From: chrism@cirrus.com (Chris Metcalfe)
Subject: Re: zionism in crisis / To Louis
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:01:46 GMT

In article <74245@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:


>	I have yet to find any of Wayne's text to be *as* fraught with
>personal attack and slanderous stigmatism as some people have responded to
>him with.  True, he does seem to be just a *tad* obsessed with asserting
>his observations to followers of the Jewish Faith, but then  again, the
>obsession is being justified!  Just look at the responses! :-) On the other
>hand, I've only read this newsgroup for the last month or so, so perhaps
>there's more to this than meets the eye.  Comments, anyone?

>>Point out to me the passages in Leibowitz's works in which he
>>praises Maimonides' gloating over the Jews murdering Christ,
>>Maimonides' ranting about maintaining the purity of the Jewish
>>race ("undefiled lineage"), and Maimonides' licking his chops
>>over the prospect of King Messiah of Israel exterminating the
>>enemies of the Jews.
>>
>> -- Wayne McGuire

You'll agree that this is a *tad* obsessed?

>	The point Wayne made is that there is a common Western viewpoint
>that *any* criticism of *any* Jewish-founded philosophy, whether it be
>fundamental or liberal has been attacked as smacking of anti-Semitism. In
>other words, Muslim principles (or PLO charters, etc) can be discussed,
>analyzed and excoriated while Jewish ones cannot be, especially by
>non-Jews.  This is the latent impression.  Is this clearer now?

Who else holds this view except you and Wayne?  Where did you see,
from any poster on this net, that an argument was labeled "especially"
illegitimate because it was posted by a "non-Jew?"  This attempt
to delegitimize any argument against you as racist from square one is
simply propagandistic.

You have missed the jist of what has been happening here entirely.

I have no problem discussing the philosophy of Maimonides, or 
that of al-Ghazali, or that of Thomas Aquinas; indeed I enjoy it.  
If you want to talk about the HAMAS covenent, we can do that.  I
had a lengthy discussion with Ilyess and Mazen over what I perceived
to be the incorrect usage of Hadith in the HAMAS covenenant.  And
they never once accused me of being anti-Arab, though Mazen reproached
me for trying to teach Muslims their own religion.

Likewise, if you want to discuss the problems inherent in Jabotinsky
and the Revisionist philosophy, we can do that.  I will not call
you an anti-Semite.  I have problems with some of the Revisionist
literature.  On the other hand, I support some of the actions of Lehi
and Etzel during the War of Independance -- particularly the 
engagements surrounding Tel Aviv and Jaffa.

But I will vehemently disagree with any attempt to hold up quotations
from the Revisionist literature as indicative of general Israeli
policy, or as indicative of Jewish sentiment generally.  That is
called propaganda, because it takes the literature out of context.
Ben-Gurion fought the Revisionists.  Begin was a member.  Begin signed 
the Peace with Egypt.  Like I said, we can discuss all this.

>>Or take Chris Metcalfe and Mark Ira Kaufman: they resent non-Jews
>>inspecting Judaism too closely, but they want to reserve the
>>right of Jews to rummage through any belief system, including
>>Christianity or Islam, to their hearts' content, and turn up and
>>loudly broadcast whatever dirt they turn up. 

Classic *propaganda* techniques.  I challange anyone to provide
a clip from a posting showing my disagreement with Wayne McGuire,
or anyone else, to be based on the fact that they are a "non-Jew."
Wayne is trying to inject an element of racism here where none 
exists, because that is his obsession: trying to find a racist 
element in Judaism.  It seems that Louis has followed Wayne's lead.

Speaking of techniques in formulating our arguments.  Louis writes:

>But back to the main topic of the Wayne's paragraph above, having 
>a non-offensive debate is certainly preferrable to an angry one, 
>wouldn't you agree?

But elsewhere he writes in an extremely combative tone:

>By this very statement, you yourself cannot pass judgements on
>Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, or whoever fits the "non-Jewish"
>category.  Yes, of course that's ridiculous.  So, like they say, you like
>to dish it out, but not take it, eh? :-)

You can't delegitimize my, or anyone else's, taking issue with this 
kind of vituperation as a type of paranoia about anti-Semitism, even if
you magnify it to an axium of the Western experience: "a common Western 
viewpoint" as you have said above.   

Neither can you dismiss my, or anyone else's, arguments by claiming 
defacto that the arguments have a bias against "non-Jews."

Well, you can... but you know what that makes you.   :-)

-- Chris Metcalfe