From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:13:59 GMT

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.
   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.

   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.)

   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. 

   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) 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. 

   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. 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. 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.)

   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.

   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.