From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Re: ERETZ YISRAEL (was Re: deportation)
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:58:24 GMT

In article <4359@novavax.UUCP> mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman) writes:

# CARIAN@auvm.american.edu writes:
 
# >I fully expect to get flamed for this, but it seems to me that whether or not
# >the Palestinians are or aren't a nation is not a matter for Jews to decide.
# >It's their own business.
 
# Not here.  In fact, borrow my Nomex hood.  8-)
 
	Actually I agree.  If any group of people want to consider
themselves a nation, that is solely up to them.  However, nationhood
does not gaurantee rights, especially when those rights imply a loss
of rights by others, which is exactly the case here.

# >Whether and how their national needs can be satisfied without endangering our
# >own national existence is a different matter, but we gain nothing by denying
# >the very fact of their existence as a distinct national entity.
 
# (N.B. I quote Rabbi Arian's article above, but I make *no*
# claims that I am representing any views but my own from here on.)
 
# I concur.  And regardless of whether or not Palestinian national needs
# are compatible with Israeli security, I think that Israel's behavior
# towards the Palestinians within its border is not acceptable.
 
	I agree.  It has been far to lenient towards those whom have
chosen to act like terrorist animals.  And this lenient behavior has
caused violence against those who have not chosen this path.

# We Jews have seen more than our share of atrocities over the years.
# I think any nation that declares itself a haven from such atrocities
# has an obligation to behave in a fashion beyond reproach with regards
# to disaffected minorities within its borders, whether or not they
# qualify for citizenship.
 
	Israel does have that obligation, and due to its weak and whimpy
response to terrorism, has caused further terrorism even against
Arabs.

	However, the biggest obligation any government has is to defend
the state.  And all other needs must be subordinate to this.

# I'd also argue that Israel hasn't ever done so.  This is not to
# say that Israel has been on the receiving end of 'right action',
# in any sense.  But unless I'm mistaken, 'an eye for an eye'
# represents not the standard Biblical punishment for misdeeds,
# but the *maximum*.

	First of all, "an eye for an eye", or rather the correct
interpretation (compensation) is THE standard.  However, what Israel
is engaging in is not "an eye for an eye", but one of Pikuach Nefesh.

	There is a line in the Talmud (I forget where and this is not an
exact quote so I may be a little off) that goes something like "If
someone is going to slay you, rise up early in the morning and slay
him first".  This is more in line with what Israel has engaged in than
is "An eye for an eye".  One more thing.  Judaism does NOT call for
turning the other cheeck.


# *I* expect to get flamed for this.  Too bad.

	Well, not only did you ask for it but you deserve it.  Too bad.
--
	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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish