From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: jews as a race
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:49:42 GMT

In article <4906@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.124204.4511@ifi.uio.no> michaelp@ifi.uio.no (Michael Schalom Preminger) writes:
>>
>>The zionist movement was  aiming to build a home for a group
>>of people that BY FATE were jews, and as such homeless and under a 
>>continuous threat.
>
>True.  Except they forgot, upon establishing such a home, the basic
>priniciples and philosophy of human rights.  

They didn't forget it upon the establishment of Israel, Anisa, although
some of them may have forgotten it by now. Basic fact of human (or any
other variety of) existence is that when self-preservation becomes an
immediate issue all else is jettisoned. When Israel was initially threatened
with extinction and an equalist policy was incompatible with survival, that
policy went out the window, and it'll remain there as long as that imminent
threat of destruction exists. This is the same principle under which nations
declare martial law when faced with insurrection and under which they bomb
other countries when faced with invasion, neither of which are routinely
considered ethical things to do under normalcircumstances. But the "prin-
ciples and philosophy of human rights" are *never* kept in an immediate
life-threatening situation -- any country that tries is killed off and
replaced by one not so naive. I will consider Israel at fault if they
maintain the policy beyond the time it is necessary for their survival.
Unfortunately, I think this is all too likely; by now, they've built up
their own load of anger and hatred over the years, and while I can under-
stand it, I can't condone it. But the point's irrelevant now, as that
threat is still there, and hence they're still entitled -- and obligated --
to toss whatever principles are likely to get themselves and their people
wiped out.


>They forgot the years of
>suffering that they endured under Nazism, by enacting similar racist
>and ruthless policies against the hundreds of thousands of Arabs whom
>they drove off the land.

Um, Anisa, please do not confuse the removal, alive, of people from a
location with their extermination en masse. The Jews would have been
dearly relieved to have gotten away with just being driven out. Even
accepting what you say as true for the sake of argument, the worst the
Palestinians have ever claimed is nowhere near what the Nazis did. Go
read a decent history book. I think you have a highly unrealistic view
of the Holocaust if you really believe what you're saying.

>>I think concepts should be held apatrt.  
>
>How can you believe in the state of Israel under religious precepts if
>you maintain a secularist point of view?  They are definitely held
>apart by different ideologies.  If you want to believe in a state for
>all Jews on a secularist level, do not use historical biblical claims
>to justify your existance in Palestine. 

"*Historical* Biblical claims" being the point, Anisa, it's perfectly
compatible. This is like saying 'don't use archaeology to justify your
existence in Greece unless you worship Athena'. The Bible is a religious
document; it's also a piece of independently verified historical work.
You don't have to accept the precepts of the first to use it as a handy
reference for the second. If you'd prefer, I can go to the archaeologists
instead, and document the claim for a Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael
during the time period covered by the Bible a hundred purely secular
ways; I use the Bible as the source for my history because it's easy,
it happens to already be sitting on my shelf, and everyone knows it.
But the only reasons secular Jews use it *is* as history, so your argu-
ments don't apply. If it makes it easier for you, leave the Bible out 
of it and look strictly at the academic sources for the same history.
It gets you to the same conclusion.

>>I share your feelings, but you must remember that zionism was 
>>responding to a world situation where human love was not exactly the
>>dominating power.
>
>And, in turn, it enacted policies where human love and respect for other
>cultures was not the dominating factor(s).  This is, indeed, very tragic
>for a people whom had been oppressed for so many centuries, that they are
>so insensitive towards others.

Yes, it is. But part of the tragedy is that the Jews have always been
the one people who are expected to be ethical *even* when being ethical 
will get them killed. For anyone else, defense of one's life is an excuse;
Israel is expected to die in its efforts to maintain fairness even to
those whose aim is to destroy it, even at the cost of letting themselves
be destroyed.

Excuse me, no. We will not accept that standard any longer. If those
who wish Israel to maintain a Western-accepted standard of human rights
first make it possible for Israel to do so without in the process signing
her own death warrant, then I will join the chorus of those demanding that
she maintain such a standard strictly and immediately. As long as to do so
would mean death, as long as that death would be at the hands of those to
whom they would be granting such rights, those rights brutally taken ad-
vantage of to further the goal of Israel's destruction, and as long as
most of those shouting for their rights seem, according to my best judge-
ment, to be doing so *not* because they actually want equality but because
they know that equality will give them an opening to effect their true
goal, the death of Israel and its citizens, then there can be no question
of "human rights". Human beings are not required to sacrifice themselves
for others.

>Anisa

	-Naomi

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom, aleinu v'al kol Yisrael.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:24674 talk.politics.soviet:10221 soc.history:10537