From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:25:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.010253.13582@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

# In article <1993Jan4.001853.5603@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >In article <1i7mjqINN3i8@agate.berkeley.edu> ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:

# ># 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.
 
# No.  SOME Arabs living in Gaza pose a demonstrable and definite threat
# to the Israeli population.

	A great number of them do.  And while not all do, Israel must
defend itself first.

# Just as SOME Japanese-Americans posed a definite threat to the US during
# WW2.  

	Not nearly as many, and the Japanese threat was not nearly as
great.

# ># }# ->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.
 
# Don't be silly.  Obviously, out of hundreds of thousands of
# Japanese-Americans, a few of them must have been pro-Japan, and I'm
# sure that at least a few spied for Japan. But that didn't justify the US 
# action.

	You are also discussing apples and oranges.  The Japanese military
were no where near as close to the US as the Arab threat to Israel is.
The numbers of Japanese here who supported Japan was not at such a
high number that extraordinary measues had to be taken.  And any
Japanese who joined an orgainzation that had as its sole purpose dead
Americans deserved worse than to be rounded up into camps.

# What the similarity is is that people are being punished for being
# *potential* threats, rather than for any actions they have committed.

	Au contraire.  Hamas has committed many acts, and they are being
punished for being members of Hamas (and even if this were  not
punishment, but rather a "pre-emptive response, it would still be
justified given the situation).

# ># }# ->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
# ># }#of war & 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?

# >	Well, here is just one simple measure.  Nissim Toledano.  There
# >are of course more.

# >	One thing has just occured to me.  Why am I even bothering to
# >answer you?  There is a war going on.  If you expect things to operate
# >normally you are pathetic.
 
# Why does this sound familiar?   I'll bet Joseph McCarthy said the same
# thing as he justified violating the rights of thousands of Americans.

	He might have said the same thing.  But you are an idiot if you
label people the same way for similar behavior under totally different
circumstances.  You would probably consider someone who shot a person
that was commiting rape the exact same as a cold blooded murderer.

# ># If someone says you're a threat to the state, how should
# ># you be allowed to answer such charges before action is taken?
 
# >	You do not need to answer.  Just avoid VOLUNTARY membership in
# >organizations whose raison de etre is to be a threat to the state.
 
# And how do you know they *are* members? 

	They admitted it.  And the ones that are not will be let back in
(something I *disagree* with unless they promise not to be a threat).
However many might not want to be let back in since they are wanted on
serious charges.

# Besides the problem with guilt-by-association, they weren't even given the 
# chance to answer *that* charge.

	Oh, but they are.

# ># }# 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 & defend against the evidence of your alleged "demonstratable &
# ># }# 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.

# Proof by blatant assertion?
 
	Nope.  Proof by Nisim Toledano.

# ># 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?
 
# >	Get real.  And by the way Mr. Coward, what is your name?
 
# Ad homenims do nothing to improve your logic.

	Whatever logic is or is not there stands out on its own.  And just
what is so wrong with that request anyways?
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast