From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:20:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.003559.28805@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.222026.3727@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In <1992Dec3.015949.22567@bony1.bony.com> (Jake Livni) writes:

>>>What makes you think that the jury is so perfect, clever and immune to
>>>manipulation? 

>>Nothing, but I'd be at least as inclined to trust their opinion, given
>>that they were actually in the courtroom, as yours.

>Others who were in court the whole time thought the jury's verdict was
>foolish and inconsistent with the case as presented.  At least you
>recognize that the jury needn't be made up of such clever people, after all.

I never said they were.  But basing opinions on the NY Times seems even
less clever to me.  Did everyone in the court think the jury's verdict
was foolish and inconsistent, or the vast majority, or did the media pick
the ones who did and interview them?

>>There was a person released from prison last week after serving almost
>>10 years for raping a woman on two different occasions.  The woman who 
>>accused him picked him OUT OF A LINEUP.  You'd think that would be a pretty 
>>good identification, right?  The jury certainly did.  And *she* wasn't
>>even dying at the time.  Only, DNA evidence *proved* last week that he
>>didn't do it.  Too bad HIS jury didn't think of that 'ludicrous theory.'

>You see, juries DO screw up sometimes.  Even you agree to that.

Of course they do.  And so do police and other witnesses.  But I bet
that guy's family didn't go around accusing the jury, the police, the
victim, the mayor, and everyone else in the country of being racist or
anti-semitic or whatever.  And if they did, I'd argue with them, too.

>>I don't have a single objection to this, and I don't think Steven or
>>anyone else arguing with you does either.  I'm simply not willing to
>>assume that an entire justice system is anti-semitic based on this
>>particular guy, who may NOT have been one of those 2 dozen.  

>Where are the other 2 dozen?  Still running in the streets screaming
>"Kill the Jews"?

>Mayor Dinkin's record in recent weeks have earned him wide criticism
>for misunderstanding Jews and rushing to support Black causes while
>showing characteristic restraint when Koreans/Jews/Whites are unfairly
>treated, especially when these people are attacked by other Blacks.
>If Dinkins isn't anti-Semitic (and he strenuously denies it), then he
>is at the very least biased.  A lot of people have come to this
>unfortunate conclusion recently.

Yes, and most of them are running against him for mayor.  Now, in one
sense, this is poetic justice, since he ran against Ed Koch with the
slogan that "the mayor sets the tone for the city."  But aside from
that, this is totally unfair.  Dinkins has NEVER said anything which
would lead one to conclude he's anti-semitic; if anything, he's been in
the forefront of people condeming anti-semitism.  Of course, that could
all be politics, but even so, it certainly doesn't lead credence to the
idea that he *is* anti-semitic.

As with other black leaders, Dinkins is somehow expected to denounce
anti-semitic or racist blacks all the time, or he must support them.
It's a ritual.  All black leaders/politicians are supposed to distance
themselves from Jackson and Farrakhan and Leonard Jeffries and Al
Sharpton and the like.  No one would have *asked* Koch to denounce the
boycott, but somehow Dinkins must be biased because he didn't rush right
out to do it first thing.

Lets face it, if Rosenbaum had been convicted, no one would be accusing
Dinkins of anti-semitism right now.  So, I can only conclude that they
are accusing him of anti-semitism because the jury came back with a
verdict they didn't like and they're frustrated.

>>>No chance?  Then how about getting rid of the police, the courts and
>>>the jails?  Not only will innocent people never be punished for crimes
>>>they didn't commit, the guilty won't either. 

>>I won't comment on this.  okay, I will.  What would *you* have us do?
>>Throw out trial by jury?  Eliminate innocent until proven guilty?  

>How about having criminals who are acquitted by manipulated/terrorized/
biased/bought-off/racist/stupid juries getting re-tried?

Oh, okay.  If you're acquitted and Jake doesn't like the verdict, we'll
try you until we convict you.  

We don't actually *know* that the jury was manipulated/terrorized/biased/
bought-off/racist/stupid, you know.  The only 'evidence' we have of that
is that they didn't convict who you wanted them to.  It's kind of
circular reasoning, you know.

So we don't eliminate *all* of our rights.  Just the right to be
safe from double jeopardy.  

>>I'm sure (and every study I've seen) shows that blacks are more
>>anti-semitic than whites.  That doesn't mean that these people were.
>>According to the woman who talked to the Times, one of the two white
>>jurors was the strongest force for acquital on the jury.  

>Are white people immune to stupdity now?

Not that I'm aware of.  But it tends to weaken the credence of your
claim that Nelson was acquitted because black people are anti-semitic
and don't like police officers.

>>>"Never again" means something, you know.  A. M. Rosenthal hasn't
>>>apologized for calling the riots in Crown Heights a pogrom and neither
>>>will I.  I notice that you haven't even touched on the abandonment of
>>>the Jews of Brooklyn to rioting mobs but instead propose that my
>>>criticism and fears are inappropriate and unwarranted.  Good grief! 

>>AM Rosenthal is an idiot; he holds different people/countries to
>>different standards depending on whether he likes their politics.

>I suppose that these are the pre-requsite qualifications for getting
>to write a regular column in the NY Times, huh?

I didn't realize there was an intelligence test you had to pass to work
in the press.  Many reporters seem to think so, which is why they're so
arrogant, which is probably why many people dislike them so much.

But that's irrelevant.  The fact that Abe "Out of my Mind" Rosenthal
didn't apologize isn't what we're talking about.  We're not talking
about whether the rioting was justified, or anything like that.  No one
ever claimed it was.  We're talking about Nelson's trial and the Crown
Heights riots.  I claim that they weren't close to either a pogrom or
ethnic cleansing.  If you want to disagree, fine, but there isn't much
point in pursuing this line...

>>What I proposed was that your rhetoric was ridiculous; this was NOT a
>>pogrom by any historical standards, (how many hundreds of people died in
>>this 'pogrom,' Jake?), 

>One person was murdered right at the start, a visitor from overseas
>who was not familiar with Black hatred for Jews in Brooklyn, who
>hadn't even heard of any traffic accident earlier that afternoon.  The
>following three days had gangs of hundreds of Blacks devouring a
>community screaming "Kill the Jews".  (In case you hadn't heard about
>it, there has been a large rise in violent attacks on Jews by Blacks
>in NY in recent weeks, with exactly the same cry of "Kill the Jews".)

And, of course, the reverse as well, though I don't think the Jews have
been yelling "Kill the Blacks."

>>the police/mayor did NOT start and then encourage the thing, 

>They did the next best thing...

The two aren't even close.  Starting and encouraging a pogrom is not
quite the same as being slow to stop riots.

>>even if they didn't respond to it correctly, and it doesn't even 
>>come close to comparing to what's happening in Bosnia right now.

>If only Israeli treatment of Arabs would be measured in comparison to
>the way that Arabs are treated in virtually every other Arab state,
>then people would recognize that Israel is extremely gentle with Arab
>terrorists.  

But Israel doesn't *want* to be judged by Arab standards, remember?
"Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East."  Israel is the
closest ally of the United States, whatever arf may try to claim.  That
means we hold them to a little different standard than Syria.  Not that
it wouldn't be good if Syria was a democracy, but we don't *expect* them
to be, and they don't seriously claim to be.

>How many Jews have to actually be killed in New York City before you
>decide that "pogrom" is an appropriate term?

How many grains of sand in a heap?  I mean, seriously, I didn't realize
that there was a specific cutoff associated with a pogrom, though I do
think that it would be higher than 1.

>>I don't know what the best think to do in that situation is.  One thing
>>I *do* know is that you don't send in an unprepared force, because they
>>may make the situation worse rather than helping.  

>The riots in LA last week were quickly contained.  News reports said
>that police learned their lesson and responded quickly with
>overwhelming force to gain control of the neighborhood again.  This
>doesn't sound in accordance with your theory.

What theory?  The police in LA are now prepared to deal with riots, at
least for the next few years.  Maybe the police in NY are now too.   But
the police in LA weren't in April, and the police in NY weren't last year.

>>>I am afraid that I was right about you.  Next thing, you're gonna say
>>>that we should throw out the WOD and then everything is gonna be so
>>>much easier.  Um, no; you've told us that one, already.

>>I did, didn't I?  Next you'll be saying that all we have to do is
>>convict anyone the police arrest as long as the official police version
>>is okay by Jake's standards, and everything will be so much better.
>>No, *you* said that already.

>If I was the only one condemning the acquittal of the only suspect
>ever arrested in Yankel Rosenbaum's murder (arrested within minutes of
>the deed and identified by Rosenbaum himself), then your criticism
>would sound more reasonable.  Unfortunately for your argument, lots of
>other people agree with me.  They aren't holding by Jake's standards;
>they are holding by American moral standards.  By these standards, the
>Jews in New York are being very poorly treated by the authorities
>today.  Are you going to try and deny this one now?

Yes.  The Jews in New York aren't been treated by the authorities at
all.  You keep on seeing Lemrick Nelson's trial as a means for justice for
Yankel Rosenbaum.  It isn't.  It's a means for justice for Lemrick Nelson.

American moral standards dictate that we convict people Jake thinks to
be guilty?  I don't believe so.  I think American moral standards
dictate innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish