speaking on behalf of any SC members except himself.  It is well known that 
>>># almost all the SC members wanted a total withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. 
>>
>>You have it all wrong.  I criticised Goldberg because I have a pathological
>>hatred of the letter "G".  Nobody with a "G" at both ends can be any good.
>>
>>By the way, I like you.
>
>While I have major problems with most of David Makowsky's opinions - and
>the rest of the net knows this - about the nature of Zionism and
>specifically referring to Kach - I must agree with David that the charge
>that Ambassador Goldberg "more like he represented Israel than like he
>represented the US" is quite far out of line.  The charge of dual
>loyalty is a common tactic used against American Jews by anti-Semites.
>Alan Dershowitz documents this in great detail in his book "Chutzpah."
>I don't think - yet - that in Brendan's case that this is an indication
>of anti-Semitism; it's the first time I've seen him use this charge.
>Brendan, I suggest you reconsider your use of language here.  Seriously.

Thank you, Eric.  Given a reasoned criticism I am willing to give a
reasoned response.  

(1) You might have trouble believing me, but Goldberg's Jewishness is
  not something that I even considered when stating my opinion (actually,
  I mistated it rather badly; see below).  It was David who introduced it 
  into the fray, not me.  

(2) I'm sure you agree that someone's Jewishness should not protect them
  from personal criticism.  I don't see why I should refrain from stating
  opinions (though more carefully than above) even if those opinions
  happen to press sensitive nerves.  People who want to turn my opinion
  of one person's personal qualities into a general statement about some
  group they belong to don't know logic.

(3) I will now try to rephrase my statement closer to what I meant.
  During the negotiations leading up to the acceptance of the final
  draft of Resolution 242, Ambassador Goldberg was unique in the
  Security Council in that he steadfastly sought to protect Israel's
  interests (in matters concerning the wording).  That is not 
  necessarily an accusation of divided loyalties, because I expect 
  that the stance he took was precisely the stance that his American
  political masters instructed him to take.  I did not mean to imply
  that he wasn't doing his job as the US representative.  The main
  point was that because he took a position different from everyone
  else on the SC (even from Caradon) that one should apply a grain
  of salt to pronouncements he makes about what was intended by the 
  words in the Resolution.

(4) I hope (3) clarifies my position.  I now withdraw the earlier
  inaccurate statement and apologise to anyone it offended.

>     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast