From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:48:15 GMT

In article <RLK.92Nov15094812@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

# In article <1992Nov15.081218.392@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
 
#    In article <dfs.721804438@ro> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
 
#    # >So if that is your comparison,
#    # >Israel's law of return is racist.  By the way.  Lets say Israel did
#    # >not have a law of return.  What would you have said if Rabbi Meir
#    # >Kahane (HY"D), when he was in the Knesset, proposed one?
 
#    # This is entirely hypothetical, and thus meaningless.
 
#    It may be hypothetical but it definitely is not meaningless.  In fact,
#    it is one of the few items of discussion in this thread with any real
#    "meat" to it.
 
# You won't even let this pass without retort!  When in the Very Next
# Sentence (tm) Skoll answered your specific question!
 
	Why should I "let this pass without retort"?  He did answer my
question, but he does nothing to show what he is discussing is worth 
discussing.  I contend it is the main thing worth discussing.

#    # However, I'll
#    # play along:  If Kahane had proposed the law, I would have supported it.
#    # As I said in another previous posting, I do not care who says or
#    # does something; I care only about what is being said or done.  Just
#    # because Kahane was racist doesn't mean that he lacked, from his
#    # viewpoint, a sense of ahavat Yisrael, or that all of his ideas were
#    # bad.
 
# 	   I am having trouble believing you here.  Are you honestly telling
#    me that if he proposed that law, which discriminates against Arabs and
#    favors Jews, you would support it?
 
# That is *exactly* what he said!  You asked him a question, he gave a
# specific answer to it, and you're now doubting his answer.  You've
# started with a prejudice regarding Skoll's thinking, and you will not
# accept that his actual thoughts are not what you think they are.
 
	I have no prejudice against his thinking.  In fact, I believe he
has done a lot to reveal it.  I doubt his answer because I believe it is
at the very least inconsistent with other statements he has made, and at
the most it is dishonest.

	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.  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.  Again,
while I may be wrong, I believe he has demonstrated that he is either lying
to the net or fooling himself.

#    # You are offering an either-or choice which I don't have to make.  I,
#    # and most others, believe it is perfectly possible to have a democratic
#    # Israel which still protects and serves Jews throughout the world.
 
# 	   Oh really?  What do you do about the demographic situation which
#    will give Arabs increasing clout and one day total control?
#    ^^^^
 
# 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).  Unfortunately,
the only plans I have seen for dealing with this (other than Kach) deal only
with the territories liberated in 1967.  And even those, if the do solve that
problem, I think are a mistake for other reasons.  Now, while these may solve
some of the problems, they only put off the problem in pre 1967 Israel.

	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?

	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.

#    # Not at all.  How a person picks a marriage partner is his or her
#    # own business.  If, however, they denied people employment, or
#    # tried evicting them from their homes, then they would be racist.
 
# 	   Even if they use the same criterion for denying people employment
#    or evicting them from their homes that they do for a marriage partner?
#    Are you claiming the criterion can be the same but one be racist and
#    the other not?
 
# It's possible to claim (as I do) that business decisions (including
# renting apartments) are a matter of public interest, while choices of
# marriage partners and other acquaintances are not.  But this is an
# ongoing political issue.
 
	The question was not whether or not they were matters of public
interest or an ongoing political issue, but it was whether or not those
choices were racist.

#    # >	But what if Judaism specifically calls for government coersion in
#    # >such instances?
 
#    # Again, that's hypothetical.  Judaism does not call for government
#    # coersion in such instances.
 
# 	   Do you actually believe that Jewish law does not call for such
#    coersion in a Jewish state?
 
# Yes, but perhaps you can demonstrate that I'm wrong.

	I would like to.  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.  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?

#    # In fact, it is a long-established principle
#    # of Judaism to follow the laws of the secular government except when
#    # those laws would cause transgression of Jewish laws.
 
# 	   But this is a transgression of Jewish laws?
 
# No, but demonstrate that I'm wrong.

	I really do not think I have to (even if I wanted to expend the
energy to do this).  Are you claiming that intermarriage is not a violation
of Jewish law?

#    # If you have
#    # any Jewish sources for government coercion, please cite them.
 
# 	   Do you really believe ther are none?
 
# Yes, but demonstrate that I'm wrong.

	See responses given above.

# 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.  I know you are not going to like this, but do you disagree?

# 	   Not true.  I can be convinced (even though I admit I can be verry
#    stubborn).  However, only logical, consisten arguments will work.  Not
#    ad hominem charges of racism.
 
# Perhaps you should start making logical, consistent arguments rather
# than answering every point with a rhetorical question or "You
# misunderstand X" without elaboration.

	I believe that the answers to those questions provide "logical,
consistent arguments".

# Then you might actually have some
# credibility when making such charges.

	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.
--
	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
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:20750 soc.culture.yugoslavia:9683