From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians
Date: 3 Jan 1993 21:42:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan3.165550.14881@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
}In article <1i6gdjINNmd4@agate.berkeley.edu> ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
}
}# In article <1992Dec24.183747.25193@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp
}# (Adam Shostack) writes:
}
}# ->In article <1992Dec22.091054.24186@Princeton.EDU>
}# niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
}
}# ->Quoting somewhat out of context here:
}
}# ->>(Basically, I view this as pretty analagous to the US interment of
}# ->>Japanese-Americans during WW2, actually.  The government there, too,
}# ->>said there was an imminent security threat because a war was going on.
}# ->>Many of the people arguing this may even have believed it sincerely.  It
}# ->>didn't make the actions right, however.)
}
}# ->This analogy, is like comparing apples and oranges.  The basic
}# ->difference between the actions of the US government and the Israeli
}# ->government is that the Arabs living in Gaza pose a demonstratable and
}# ->definite threat to the Israeli population.
}
}# ->The Americans of Japanese ancestry who were thrown into camps had
}# ->shown no propensity to oppose the American war effort.  Many of them
}# ->were second and third generation American citizens.  There were no
}# ->instances that I know of of Japanese-Americans spying for the Imperial
}# ->Government.  This is in stark contrast to the fact that there were
}# ->Germans who spied for the Reich, although German-Americans were never
}# ->jailed en masse.
}
}# ->Please note that I am not defending the deportations.  I am merely
}# ->trying to point out that David's analogy is fundamentally inaccurate. 
} 
}# In both cases the internees and deportees were denied due process in time of
}# war and instead summarily interned or deported following neither trial nor
}# conviction.  The degree to which each group was/is held in suspect is
}# immaterial.
}
}	This is plain and simply misleading.  What was being debated was
}not the degree to which each group was/is held in suspect as you
}claim, but the degree to which they were/are a threat.  You are
}discussing apples and oranges.

How do you measure and establish the existance and extent of the threat
someone poses?  If someone says you're a threat to the state, how should
you be allowed to answer such charges before action is taken?

}# Whether you're not liked because of your last name or the shape
}# of your eyes, or because of your political positions or suspected acts, if the
}# threat you pose to the state is such that extreme measures, i.e. internment
}# or deportation, are warrented, then you deserve your day in court to confront
}# and defend against the evidence of your alleged "demonstratable and definite
}# threat" BEFORE sentence is carried out.
}
}	Not if going through this imposes an unacceptable threat to the
}population.  And if you believe otherwise you are being both wrong,
}impracticle, and suicidal should you ever be faced with such a
}situation.

Again, who and how is this "unacceptable threat to the population"
supposed to be determined?  Where is the standard by which someone
may be judged to be such a threat?  Are you saying it's enough just
to make the accusation?