From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: zionism in crisis
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 21:17:48 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <C1BqAA.9Ar@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>

kgivon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (karen lee givon) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.1777.23086@channel1> "wayne mcguire" <wayne.mcguire@chann
>l1.com> writes:
[...]
>>A few users here, particularly Danny Keren, went completely off
>>the deep end and rapidly escalated what could have been a useful
>>and interesting discussion into a carnival of hysteria. The
>>well-documented quotes drove him right over the edge. 
>
>I don't think Danny went off the deep end at all.  In your self
>righteous view people should not get emotional about emotional issues.
>We tend to get offended when someone seems to spend an incredible amount
>of time and energy Jew bashing.  Sorry, we're human.

	I have yet to find any of Wayne's text to be *as* fraught with
personal attack and slanderous stigmatism as some people have responded to
him with.  True, he does seem to be just a *tad* obsessed with asserting
his observations to followers of the Jewish Faith, but then  again, the
obsession is being justified!  Just look at the responses! :-) On the other
hand, I've only read this newsgroup for the last month or so, so perhaps
there's more to this than meets the eye.  Comments, anyone?

>>I just
>>reread Isaiah Berlin's Against the Current the other day, and can
>>produce many more quotes in this vein. You should read Moses Hess
>>on this issue: his program for founding a Jewish state, which
>>evolved into Zionism, was founded on the central proposition that
>>Jews constituted a biological race. At its very core, Zionism was
>>founded on racial concepts. This fact has enormous relevance to
>>contemporary Mideast and Israeli politics. Ideologies have
>>enormous consequences in the real world.
>
>Ethnic concepts, maybe, but not racial.  As someone said in a recent
                             ^^^ 
>post (sorry I can't remember who) even the term ethnic is an
>oversimplification.  

	Ethnic: (adj.) of or relating to a people whose unity rests on
racial, linguistic, religious or culturual ties | deriving from or
belonging to such racial etc. ties of a people or country.

>>So apparently what you wat me to do is when I see a remark like
>>that by Shai Guday which can be strongly challenged, just keep my
>>mouth shut. Don't engage in free and open inquiry or try to
>>explore the truth and set the record straight for fear of
>>offending the sensibilities of folks like Guday, Danny Keren,
>>Christ Metcalfe, or yourself.
>
>You are offensive, not specifically because of what you say, but how
>much of it you say, and because you seem to ignore the faults of other
>groups in the Middle East.  (this is talk.politics.mideast)  

	This is a deceptive tactic here.  While I do understand that this
newsgroup is called talk.politics.mideast, I am very sure that when
speaking of Turkey, as an example, we can discuss its opression of ethnic
Kurds without always having to perpetually discuss Iraq's  opression of the
same group, or opression of any minority in all the  nations of the Persian
Gulf in every single post.  While I do respect that Israel's opression of
its Palestinian minorities is not a unique circumstance (Jordan, Kuwait,
etc.), attempting to defuse the issue by spreading the blame does not make
the specific a justifiable one. It's for this reason that Apartheid can't
be legitimized by specifying the past existence (or necessity) of American
Black segregation.  Can you imagine how long each post would be if we did
*have* to take into account all the atrocities of every single Persian Gulf
nation when trying to discuss Israel?  Nothing perpetuates in a vacuum, but
we have to narrow the subject(s) to a few specific issues at times to make
our point, whatever that may happen to be.

>>Or take questions of alleged "motives." Apparently emotional
>>pro-Israelists can post voluminously in here without any
>>consideration of their motives, but anyone who wants to disagree
>>with them on certain points has to pass a motive test. I assume
>>their motive is a passionate concern for Israel. MY motive is a
>>passionate concern for American interests in the Mideast and the
>>world in general. 
>
>And Jews are the only people in the Mideast that you can find any faults
>with?  Americans have died as a direct result of Arab terrorism and the
>only people you can find fault with are Jews? Amazing!

	Americans have died as the result of interventionism and the "ugly
American" attitude.  The U.S. has inspired and fostered terrorism
worldwide.  The U.S. has supported the Persian Gulf nations (i.e. Saudi
Arabia) which even now financially back some of the Muslim fundamentalist
groups that threaten the stability of Israel.  Furthermore, if it weren't
for the U.S., Israel wouldn't be what it is today, like it or not.  So, you
were saying? :-)

[...]
>>Love of Israel requires no explanations; love of America or
>>concern for the world order does.
>
>I can give you an explanation of my love for Israel if you like.  Also,
>for my love of America.  I'm not sure what your definition of world
>order is.  

	What's you definition of "love of humanity?"

>>Or take Chris Metcalfe and Mark Ira Kaufman: they resent non-Jews
>>inspecting Judaism too closely, but they want to reserve the
>>right of Jews to rummage through any belief system, including
>>Christianity or Islam, to their hearts' content, and turn up and
>>loudly broadcast whatever dirt they turn up. 
>
>I don't think Mr. Metcalfe or Mr. Kaufman spend as much time or energy
>digging up "dirt" on other religions as you do on Jew  I said in another
>post, beliefs held by other religions are not that important to us
>unless they directly affect us.  Many beliefs in other religions do
>directly affect us, or are applied to us.

	But if the "dirt" were to be factual, what then?  It's well known
that the U.S. carried on a campaign of hatred and genocide against the
indigenous people of the North American continent.  I would hardly call a
foreigner who pointed this out to me an "anti-American" outsider.

>>Hamas's views should
>>be publicized; those of Kahanists or Gush Emunim or even Shamir
>>should be hidden away in the basement, out of sight of the prying
>>goyim.
>
>You've got the wrong person here.  I don't agree with Kahane or Gush
>Emunim, so I don't really care what anyone says about them.

	The point Wayne made is that there is a common Western viewpoint
that *any* criticism of *any* Jewish-founded philosophy, whether it be
fundamental or liberal has been attacked as smacking of anti-Semitism. In
other words, Muslim principles (or PLO charters, etc) can be discussed,
analyzed and excoriated while Jewish ones cannot be, especially by
non-Jews.  This is the latent impression.  Is this clearer now?

>>What I see is a deep pool of irrationality and flagrant double
>>standards on the part of many Zionists here. Their behavior is
>>alienating me, and I know for a fact that it is profoundly
>>alienating many other people in the world. 
>
>Well, non Jews don't much like it when we Jews speak out or defend
>ourselves.  They never have liked it...

	If the defense is laced with anger and ignorance, then yes, no one
likes it.  When ex-president Bush put a hold on loan guarantees to Israel,
and attempted to link the negotiation to the Palestinian issue, a top
official in the Israeli government angrily condemned Bush as an
anti-Semite.  This only had the effect of alienation with the American
public ("the economy is sour, *those* guys want *us* to guarantee *their*
loans, and they call the prez *anti-Semite*??? Guess again, buddy...")

>>The overall effect is
>>more pathetic than outrageous: they give the impression that they
>>can't stand on their own two feet as adults and survive a free
>>and open give-and-take of views. They need to rely on any crutch
>>they can find to prop them up or any handy diversion to turn
>>attention away from substantive issues.
>
>I've had many religious discussion with people of many different
>religions.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss it freely and openly.  What
>I do not like is when people judge Judaism.  I don't judge other
>religions except in areas that directly affect Jews, such as evangelism.
>You have this self righteous view that you think my religion must be a
>certain way, and that you have a right to judge my religion.  If Judaism
>is not harming you (as Christianity and Islam have Jews) then leave it
>alone.  I'm not telling you not to study about it, but you have no right
>to judge or condemn any religion.

	I sure do.  As anyone else who lives on this planet would also.
Religion is the tool by which people are manipulated and filled with
nationalistic fervor.  Look at ex-Yugoslavia.  Orthodox Christians vs.
Roman Catholics and Slavic Muslims and vice-versa.  What a waste of
humanity and creativity.

>>Israel and many of her more unquestioning supporters are
>>currently in a state of free fall, and most of them are too blind
>>to realize it. If you properly understand Clinton's foreign
>>policy appointments, which are in the tradition of Carter's and
>>Bush's concerning Mideast matters, you will realize that the free
>>fall is going to grow much worse unless Israel is able soon to
>>work out a decent living arrangement with the Palestinians,
>>drastically reduce its dependence on American generosity, and
>>settle down into a condition of normality with its neighbors and
>>the rest of the world, as a state just like any other state.
>
>Do you really believe that Israel does not want to settle down into a
>condition of normality with her neighbors?  Do you think we enjoy these
>wars?  Do you also tell Arabs that they need to settle down into a
>condition of normality with their neighbors? (not just with Israel)

	Here's the on-the-surface-naive but-when-studied-further-can-be-
quite-complex QUESTION:

	If you imply that Israel does not enjoy all of "these" wars, then
why does it allow conditions which can only help to create further 
conflict and bloodshed?  Can *everything* be blamed on the non-Jewish
masses within and without Israel?

>>Americans are growing exceedingly weary of the demands that
>>Israel is making on our attention and on our Treasury. Israel and
>>her supporters have just about exhausted all the good will they
>>possess, and it will probably be impossible for them to replenish
>>it.
>>
>>I've been in many discussions with Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs
>>lately about the nature of their religions and beliefs. When I've
>>frankly challenged their ideas in free and open inquiry, they
>>NEVER lost their cool. They saw each challenge as an opportunity
>>to make a friendly and effective presentation of their beliefs.
>
>I told you that I don't mind questions.  I do mind judgements made by
>someone who has not had the experience of being a Jew in a non Jewish
>society. 

	By this very statement, you yourself cannot pass judgements on
Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, or whoever fits the "non-Jewish"
category.  Yes, of course that's ridiculous.  So, like they say, you like
to dish it out, but not take it, eh? :-)

[...]
>>Compare their approach to human relations with that of so many
>>Zionists in this newsgroup. No wonder Israel is having so much
>>trouble getting along with "the nations." Many Zionists seem to
>>lack the most fundamental understanding of how to communicate
>>effectively with the rest of the world. Instead of being cheerful
>>and confident about their beliefs, and treating every challenge
>>as an opportunity to make new friends, they are perpetually angry
>>and defensive. 
>
>I know that you probably think this is a cop out or that I'm avoiding
>the issue but 1000 years of persecution and oppression does that to a
>people.  

	You've just lent credibility to the Palestinian uprising with that
excuse.  Perhaps it hasn't been 1000 years (or perhaps it has; does anyone
have an accurate figure?), but persecution and oppression does bring about
a certain attitude in people.  But back to the main topic of the Wayne's
paragraph above, having a non-offensive debate is certainly preferrable to
an angry one, wouldn't you agree?

>You have bombarded this newsgroup daily with your Jew and
>Israel bashing (and thats exactly what it was, not innocent questions or
>even challenges, but bashing pure and simple) 

	Perhaps I'd have to be Jewish to see it that way, but I haven't.
I've seen postings that detail Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and some of the
more isolationist and possibly racial attitudes thereof.  I understand that
the PLO charter calls for the destruction Israel.  Would posting the
details behind this make me an anti-Arab?  (For the clue-impaired: of
course not.)

	Yes, I know, it can be argued that any posting can have a slant to
it... is Wayne biased against Jews and Israel in general?  Is that the
heart of the matter?  I would like to post the question this way: Can *any*
issue truly be discussed without some bias in one direction or another? 
Every time I hear (or read) a Jew speak about how terrible  Christianity
has been because of how it has been imposed against the wills of people to
the point of subjugation (which I agree), should I conclude that this Jew
is an anti-Christian?  Or merely repeating historical facts? When I see
Wayne calling for the destruction of Israel and to have any and all Jews
killed on the spot, then I will more than believe he is "Jew-bashing."

>and then you can't
>understand why we are offended and why we have an emotional response to
>it.  Pogroms have started because of claims like the ones you've made.

	As most anti-ethnic campaigns have begun.  With "logical" claims. I
don't know about you, but I feel that the best defense against speech that
you disagree with is to counter it with more persuasive speech, spoken
(written) with confidence.  Taking offense and and responding emotionally
won't sway many people to anyone's cause, as history has proven.

>>And the deeper the hole they dig for themselves,
>>the more they blame the problem on anyone but themselves.
>>Anti-Semitism--the ignorance and depravity of non-Jews--is their
>>explanation for everything that is going sour in their human
>>relations.
>
>Centuries of persecution makes people a lot more cautious in "human
>relations".  

	In the final analysis, ALL people have been persecuted on this ball
of mud we call Earth.  Just at different times and different groups of
people, depending on who had the upper hand.

>>If their beliefs are increasingly more difficult to defend in
>>free and open discussion without relying on abuse and gimmicks
>>and diversions, perhaps they should consider revising them.
>
>You have a lot of balls to suggest changing a religion that has been
>around a lot longer than the religions that you defend on here, and has
>done a lot less damage in its much longer existence.

	It can also be argued that progress and change go hand in hand.
Your constant use of how long your particular Belief System (tm) has been
around is not persuasive enough to legitimize a non-changeable status. For
example, it's been said that prostitution is the world's oldest profession.
 Does this mean that it's OK to maintain it just the way it is?  (For the
example-impaired, NO, I am not comparing prostitution to Judaism.)

	I will say that change definitely has occurred within Judaism in
general.  Yes, I am saying this, and I am certainly not Jewish.  How dare
I? :-)  Someone try explaining the various Jewish persuasions ranging from
orthodox to non-orthodox, and within the orthodox, the Hasidim (which are
further divided among Lubavitchers, etc.)  Obviously, no one can suggest
changing the very core of Judaism, as it would no longer be considered what
it is.  Same for any other Belief System (tm).  But there certainly are
different ways of practicing/respecting any religion's customs. Want proof?
 Look around, the world's bigger than you thought. :-) (My personal
favorites are "Jews for Jesus."  An oxymoron if ever one existed!)

>We shouldn't have to defend our beliefs, only explain them.  If you
>don't agree with them that's your right.  You don't have to agree,
>you're not Jewish.  I don't have to agree with Christianity, I'm not
>Christian.  Christians don't have to defend their beliefs to me.  They
>don't even have to explain them if they don't want to.  

	Well, I'm neither, and I am more than open to explanations. For
example, does the sole testament of the Bible that Jews rely on to define
the core of their belief state that Jews have to oppress others  to remain
ahead?

>Keren
>
>>---
>>  OLX 3.01 31-2557  Our style betrays us.
>>--
>>Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Regards,

--Louis
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:26215 soc.culture.greek:12485 soc.culture.europe:11386 soc.culture.soviet:12360 soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna:1353 soc.culture.croatia:496 soc.culture.turkish:14900 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10681