From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: Jewish sources for Kahane's views?
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:25:48 GMT

In <1992Nov8.064909.17610@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

[Skoll:]
># It is the point.  YOU yourself said that Kahane's ideas were based
># on the Bible; when pressed for references, you cited the laws concerning
># the Canaanites.  I responded by showing that you cannot use those
># laws to support Kahane's position.

>	It is not the point.  I gave one citation, not all of them.

OK, give me a few more, and we'll see if I can show how they have
been discredited.  Look, it is an easily-verified fact that most
Jewish authorities consider the mitzvot concerning the Canaanites
to have been fulfilled, and that they cannot be applied to modern-
day Arabs in Eretz Israel (unless you concede that those Arabs
are direct descendants of Canaanites, which I doubt.)

>However, that is not the point either.  The point, and you seem to
>fail to understand this, is that even if you show that Rabbi Meir
>Kahane's (HY"D) is wrong in using those laws (and you did not show
>this, you merely made an argument), is that the Rabbi was wrong and
>nothing else.  You have not yet shown that he is racist.  You have
>only shown (and I claim that you have actually not shown this) that
>the Rabbi made a mistake.  However, even if mistaken, he has still
>based his ("mistaken") beliefs on the Bible.

That's a very slippery slope.  Remember, it was the "mistaken" interpretation
of the Bible which lead to the persecution of Jews by Christians.  The
Bible is such a potent force that we cannot merely dismiss mistaken
interpretations of it as merely well-intentioned but harmless.

># ># Whether or not those laws are or were
># ># racist is besides the point - the fact is, that according to Jewish
># ># tradition, they do not apply to the Arab inhabitants of Eretz
># ># Israel.
> 
># >	Oh, but it is EXACTLY the point.  You are claiming that Rabbi Meir
># >Kahane (HY"D) was a racist.  There are Jewish sources for his beliefs.
> 
># As I've demonstrated, it is a mis-interpretation of Jewish sources.

>	And as I have demonstrated, even if they are a mis-interpretation
>(something you have not yet shown anyway), that does not mean that
>there are not authentic Jewish sources for his beliefs.

OK, so give me a few "authentic Jewish sources"!

>  Only that he
>misinterpreted them.  That does not make him a racist.

I agreed to that in my article.  His racism and his misinterpretation
are two unrelated facts.

[...]

># But YOU brought up the point by stating that Kahane had "Jewish
># sources" for his views.  If you don't want to discuss a point, then
># don't bring it up.

>	I do not want to discuss it because it is irrelevant.

Then why did you bring up the issue?

>  Actually I
>would be glad to discuss it.  But only when you know what you are
>talking about.

Then correct my mistakes.  Show me any rulings by Jewish authorities
that the laws about the Canaanites are applicable today, and I will
gladly concede the point.  Give some facts, not ad hominem attacks.

># > but that

[...]
>	Well it is not a fact that the Rabbi promoted racism.  However,
>whatever he promoted, and the reason he promoted it, are directly
>related facts as to whether or not he was a racist.

Here, I disagree.  The REASON why someone does something does not
always affect the MORALITY of the action.  If I honestly, truly believed
that G-d told me to go out and kill someone, and that by doing so, I would
be obeying the highest mitzvah, that would not make murder OK.  And it's
the same thing with Kahane - although he may have been acting in a deluded
belief that he was following G-d's wishes, that doesn't make his actions
any more ethical.

>	By the way, you never did answer my question as to whether or not
>those Jewish sources (regarding the Canaanites and Amalek) were
>racist.

I'll give you your favourite answer - it depends on the "context." :-)
In the context of Biblical times, it was not racist.  In the
context of a modern, supposedly secular and democratic state, such
laws would be racist.

>The answer to that, by the way, is totally indepenent over
>whether or not those laws are still valid.  So, were (are) they 
>racist?  Also, is Israel's law of return racist?

No, Israel's law of return is not racist.  In my opinion, it falls into
the same category as "affirmative action" - helping out the
historically disadvantaged and persecuted.

[...]
># >Even if the Rabbi is wrong, he was the only one to address certain
># >issues.

># Which issues are these?

>	Demographics in Israel.

Oh, come on!  Every Israeli politician from Ben-Gurion to Rabin has
worried about that issue.  Kahane did not suddenly illuminate the
issue for everyone.

[...]
># Come on, the land of Israel is not physically capable of supporting
># all the Jews in the world.

>	Well given this answer, I do not know if we could even have a
>common frame of reference for a civil discussion even were you to be
>intellectually honest.  By the way, what do you think wil happen when
>all Jews are there?

OK, let me get this straight:  Do you claim that the land of Israel
IS physically capable of supporting all the Jews in the world?  Israel
already has a severe water shortage, high unemployment, an overburdened
budget, and crowded cities.  That's with 4 million Jews.  Now, add another
10 million or so - do you honestly believe it's possible?  What will we
drink?  Where will we live?  What jobs will we take?

># And Kahane's ideas would make non-Jews
># virtual non-citizens in his Israel, imposing such severe restrictions
># upon them that leaving would be the only way to lead a decent life.

>	I do not know if that is true, but even if it is it is
>irrelevent.

Funny, I thought that you considered the racism charge to be highly
relevant.  Now you claim it is irrelevant.

>If the Rabbi's ideas are not implemented, no one (Jew or
>non Jew) will be able to lead a decent life.

You have yet to prove that thesis.  You've muttered darkly about holy
war and the need for divine intervention, but why should we take that
any more seriously than people running around with placards proclaiming
the imminent end of the world?

--
                     |         | "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"
_____|________________________________________________________________________