From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:55:52 GMT

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:

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

>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.

>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.

># 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?

>	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.

>	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.

[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.

>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."

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

>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.

># 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.

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

But do you really think you're right? :-)

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

Do you really believe that? :-)

>	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.

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

--
                     |         | "Step up and shake the hand
David F. Skoll       | ||||||| |  Of someone you can't stand,
|_ _ _  __   __ _ __ |  \\V//  |  You can tolerate him if you try..."
 / |  | |_|   | |  | |  __|__  |  -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
_____|________________________________________________________________________