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 00:56:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: ennews.1992Nov17.005622.18960
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <dfs.721936552@troi> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:

# In <1992Nov15.164815.18023@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
# makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
 
# [Makowsky doubts that I would support the Law of Return had Kahane proposed
#  it:]
 
# >	Let me explain something.  I cannot see how anyone can believe the 
# >Law of return does not discriminate.  It does.  Mr. Skoll has no problem
# >with this, but he is more than ready to smear the late Rabbi because he
# >did poropose things that discrminated.
 
# You didn't read my definition, did you?  For the third time, here it is:
 

	Oh, but I did.  I guess you do not even know your own definition.
Sort of like when Charles Barkley said he was misquoted and taken out
of context in his autobiography.

# >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.
 
# The Law of Return helps Jews get citizenship in Israel more quickly.
# It does not prevent non-Jews from obtaining citizenship.

	But, buy your own admission, it does discriminate in terms of how
quick people of differing religions can get citizenship.

# Furthermore,
# it has no effect whatsoever on those who are already Israeli citizens.

	I agree.

# It is citizens of Israel which the Israeli government must serve.
# So the Law of Return is not racist, and does not discriminate among
# Israeli citizens, unlike Kach's policies.

	Just because the law of return does not effect who you claim are
the only people the Israeli government must serve says absolutely
nothing about whether or not is is racist or discriminatory.  It only
goes to whether or not the Israeli government is meeting its
obligations.

# >Since he has more than demonstrated
# >this, I believe he has made contradictory statements about his beliefs.
# >Perhaps I am wrong.  However, I just cannot believe it is possible for an
# >individual to hold what I perceive to be self contradictory views.
 
# Then you have a very narrow mind.  If you cannot believe that I judge
# statements based on their content rather than their utterer, then
# that's your problem.


	It may be "my problem" but it is a reasonable observation from
reading your articles.

# >Again,
# >while I may be wrong, I believe he has demonstrated that he is either lying
# >to the net or fooling himself.
 
# Funny, coming from someone who urged me to desist my "ad hominem" attacks.

	Well, if I am guilty of an adhominem attack, than I apologize.
However, I felt it necessary to say that after I was confronted with
the charge that I asked you to answer something which you answered, and
then claiming I do not believe you.  I had to justify myself.

# ># Prove this (I'm aware of the statistics, at least in a broad sense, but
# ># demonstrate that the current trends will continue indefinitely).
 
# >	In my opinion this is impossible to prove (either way).
 
# Fine.  So where's your "self-evident" scenario about doomsday, a scenario
# so "self-evident" that you used sarcasm when asked for proof?

	Demographics.  The Middle East arms race.  Need I go on?

# >	I am not going to try to prove these trends will last because I
# >cannot.  However, instead of trying to smear one solution, should not that
# >energy be put into providing an alternative solution?
 
# Kach's "solution" is a recipe for disaster.  It is something that you
# may come up with in a brain-storming session, but quickly discard
# because of its catastrophic implications for Israel.
 
	You did it again.  Fine.  Lets say (for the sake of argument) that
it is a recipe for disaster.  SInce it is one of the few options given
for certain problems, and the ONLY one given for others, instead of
smearing it why don't you try to come up with alternatives?

# >	If the fact that I cannot prove this point disqualifies what I am
# >saying in your eyes, I am sorry but I do not know what else I can do
# >about it.
 
# You can keep quiet, rather than repeating your unproven assertions.

	Perhaps.  However, I believe I have somthing valuable to
contribute, especially in the face of your smear campaign.

# [Robert Kravitz asks Makowsky for sources that government intervention
#  is mandated for the breaking of Jewish Law:]
 
# >	I would like to.
 
# We'd all like you to.  But the fact is, you can't do it.

	I answered this ina previous post.  I believe there are explicit
sources, but I also believe the prohibition implies a Jewish state to
take actions against it.

# >In fact, I wish the whole argument could be taken
# >away from the smear campaign to discussing such issues.  Until that happens,
# >however, do not expect me to waste any energy doing so.
 
# You sound like me at age 5, when I went around using a certain obscene
# word.  When my mother challenged me to see if I knew what it meant, I
# replied that I did, but that "I don't feel like telling you."
 
	Maybe I do, maybe I don't.  Maybe you are just being a jerk.
Whatever.  I am not going to bow down to your level though.

# Cut the childishness, Mr. Makowsky.  If you can't prove statements,
# don't make them.

	It is not a matter of proving them.  It is a matter of taking this
discussion to an "arena" where proof or disproof is appropriate.  The
only thing appropriate here is refuting your smear campaign.

# >At any rate, I have
# >a difficulty believing that Jewish law would prevent something, but not call
# >for the Jewish government to make this enforcement.  I am definitely positive
# >that the bible calls for sanctions to be taken by the government against
# >individuals when Jewish laws are broken.  Do you deny this?
 
# Whether or not I deny it is irrelevant.  It's up to you to give us
# chapter and verse.
 
	No it is not.  A reasonable statement is a reasonable statement.
You do not have to believe it is a fact.

# ># Please stop answering disagreements of fact with "Do you really believe
# ># that there are none?"  If you have evidence that Skoll is wrong in his
# ># assertions, present it rather than asking rhetorical questions.
 
# >	I as rehtorical questions because I believe the answers are
# >obvious.
 
# The answers are obviously not obvious.  If you stick to rhetorical
# questions, you'll quickly give the impression that you don't know
# what you're talking about, and are using bluster to cover up your
# basic lack of knowledge.
 
	Perhaps, but since my statements are reasonable, I doubt it.

# >I know you are not going to like this, but do you disagree?
 
# But do you really think you're right? :-)
 
	Who cares?

# >	I believe that the answers to those questions provide "logical,
# >consistent arguments".
 
# Do you really believe that? :-)
 
	Who cares?

# >	I am not asking for any credibility with such charges.  I am asking for
# >this debate to be moved to the level where such "charges" can be discussed
# >reasonably form the ad hominem attack level it is at now.
 
# This, from someone who said that, in his opinion, I was either fooling
# myself or lying.
 
	I already addressed this.

# But is that really possible?  Do you disagree? :-)

	Who cares?
--
	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