From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:52:01 GMT

In <1992Nov10.225824.3490@news.tufts.edu> nraclaw@jade.tufts.edu (Nissan Raclaw) writes:

>By your definition, Israel itself is racist, for in
>its PRESENT policies it distinguishes between Jews and non-Jews. Like
>say in the Law of Return and the policies of the JNF.  Secondly, it is
>not Kahane who forbids marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew: it is
>Judaism itself.  Now, if you are prepared to say that Judaism and Israel
>are both inherently racist, that's a logical position that at least is
>coherent;however, neither of the things you described above are solely
>the Kahanism which you so detest.

While people who think that Kahanism is acceptable tend to oppose
affirmative action, many people who find racism objectionable think
that affirmative action is just fine.  I am in the latter group, and
while I cannot justify my position, a small discrimination does not
justify a larger one (and I give anyone permission to call me a racist
as long as they explain that my racism is expressed solely in that I
support affirmative action until someone comes up with a better idea).
The Law of Return is affirmative action for Jews.

I also think we need to get rid of projects that are built for the
exclusive benifit of Jews.  Funding for government (and the JNF 
ise close enough to being the government that they should be bound by
this too) development projects ought to be distributed without regard
to the nationality of the benificiaries.  Were it the case, as it once
was, that Jews needed help to live here, it would be closer to
affirmative action.  It is no longer the case.

As to forbidding sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews, while I
am totally opposed to legislating halacha (and totally supportive of
people voluntarily adopting it), I can at least understand the
policies of the parties that want to legislate Shabbat observance,
Kashrut, funding for Torah study, and so on.

If it was really the desire of the departed Rabbi to make halacha the
law of the land, why did he start with this *particular* prohibition?
At the least, one would have expected someone who was sincere in
efforts to legislate observance of halacha to take notice of other
sexual transgressions which regrettably are also prevalent.

One might argue, but aren't we supposed to pay attention to all
mitzvot, as it's incorrect to say that this one is more important -
this should be where we concentrate our efforts?  Yes, but if someone
concentrates on mitzvot that involve eating, we might have cause to
wonder - is this person in it for the mitzvot, or for the food?

And don't forget the speech I heard him give about Arab drug dealers.
Of course, concern for other people's health is required, but there is
no reason to concentrate on Arabs here, so let's say in this case our
hypothetical tzaddik/glutton always makes a shiva call when food is
available, and vanishes the minute they run out of food.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			    Jerusalem