tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (11/15/85)
In article <4188@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU ubvax!cae780!amdcad!amd!pesnta!greipa!decwrl!pyramid!pyrnj!topaz!steinber steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) writes: >No, Arabs who live in Israel proper ARE INDEED CITIZENS, with civil >rights, the right to vote, etc. The Knesset (Israeli parliament) has >a number of Arab members. Arab citizens of Israel have more freedom >than WHITE South Africans (e.g. of speech and of the press). > >**** side note for those who care about fighting apartheid: notice the >danger TO THE ANTI-APARTHEID FIGHT of the Zionism-is-racism lie. To >link Israel and South Africa is to radically minimize the oppression and >suffering of the Blacks, and waters down the term "apartheid" from a specific >and real evil into meaning, essentially, "something I don't like". > > Lou Steinberg I'm sure the side note is intended to further the pursuit of truth. The link between Israel and South Africa has no relationship whatever to zionism-is-racism trash. My recall is that that debate concerned the Law of Return which lets any Jew to emigrate to Israel (a moot point today, since more people leave than arrive right now), claiming that a law which favored Jews over other peoples in immigration constituted racism. Many countries have those kinds of laws and escape criticism, so the special laying on of attack on Israel there was unfair. The issue in South Africa is NOT the oppression and suffering of blacks. It is the system of rule which makes them suffer that's under attack. That system has a number of cornerstones: denial of citizenship, institutionalized work rules restricting access to occupations, forced resettlement of populations, an extensive internal passport system, and denial of access to courts. Much of the system is justified by bringing up the issue of appropriate homelands, via a "homelands" policy that defines what groups can live in what areas. The potential for a policy of expulsion of unfavored populations should keep them more moderate in their dissent. This system doesn't depend on freedom of the press, although the state varies freedom of the press and assembly without constitutional restriction for its own defensive ends. If we look at this system as a general type applicable to other societies and situations than South Africa, an area at this time of history which fits it like a glove is the West Bank. The only difference is that some Arabs have Israeli citizenship, whereas no Blacks have South African citizenship. But the policy in Israel to keep the number of voting Jews much higher than the number of voting non-Jews is in part so that the Arabs voting in Israel can have no democratic influence on the policy in the West Bank. If in South Africa, some blacks were allowed to vote as black "representatives", say (which is what Israeli Arabs must be now -- representatives for all the Arabs under Israeli government), such that they could never vote with more power than whites, this would deserve a judgment of irrelevance as far as the system of apartheid was concerned, since it couldn't abolish or reform it. The whites would just form an anti-black bloc and vote any reform down. The same logic applies to Arabs voting in Israel. That some of them can vote is irrelevant to West Bank policy. Why else do so many of them vote Communist? (to be pedantic, they must think their vote for Labor would have no value at all) Israelis see these issues plainly. Leon Wieseltier in a recent New Republic article talks about settlers on the West Bank who DO understand that if the West Bank is Eretz Israel, then the Arabs on the West Bank will have to become voting citizens of Israel. These settlers see a time in the future when expulsion of the Arab population might come up as a platform. Meir Kahane's gutter rhetoric might be new to them, but his policy ideas aren't. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (11/18/85)
In article <360@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) maintains
that Zioinism is racist in that the government takes special interest
in ensuring that Jews remain a voting majority. My question is this:
Since the Jews are not a racially defined group, then what
does this kind of discrimination have to do with _RACISM_?
Frank Silbermanntan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (11/19/85)
> [Tony Wuersch] > If we look at this system as a general type applicable to other > societies and situations than South Africa, an area at this time > of history which fits it like a glove is the West Bank. The only > difference is that some Arabs have Israeli citizenship, whereas > no Blacks have South African citizenship. ----- Baloney. Arabs living in Israel proper have Israeli citizenship. Israel has not taken areas with large Arab populations (i.e. Galilee) and excluded them from Israel. The only areas excluded are the West Bank and Gaza, which never were part of modern Israel. If Israel were to annex more land there, as it did Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the Arabs and the U. N. would scream bloody murder. If Israel does not annex the land, they scream discrimination. You can't win. ----- > But the policy in Israel to keep the number of voting Jews much higher > than the number of voting non-Jews is in part so that the Arabs voting > in Israel can have no democratic influence on the policy in the West Bank. ----- More baloney. It IS policy in Israel to encourage Jews to emigrate to Israel, but it is NOT policy to encourage Arabs to leave. As a matter of fact, the Arab population of Israel has been growing rapidly due to a very high birth rate. ----- > If in South Africa, some blacks were allowed to vote as black > "representatives", say (which is what Israeli Arabs must be now -- > representatives for all the Arabs under Israeli government), such > that they could never vote with more power than whites, this would > deserve a judgment of irrelevance as far as the system of apartheid > was concerned, since it couldn't abolish or reform it. The whites > would just form an anti-black bloc and vote any reform down. ----- I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that you WANT Israel to formally annex the West Bank and Gaza and thereby give all Arabs the vote? ----- > The same logic applies to Arabs voting in Israel. That some of them > can vote is irrelevant to West Bank policy. Why else do so many of > them vote Communist? (to be pedantic, they must think their vote > for Labor would have no value at all) > > Israelis see these issues plainly. Leon Wieseltier > in a recent New Republic article talks about settlers on the West Bank > who DO understand that if the West Bank is Eretz Israel, then the > Arabs on the West Bank will have to become voting citizens of Israel. > These settlers see a time in the future when expulsion of the Arab > population might come up as a platform. Meir Kahane's gutter rhetoric > might be new to them, but his policy ideas aren't. ----- At last you say something that makes sense. If Israel annexes the West Bank, it will have to make a devastating choice between democracy and remaining a Jewish state. Either way, it's a disaster for Israel. That's why Peres wants to make the West Bank Arabs Jordanians again. Not a bad solution, if only he can pull it off. The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza return to Arab rule, Jordan wins, Israel wins. If only Likud sees the light, and if only the Arab world lets King Hussein do it. Two very big ifs, I'm afraid. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (11/22/85)
Before replying to Bill Tanenbaum's reply, I realized reading it that I didn't lay out my own point of view well. I believe the proper solution to the West Bank is either for Israel to give it over to a Palestinian state demilitarized by treaty and UN observers (this I don't expect to occur), or for Israel to annex the territory. Practically, to me this means annexation, since the first alternative seems politically impossible to achieve, in my judgment. My main general point is that Israel is a Jewish state whose policy has a goal of maintaining Jewishness (among other goals). A plain result of this is that Arabs are second-class citizens, not in law, perhaps, but in fact. Sometimes in law too -- I remember a case where Bedouins were evicted from Gaza by the Knesset passing a law stripping the Bedouins from access to the courts for legal relief. Now it could be that Arabs would be a minority in Israel like any other minority in, say, the US. But the US is not set up by its history so that occupation of, say, the Presidency, by a Black, say, would amount to a violation of the goals of the Founding Fathers or anything. Israel is set up that way; only Jews, for all intents and purposes, may occupy important positions. The question to me, then, is if Israel cares more about remaining Jewish than about building a liberal ethnic state where groups treat each other as equals all deserving respect. Today I see these loony KKK-like groups like Kach, or mystical groups like the Gush Emunim who let the Israeli Army do their dirty work as they look to the Torahs for prophetic vindications of plain military abuse, under a Likud which nourishs groups and sentiments who really want apartheid in Israel. Likud rhetoric is meant to fuel resentment of Sephardics against Ashkenazim; a politics of resentment can easily degenerate into plain ethnic domination. Has anyone heard about "AshkenNAZI" graffiti? Likud wants to show its constituency that it has power, so it uses that power against the institutionalized second class, Arabs, and then says it's all in support of "Jews" (read: Likud supporters). There's just so much muck there now, and the West Bank is hostage to it, a testbed for the right wing. In article <1448@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> But the policy in Israel to keep the number of voting Jews much higher >> than the number of voting non-Jews is in part so that the Arabs voting >> in Israel can have no democratic influence on the policy in the West Bank. >----- >More baloney. It IS policy in Israel to encourage Jews to emigrate >to Israel, but it is NOT policy to encourage Arabs to leave. As >a matter of fact, the Arab population of Israel has been growing >rapidly due to a very high birth rate. Not baloney. Other nations do this all the time -- fixing their immigration laws to favor some groups and restrict others. Israel has a policy of restricting non-Jewish immigration just as it has a policy to encourage Jewish immigration. The two fit together. They have demographic goals. They do not involve encouraging Arabs to leave. >----- >> If in South Africa, some blacks were allowed to vote as black >> "representatives", say (which is what Israeli Arabs must be now -- >> representatives for all the Arabs under Israeli government), such >> that they could never vote with more power than whites, this would >> deserve a judgment of irrelevance as far as the system of apartheid >> was concerned, since it couldn't abolish or reform it. The whites >> would just form an anti-black bloc and vote any reform down. >----- >I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that you WANT >Israel to formally annex the West Bank and Gaza and thereby give >all Arabs the vote? >----- Yes. Again I must apologize for not being clear before. >> The same logic applies to Arabs voting in Israel. That some of them >> can vote is irrelevant to West Bank policy. Why else do so many of >> them vote Communist? (to be pedantic, they must think their vote >> for Labor would have no value at all) >> >> Israelis see these issues plainly. Leon Wieseltier >> in a recent New Republic article talks about settlers on the West Bank >> who DO understand that if the West Bank is Eretz Israel, then the >> Arabs on the West Bank will have to become voting citizens of Israel. >> These settlers see a time in the future when expulsion of the Arab >> population might come up as a platform. Meir Kahane's gutter rhetoric >> might be new to them, but his policy ideas aren't. >----- >At last you say something that makes sense. If Israel annexes the >West Bank, it will have to make a devastating choice between >democracy and remaining a Jewish state. Either way, it's a disaster >for Israel. That's why Peres wants to make the West Bank Arabs >Jordanians again. Not a bad solution, if only he can pull it off. >The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza return to Arab rule, Jordan >wins, Israel wins. If only Likud sees the light, and if only the >Arab world lets King Hussein do it. Two very big ifs, I'm afraid. > >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan It may be that Bill and I agree on most of these things, though I wouldn't ever want to say that for him.
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (11/23/85)
In article <614@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <360@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) maintains >that Zioinism is racist in that the government takes special interest >in ensuring that Jews remain a voting majority. My question is this: > > Since the Jews are not a racially defined group, then what > does this kind of discrimination have to do with _RACISM_? > >Frank Silbermann Nothing. Frank misunderstood me. I don't think Zionism is racist at all. But I also don't restrict racism to color differences. To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. The pathology is in letting a person's membership in one or another group blot out one's checking out anything that might make that person an individual, with special valuable qualities, in situations where knowledge of the presence or absence of these qualities would normally be checked. Laws are racist if they make racist relationships the only legal ones. People are racist if they belong to a more powerful group and regularly engage in racist relationships. A state is racist if it makes racist laws a major basis of its legitimacy. Anyone's invited to try to improve on this if they want to. Given this definition (which I support), to call Zionism racist is wrong because it was an escape for the Jews from the racism of Europe. Jews were never in a more powerful position, as far as states were concerned, so they could never institute a racist relationship in the first place. They were victims, not leaders, in politics. Anti-semites might point to Rothschilds as an exception, but they haven't read their history, I'd submit. In Israel, Jews are leaders, not victims. There they have to face claims and charges that they could be racist towards Arabs, with the understanding that their leadership positions make it possible for them to become racists. I don't think immigration policies constitute sufficient evidence, or even a major indication, of racism. Expulsion policies do. Racist laws do. Laws that define Jews on the West Bank as citizens and Arabs on the West Bank as Jordanians, while Israel rules the West Bank, are racist laws. But these are just some laws and some practices. I still don't think that racist laws are the major basis for the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Its legitimacy is still based on an anti-racist Zionist movement dispersed throughout the world, on the Jewish diaspora. What worries me is that as Israel gets its own identity and moves on its own political track, as it's starting to do today, that track will be based on the Likud right-wing resentment-based scapegoating racist dynamic. If that movement takes over, Israel will be Zionist no more. And it will be racist. And what it might become is being foreshadowed by what is happening on the West Bank today. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (11/25/85)
> Before replying to Bill Tanenbaum's reply, I realized reading it that > I didn't lay out my own point of view well. I believe the proper > solution to the West Bank is either for Israel to give it over to > a Palestinian state demilitarized by treaty and UN observers (this > I don't expect to occur), or for Israel to annex the territory. I think Israel should annex the raea on the basis that it was part of the original Israel a few hundred years ago. (And if some please, that they should annex it because they captured it) > Practically, to me this means annexation, since the first alternative > seems politically impossible to achieve, in my judgment. > > My main general point is that Israel is a Jewish state whose policy > has a goal of maintaining Jewishness (among other goals). A plain > result of this is that Arabs are second-class citizens, not in law, It doesn't seem this way in Israel since the arabs have every benifit Jews have without any of the problematic type of country service such as military service and some types of taxes. > perhaps, but in fact. Sometimes in law too -- I remember a case > where Bedouins were evicted from Gaza by the Knesset passing a > law stripping the Bedouins from access to the courts for legal > relief. These bedouins were not citizens of Israel at the time because they lived in the desert and never applyed for citizenship. > Now it could be that Arabs would be a minority in Israel like any > other minority in, say, the US. But the US is not set up by its > history so that occupation of, say, the Presidency, by a Black, > say, would amount to a violation of the goals of the Founding > Fathers or anything. Israel is set up that way; only Jews, for > all intents and purposes, may occupy important positions. Any arab who is a citizen can occupy a seat in the knesset (The governing body of Israel) In fact there are some arabs even now in the knesset. > The question to me, then, is if Israel cares more about remaining > Jewish than about building a liberal ethnic state where groups > treat each other as equals all deserving respect. > Today I see these loony KKK-like groups like Kach, or mystical I love noncomparable comparisons. The KKK wants to kill all Jews, Blacks, etc just because they are different, Kach wants to remove the arabs from Israel to eliminate a problem. > groups like the Gush Emunim who let the Israeli Army do their > dirty work as they look to the Torahs for prophetic vindications What ??? The Gush Emunim simply believe that certain areas should belong to Israel and were willing to fight for control of those areas. Torah is singular. > of plain military abuse, under a Likud which nourishs groups and > sentiments who really want apartheid in Israel. > Likud rhetoric is meant to fuel resentment of Sephardics against > Ashkenazim; a politics of resentment can easily degenerate into > plain ethnic domination. Has anyone heard about "AshkenNAZI" There are crazy people even in Israel. > graffiti? Likud wants to show its constituency that it has power, > so it uses that power against the institutionalized second class, > Arabs, and then says it's all in support of "Jews" (read: Likud > supporters). > > There's just so much muck there now, and the West Bank is hostage > to it, a testbed for the right wing. > > In article <1448@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > >> But the policy in Israel to keep the number of voting Jews much higher > >> than the number of voting non-Jews is in part so that the Arabs voting > >> in Israel can have no democratic influence on the policy in the West Bank. > >----- > >More baloney. It IS policy in Israel to encourage Jews to emigrate > >to Israel, but it is NOT policy to encourage Arabs to leave. As > >a matter of fact, the Arab population of Israel has been growing > >rapidly due to a very high birth rate. > > Not baloney. Other nations do this all the time -- fixing their > immigration laws to favor some groups and restrict others. Israel > has a policy of restricting non-Jewish immigration just as it has > a policy to encourage Jewish immigration. The two fit together. > They have demographic goals. They do not involve encouraging > Arabs to leave. > > >----- > >> If in South Africa, some blacks were allowed to vote as black > >> "representatives", say (which is what Israeli Arabs must be now -- > >> representatives for all the Arabs under Israeli government), such > >> that they could never vote with more power than whites, this would > >> deserve a judgment of irrelevance as far as the system of apartheid > >> was concerned, since it couldn't abolish or reform it. The whites > >> would just form an anti-black bloc and vote any reform down. > >----- > >I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that you WANT > >Israel to formally annex the West Bank and Gaza and thereby give > >all Arabs the vote? > >----- > > Yes. Again I must apologize for not being clear before. > > >> The same logic applies to Arabs voting in Israel. That some of them > >> can vote is irrelevant to West Bank policy. Why else do so many of > >> them vote Communist? (to be pedantic, they must think their vote > >> for Labor would have no value at all) > >> > >> Israelis see these issues plainly. Leon Wieseltier > >> in a recent New Republic article talks about settlers on the West Bank > >> who DO understand that if the West Bank is Eretz Israel, then the > >> Arabs on the West Bank will have to become voting citizens of Israel. > >> These settlers see a time in the future when expulsion of the Arab > >> population might come up as a platform. Meir Kahane's gutter rhetoric > >> might be new to them, but his policy ideas aren't. > >----- > >At last you say something that makes sense. If Israel annexes the > >West Bank, it will have to make a devastating choice between > >democracy and remaining a Jewish state. Either way, it's a disaster > >for Israel. That's why Peres wants to make the West Bank Arabs > >Jordanians again. Not a bad solution, if only he can pull it off. > >The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza return to Arab rule, Jordan > >wins, Israel wins. If only Likud sees the light, and if only the > >Arab world lets King Hussein do it. Two very big ifs, I'm afraid. > > > >-- > >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan > > It may be that Bill and I agree on most of these things, though I > wouldn't ever want to say that for him. > mark
brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) (11/25/85)
> > Before replying to Bill Tanenbaum's reply, I realized reading it that > > I didn't lay out my own point of view well. I believe the proper > > solution to the West Bank is either for Israel to give it over to > > a Palestinian state demilitarized by treaty and UN observers (this > > I don't expect to occur), or for Israel to annex the territory. > > I think Israel should annex the raea on the basis that it was part of > the original Israel a few hundred years ago. (And if some please, that > they should annex it because they captured it) > I don't necessarily believe that Israel should annex the West Bank, but I definitely believe that they have every right to do so. Why is it that every time the Arab countries wage war against Israel, they cry about losing something? The aggressors in '67 weren't Israel, nor were they in '73. If the Arabs had won either of these wars (whatever "won" means), would they have stopped like Israel did in '73 (they had every right to pounce on Egypt). If you're gonna start a war, realize beforehand what you may lose and be prepared to accept the consequences of your behavior.
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (11/26/85)
Pointers to net.religion.jewish and net.nlang.africa removed. The original posting may have discussed the use of local dialects in the prayers of Moroccan Jews but somehow it got sidetracked onto *politics*. In article <365@ubvax.UUCP>, tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: > Before replying to Bill Tanenbaum's reply, I realized reading it that > I didn't lay out my own point of view well. I believe the proper > solution to the West Bank is either for Israel to give it over to > a Palestinian state demilitarized by treaty and UN observers (this > I don't expect to occur), or for Israel to annex the territory. > > Practically, to me this means annexation, since the first alternative > seems politically impossible to achieve, in my judgment. But what then? Would these Arabs then have the right to control the Government of Israel? If annexation occurs it is more likely to happen due to Kahane's supporters than those who think this is a fair solution. (Although Kahane, does, in some bizarre sense, think he is being fair.) Would the annexed Arabs accept the annexation? Mind you I'm not for your first alternative either. I don't think the UN is capable of enforcing a demilitarized Palestinian state, nor is there a desire among the Arabs for such a thing. It's open to speculation how many Israeli rightists would change their views if they could be convinced that the Palestinians had a goal other than the total destruction of Israel, but I don't see that happening. (Note to Palestinian supporters who think the will is there and it's the Israelis who need convincing: write to your representative on the PNC and ask that they pass some resolutions to that effect.) Jordan isn't out to make any deals, they just signed an agreement with Syria not to make any separate peace treaties, and Syria willl oppose any treaty. I dearly wish I had a suggestion, but I'd rather support no position that a bad one.
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/27/85)
Personally, I would like to know why it is illegitimate to suppress a group like Arab Muslims who have a rather disgusting history a humiliation and degradation (required by religious law) and persecution (merely encouraged) of non-Muslims, whose political and spiritual leaders who threaten Jews with at least returning Jews to the former their earlier state of degradation, who periodically make war on Jews, who consider attacks on Jews anywhere heroic, and whose coreligionists mistreat all non-Muslim minorities who live in countries where Muslims rule. A liberal democratic state is nice ideal but Weimar shows that not everyone can be allowed to take part. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (11/28/85)
In article <366@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological >relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group >and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group >needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she >is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group >assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. > >The pathology is in letting a person's membership in one or another group >blot out one's checking out anything that might make that person an >individual, with special valuable qualities, in situations where >knowledge of the presence or absence of these qualities would normally >be checked. > >Laws are racist if they make racist relationships the only legal ones. >People are racist if they belong to a more powerful group and regularly >engage in racist relationships. A state is racist if it makes racist >laws a major basis of its legitimacy. > >Anyone's invited to try to improve on this if they want to. No sooner said, than done. You tie to much to the racist being a member of a powerful group. For instance, if a white refuses to do business with blacks because "they'll cheat you every time," then your definition would make that white racist. On the other hand, if a black refused to do business with blacks for the same reason, then this black isn't racist; at least not by your definitions. Your second paragraph nailed down what a racist relationship is almost exactly, if you rephrase it assuming that there's no first paragraph: A racist relationship is a relationship where a person's membership in one or another group blots out one's checking out anything that might make that person an individual, etc... The obvious change to the second paragraph yields: People are racist if they regularly engage in racist relationships. I also have problems with the first sentence (Laws are racist if they make racist relationships the only legal one.), but I'm not sure how to rephrase it. Seems to strict, somehow; there are laws I would call racist that this doesn't catch. <mike
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/28/85)
In article <614@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <360@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) maintains >that Zioinism is racist in that the government takes special interest >in ensuring that Jews remain a voting majority. My question is this: > > Since the Jews are not a racially defined group, then what > does this kind of discrimination have to do with _RACISM_? > >Frank Silbermann Moreover, the British government and the French government have taken care that British and French remain voting majorities in their respective nations. For both countries this has been a problem because many colonial subjects had British or French citizenship. Hardly any comment was made about the action of these two governments because their behavior was only natural because for the vast majority of countries nationality is linked with ethnic group. Israel has much more legitimate right to guarantee that Muslims remain a voting minority since Muslims have a long history of mistreatment of Jews and the Muslim leaders explicitly state that Muslims will mistreat Jews again if Muslims get the chance. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/29/85)
>To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological >relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group >and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group >needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she >is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group >assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. >The pathology is in letting a person's membership in one or another group >blot out one's checking out anything that might make that person an >individual, with special valuable qualities, in situations where >knowledge of the presence or absence of these qualities would normally >be checked. So what I can know there is something wrong with Nazism without getting to know individual Nazis. The situation is similar with Islam. >Given this definition (which I support), to call Zionism racist is wrong >because it was an escape for the Jews from the racism of Europe. Jews >were never in a more powerful position, as far as states were concerned, >so they could never institute a racist relationship in the first place. >They were victims, not leaders, in politics. Anti-semites might point >to Rothschilds as an exception, but they haven't read their history, I'd >submit. And as such zionism was one of the biggest failures in history, since it did not save the Jews of Europe. Zionism's main success was willy-nilly getting Sefardic and oriental Jews away from Muslims. >In Israel, Jews are leaders, not victims. There they have to face >claims and charges that they could be racist towards Arabs, with the >understanding that their leadership positions make it possible for >them to become racists. I don't think immigration policies constitute >sufficient evidence, or even a major indication, of racism. Expulsion >policies do. Racist laws do. Laws that define Jews on the West Bank >as citizens and Arabs on the West Bank as Jordanians, while Israel rules >the West Bank, are racist laws. Since the West Bank is not part of Israel, I see no reason why the Muslims there should have Israeli citizenship. The Jews of Sidon did not become Israeli citizens when Israel occupied Sidon. Likewise Samaritans in Nablus have had to specifically request Israeli citizenship. They did not automatically become citizens. >But these are just some laws and some practices. I still don't think >that racist laws are the major basis for the legitimacy of the state >of Israel. Its legitimacy is still based on an anti-racist Zionist movement >dispersed throughout the world, on the Jewish diaspora. What worries >me is that as Israel gets its own identity and moves on its own >political track, as it's starting to do today, that track will be >based on the Likud right-wing resentment-based scapegoating racist >dynamic. >If that movement takes over, Israel will be Zionist no more. And >it will be racist. And what it might become is being foreshadowed by >what is happening on the West Bank today. Personally, you still have not explained to me why Israelis should worry about the feelings or political rights of former persecutors who explicitly state a desire to become current persecutors.
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (11/29/85)
> Personally, I would like to know why it is illegitimate to suppress a group > like Arab Muslims who have a rather disgusting history a humiliation and > degradation (required by religious law) and persecution (merely encouraged) > of non-Muslims, whose political and spiritual leaders who threaten Jews > with at least returning Jews to the former their earlier state of degradation, > who periodically make war on Jews, who consider attacks on Jews anywhere > heroic, and whose coreligionists mistreat all non-Muslim minorities who live > in countries where Muslims rule. > > A liberal democratic state is nice ideal but Weimar shows that not everyone > can be allowed to take part. > > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > > I don't think they should have to be suppressed in the way spoken of. If the democratic state government is to be democratic they must be able to take part BUT if they can't play by the rules then OUT they go. The arabs obviously cannot play by civilized mans rules (we gave them over 35 years to try) therefore they must be removed from civilized society and perhaps placed in other arab countries where their actions might be better tolerated (i.e. terrorism) Liberalism is the basically the beginning of a downfall. mark
jho@ihlpa.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (11/30/85)
> The arabs obviously > cannot play by civilized mans rules (we gave them over 35 years to try) > therefore they must be removed from civilized society and perhaps placed in > other arab countries where their actions might be better tolerated (i.e. > terrorism) > Liberalism is the basically the beginning of a downfall. > > mark These remarks sould very much like the Jewish counterpart of the KKK, Identity Christianity, noise that we may expect from the Don Blacks. The above statement is a bigotted generalization of the Arab character. Not all Palestinians are PLO terrorists, and I am sure that most of them would prefer to live in peace if they would have the opportunity to do so. Mark is suggesting an endless river of bloodshed with no hope for tranquility. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihlpa!jho
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (11/30/85)
>You tie too much to the racist being a member of a >powerful group. For instance, if a white refuses to do business with blacks >because "they'll cheat you every time," then your definition would make that >white racist. On the other hand, if a black refused to do business with >blacks for the same reason, then this black isn't racist; at least not by >your definitions. I think we spoil a useful term if we blur the distinction between racism and prejudice or bigotry. Some time ago I posted a number of definitions of racism from dictionaries and encyclopedias, and the general idea seemed to be that racism is an ideology or belief-system which holds that an ethnic group is innately inferior, intellectually and/or morally, to one's own, and which has the function of justifying keeping this group in a subordinate position in society. Thus if an American black says, "All honkies are alike. You can't trust them -- they'll get you every time," his statement is prejudiced and bigoted, but not racist, properly speaking, because his views are not part of an ideology which justifies "keeping whites in their [subordinate] place." Prejudice is perhaps a universal phenomenon in human history, but racism is perhaps a phenomenon of modern history. It arose as a result of the domination of black peoples through enslavement and colonialism. We tend to forget that racist views were considered respectable (among whites) in the 19th century and before. How else could such an enlightened man as Jefferson have been a slaveowner? Racism, then, is not just a disposition to prejudge people by their color or ethnicity -- it also includes an ideological component (the supposed innate inferiority of the group, their having smaller brains, a "backward" culture, etc.) to lend intellectual and moral respectability to domination. Suggested reading: the article on "Racism" in the *Encylopedia of Philosophy*. About anti-Semitism: Blacks are looked down on because they are supposedly inferior, but they are tolerated or even liked as long as they "stay in their place." Jews are hated because they are *different*. Jews have a strong group identity and resist assimilation into the prevailing culture, and this strong and opposed identity is perceived as a threat by a person whose own sense of identity and integration is weak and who derives security from having everyone else think like himself (a certain individual, no longer posting to net.politics, is a good example). The extreme response to this is to try to get rid of the Jews, and I think this psychological dynamic may be the root of the persecution of Jews, at least in modern Europe. The Arab-Israeli conflict, however, seems to have different origins. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) (11/30/85)
In article <958@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) writes: >> Personally, I would like to know why it is illegitimate to suppress a group >> like Arab Muslims who have a rather disgusting history a humiliation and >> degradation (required by religious law) and persecution (merely encouraged) >> of non-Muslims, whose political and spiritual leaders who threaten Jews >> ... >> heroic, and whose coreligionists mistreat all non-Muslim minorities who live >> in countries where Muslims rule. >> ... >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > > ... >cannot play by civilized mans rules (we gave them over 35 years to try) >therefore they must be removed from civilized society and perhaps placed in >other arab countries where their actions might be better tolerated (i.e. >terrorism) >Liberalism is the basically the beginning of a downfall. > >mark The implication that Arab countries are not members of our "civilized" society seems to be very inflamatory. Are you really meaning to say that Arabs are any more CIVILIZED than Israeli's? Do you actually believe that any people TOLERATE terrorism? What does it mean to better tolerate something which hurts people so erratically? Your comments make grave implications on the MORALITY of the Arabs, and their relegion, in general. A statement which I do not belive is accurate, and at best is VERY bigoted.
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (12/01/85)
> > The arabs obviously > > cannot play by civilized mans rules (we gave them over 35 years to try) > > therefore they must be removed from civilized society and perhaps placed in > > other arab countries where their actions might be better tolerated (i.e. > > terrorism) > > Liberalism is the basically the beginning of a downfall. > > mark > These remarks sould very much like the Jewish counterpart of the > KKK, Identity Christianity, noise that we may expect from the > Don Blacks. What ? I advocate no violence at all. I simply think that if the arabs find it so hard to live in a country ruled by Jews than they should leave and if they insist on staying and making life difficult for the Jews then they should be thrown OUT. > The above statement is a bigotted generalization of the Arab character. There is no generalization, any arab who wants to stay and abide by the rules can. > Not all Palestinians are PLO terrorists, and I am sure that most of > them would prefer to live in peace if they would have the opportunity > to do so. Mark is suggesting an endless river of bloodshed with > no hope for tranquility. No bloodshed, enough of my people have been killed in useless wars, and I am a firm beleiver that peace is attainable. > -- > Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories > Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihlpa!jho mark
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (12/01/85)
> In article <958@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) writes: > >> Personally, I would like to know why it is illegitimate to suppress a group > >> like Arab Muslims who have a rather disgusting history a humiliation and > >> degradation (required by religious law) and persecution (merely encouraged) > >> of non-Muslims, whose political and spiritual leaders who threaten Jews > >> ... > >> heroic, and whose coreligionists mistreat all non-Muslim minorities who live > >> in countries where Muslims rule. > >> ... > >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > > > > ... > >cannot play by civilized mans rules (we gave them over 35 years to try) > >therefore they must be removed from civilized society and perhaps placed in > >other arab countries where their actions might be better tolerated (i.e. > >terrorism) > >Liberalism is the basically the beginning of a downfall. > > > >mark > > > The implication that Arab countries are not members of our "civilized" > society seems to be very inflamatory. Are you really meaning to say that Is terrorism accepted ? NO ! Why is it that most terrorists are arabs ? > Arabs are any more CIVILIZED than Israeli's? How many planes have been hijacked by Israelis recently. How many innocent people have been killed by Israelis recently. > > Do you actually believe that any people TOLERATE terrorism? What does it > mean to better tolerate something which hurts people so erratically? Nobody tolerates terrorism, but maybe the arabs can handle their brothers who do it easier than Israel can, Since Israel doesn't even wince at the release of 1100 terrorists with most of them now living in Israel as heroes among their people. > Your comments make grave implications on the MORALITY of the Arabs, and > their relegion, in general. A statement which I do not belive is accurate, > and at best is VERY bigoted. Yes I do make grave implications on the morality of the arabs when during the UN meetings they give resounding applause to known terrorists and killers. mark
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (12/02/85)
In article <260@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Thus if an American black says, "All honkies are alike. You can't >trust them -- they'll get you every time," his statement is >prejudiced and bigoted, but not racist, properly speaking, because >his views are not part of an ideology which justifies "keeping whites >in their [subordinate] place." I am not so sure that it is clear cut who is in the subordinate place here. The Whites may have economic superiority, but I know Blacks who claim spiritual/moral superiority. I know what you mean, but I am not all that sure that the distinction you are trying to make is a useful distinction. The one that *I* make is that racism is organised prejudice. Bigots who sit at home are prejudiced, but bigots who get together with other bigots to promote bigotry are racist. I have my own theory (which probably is not original with me, but I have no idea where I got it) on racism and prejudice. People walk around with a great load of frustration and hatred. We are singularily untaught how to deal with this. The general view seems to be the one of the ostrich -- we are all supposed to be sweetness and light and reason, so let us ignore any way in which we are not. This is hardly useful. There are, however, a few socially condoned ways to vent your spleen, and one of them is through prejudice. It is astonishing to notice how many people who ``ought to know better'' who use this same release. You get Blacks who are as prejudiced against Whites as they claim Whites have been to them, and feminists who are thoroughly anti-men, and Gays who are utterly intolerant of bisexuals. You would think that these people would have developed compassion though their suffering, but no ... what they have is an unbareable load of anger and frustration -- and they dump it in the way that they claim to have been dumped upon. I'm not so sure what can be done about it. Admitting that there is a lot of hatred and anger around, and that we need to do something about it cannot hurt. I would be interested in what any Jewish people have to say about it. I have lived in a great many Jewish neighbourhoods and have heard stories that would curl your hair about centuries of oppression. Ihave known a good many jerks who were Jews, but wherever I go I find Jewish people working in their communities and being very, very good neighbours. Somehow, amidst all the anti-semitism, a lot of Jews have managed to avoid hating others as we have been hated (or at least are very specific about who they hate and don't spread it around indiscriminately) I suspect that if I had been an Arab I would not have as good a set of memories about Jewish neighbourhoods. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
phoenix@ucbtopaz.BERKELEY.EDU (12/02/85)
In article <175@hector.UUCP> martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >Moreover, the British government and the French government have taken >care that British and French remain voting majorities in their respective >nations. For both countries this has been a problem because many colonial >subjects had British or French citizenship. Can you back this up? I may have blinked, but I do not remember any law in Britain restricting voting of non-white citizens. Please enlighten us.... >Hardly any comment was made >about the action of these two governments because thier behavior was only >natural because for the vast majority of countries nationality is linked >with ethnic group. Israel has much more legitimate right to guarantee that >Muslims remain a voting minority since Muslims have a long history of >mistreatment of Jews and the Muslim leaders explicitly state that Muslims >will mistreat Jews again if Muslims get the chance. > >Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Uh....only natural? That leaves you on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement. The U.S. was *definitely* a white society - at one point even solely WASP in terms of the eligable body politic. This needed to change, as Europe will need to. Noone should have the right to repress *people* because they are not of the "founders" ethnic origen, or because thier 'leaders'[did *every* muslim choose them?] have a 'history'. For the sake of Israel fledgeling democracy, however, I hope a settlement works out with the West Bank in other hands, and Israel not periled by that. That still does not mean repression of those within current borders is acceptable - the underlying current of your articles suggest you find ample justification. I hope I read you wrong.... 0 0 (Crises?.... What Crises?) ^ \_/ John {decvax,ihnp4,...the world}!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!phoenix
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (12/03/85)
In article <170@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> phoenix@ucbtopaz.UUCP () writes: >In article <175@hector.UUCP> martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >>Moreover, the British government and the French government have taken >>care that British and French remain voting majorities in their respective >>nations. For both countries this has been a problem because many colonial >>subjects had British or French citizenship. > >Can you back this up? I may have blinked, but I do not remember any law in >Britain restricting voting of non-white citizens. Please enlighten us.... > I believe that now for almost 10 years (since many Asians who possessed British Imperial Citizenship had to flee persecution and mass murder in Africa) Great Britain has maintained two types of citizenship, the type that Asians often have merely confers certain rights and recourse with British consular officials as long as the person remains outside Great Britain. This type of citizenship gives no right to reside within England. >>Hardly any comment was made >>about the action of these two governments because thier behavior was only >>natural because for the vast majority of countries nationality is linked >>with ethnic group. Israel has much more legitimate right to guarantee that >>Muslims remain a voting minority since Muslims have a long history of >>mistreatment of Jews and the Muslim leaders explicitly state that Muslims >>will mistreat Jews again if Muslims get the chance. >> >>Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo > >Uh....only natural? That leaves you on the wrong side of the Civil Rights >movement. The U.S. was *definitely* a white society - at one point even >solely WASP in terms of the eligable body politic. This needed to change, >as Europe will need to. Noone should have the right to repress *people* >because they are not of the "founders" ethnic origen, or because thier >'leaders'[did *every* muslim choose them?] have a 'history'. For the sake >of Israel fledgeling democracy, however, I hope a settlement works out with the >West Bank in other hands, and Israel not periled by that. That still does not >mean repression of those within current borders is acceptable - the underlying >current of your articles suggest you find ample justification. I hope I read >you wrong.... No I am on the correct side of the civil rights movement. Siding with Islamic supremacists who have lost out is exactly analogous to siding with white supremacists who have lost out. To tell the truth, I probably would have preferred to be a black under Jim Crow, than a non-Muslim living under Islamic law. By the way, the leaders did not rampage through the non-Muslim ghettos, the ordinary average Muslims engaged in this activity.
cdsm@icdoc.UUCP (Chris Moss) (12/03/85)
> In article <175@hector.UUCP> martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >Moreover, the British government and the French government have taken > > care that British and French remain voting majorities in their respective > >nations. For both countries this has been a problem because many colonial > >subjects had British or French citizenship. > Can you back this up? I may have blinked, but I do not remember any law in > Britain restricting voting of non-white citizens. Please enlighten us.... Bit of an oversimplification but not far from the truth: a few years ago there were around 600 million people in the world with British passports (I think); now they no longer have right of abode in Britain or 1st class British citizenship. The British Nationality Act of 1982 even took away the rights of the Falkland Islanders to come to Britain, until someone realised they had made a bloomer!! The French situation is not too different.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (12/03/85)
>> Since the Jews are not a racially defined group, then what >> does this kind of discrimination have to do with _RACISM_? Tony Wuersch writes: >But I also don't restrict racism to color differences. >To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological >relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group >and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group >needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she >is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group >assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. What you describe is NOT RACISM, but a rather ETHNOCENTRISM, a more general catagory containing racism as merely one special case. Racial discrimination is that form of ethnocentrism that is based upon inheritable PHYSICAL characteristics (either real or imagined). Ethnocentrism can take many NON-racist (but also objectionble) forms, such as religious discrimination, discrimination based on language or national origin, etc. Racism is merely one special case of ethnocentrism. We trace the ancestry of both Jews and Arabs to the patriarch Abraham. Zionists consider Jews and Arabs are to be racially identical. The differences between Jews and Arabs stem not from race, but rather from religious, linguistic, and cultural differences -- especially religious. Even if we were to imagine that Kahane's radical anti-arabism were representative of Zionism (and it is not), Zionism STILL would NOT be a racist movement. Those who claim that "Zionism is racism" demonstrate at best a confusion of the issues, and at worst, a willingness to lie shamelessly. In either case, their words have no credibility, and may be ignored as ignorant rabble rousing. Frank Silbermann
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (12/04/85)
In article <431@eneevax.UUCP>, velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) writes: > The implication that Arab countries are not members of our "civilized" > society seems to be very inflamatory. > Do you actually believe that any people TOLERATE terrorism? What does it > mean to better tolerate something which hurts people so erratically? I don't think any speculations about supposed Arab characteristics are any more helpful than any other prejudices. I don't subscribe to any. The problem, however is that the Arab goverments not only tolerate PLO terrorism, they actually encourage it and aid its perpetrators. Yes, this is stupid and short-sighted (not to mention immoral). They would be so much better off to look for peaceful alternatives.
velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) (12/05/85)
In article <963@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) writes: >> In article <958@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) writes: (actually, the >> text is from me, and not from Rindsberg) >> The implication that Arab countries are not members of our "civilized" >> society seems to be very inflamatory. Are you really meaning to say that > >Is terrorism accepted ? NO ! Why is it that most terrorists are arabs ? 40 years ago the number of terrorists who were Arabs was very small. What is the distinction between a Terrorist, a Freedom Fighter, and a Soldier? I do not mean to condone the acts which the terrorists have participated in. However, you must admit, if the US and Israel were slightly more compassionate, things could only get better. These relegious fanatics (not read Arabs) will die, and kill, without fear. This means that stopping them by not negotiating may not necessarily work. Why not TRY negotiating ? Israel knew full well when Hussain was to be in the US, they also knew that one of the major things on the Agenda was to be the discussion of the Palestinian Problem. In light of this, for Israel to go and bomb the PLO HQ in Tunis, was a slap in the face to ANY peace perogative. Even if the raid did accomplish its goals (and what seems to be the ISRAELI (now I am stereotyping, and as guilty as Martillo Ajemi, and M. Rindsberg) sorry, "what seems to be SOME Israeli's" efforts to eradicate the world of Palestinians, at least those with any leadership skills), it could have been performed the week before or the week after with less adverse effects! Look, this debate has been raging for weeks now, and will continue raging till the palestinians are given a homeland, and until many Jews stop believeing they are Gods Gift to Humanity. The Jews have as much right to exist in this world as do the Palestinians, and as do anyone else. However, when any group is given the privilidge of independence, especially in the VERY SPECIAL case of Israel (how many other times have lands been partitioned and given to a releigious/racial group to form an Independant nation in the history of Man?), it is expected that some exempelary behaviour will be shown. Granted, people need to defend themselves, and also granted that the initial palestinian stance was definitely arrogant, it should be the DUTY of the peoples involved to negotiate a solution. Every indication shows that the PLO is ready to take what ever is offered to it. I believe that if Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon could set a side a mutually (along the PLO, of course!) agreeable peace of land, the LARGE SCALE WAR would end. There will be minor incidents for many generations to come, but after a few generations, that too could hopefully end. >> Your comments make grave implications on the MORALITY of the Arabs, and >> their relegion, in general. A statement which I do not belive is accurate, >> and at best is VERY bigoted. > >Yes I do make grave implications on the morality of the arabs when during the >UN meetings they give resounding applause to known terrorists and killers. >mark The US delegates get up and clap whenever Marcos speaks. And they used to get up and clap when the Shah, or Samoza spoke. The arabs give no more resounding applause to their compatriots than does the US to its.
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (12/05/85)
In article <962@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) writes: > >What ? I advocate no violence at all. I simply think that if the arabs find it ^^^^^^^^^^^ >so hard to live in a country ruled by Jews than they should leave and if they >insist on staying and making life difficult for the Jews then they should be >thrown OUT. ^^^^^^^^^^ But gently, I guess....... (Don't think that Rindsberg means terrorists -- he means West Bank Arabs who want to vote, to have economic development in the Israeli Arab villages, etc.) andy
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (12/07/85)
>Look, this debate has been raging for weeks now, and will continue raging >till the palestinians are given a homeland, and until many Jews stop >believeing they are Gods Gift to Humanity. Muslims were making random attacks and killing members of the local non-Muslim communities long before there was a Jewish state in the Middle East. Given the level of violence and intolerance throughout the Muslim world and the rotten attitudes which Islam encourages, creating yet another Muslim state would probably increase violence not decrease it. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the existence of Israel as a state but given the behavior and history of Muslims, Muslim states have no legitimacy. >The Jews have as much right to exist in this world as do the Palestinians, >and as do anyone else. However, when any group is given the privilidge of >independence, especially in the VERY SPECIAL case of Israel (how many other >times have lands been partitioned and given to a releigious/racial >group to form an Independant nation in the history of Man?), it is expected >that some exempelary behaviour will be shown. What planet do you come from Sinha?! Have you ever heard of *Pakistan*? I have had Muslim professors who called it the Muslim Israel. In any case the whole Ottoman Empire was basically carved up on the basis of ethnic and religious differences. All the Muslim Greeks (I believe they were called Chams) had to leave for Albania or Turkey. Most of the Turkish Orthodox moved to Greece. A large portion of the world's states are basically drawn on ethnic and religious lines. >Every indication shows that the PLO is ready to take what ever is offered to >it. I believe that if Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon could set a side a >mutually (along the PLO, of course!) agreeable peace of land, the LARGE >SCALE WAR would end. Now I know you are bananas! The only large scale war in the Middle East is between Iraq and Iran. >There will be minor incidents for many generations to come, but after a >few generations, that too could hopefully end. Oriental and Sefardic Jews took shit from Muslims for the past 40 generations, why should they be expected to take it all for the next few generations? Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/08/85)
In article <260@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >I think we spoil a useful term if we blur the distinction between >racism and prejudice or bigotry. Some time ago I posted a number of >definitions of racism from dictionaries and encyclopedias, and the >general idea seemed to be that racism is an ideology or belief-system >which holds that an ethnic group is innately inferior, intellectually >and/or morally, to one's own, and which has the function of >justifying keeping this group in a subordinate position in society. >Thus if an American black says, "All honkies are alike. You can't >trust them -- they'll get you every time," his statement is >prejudiced and bigoted, but not racist, properly speaking, because >his views are not part of an ideology which justifies "keeping whites >in their [subordinate] place." > >Prejudice is perhaps a universal phenomenon in human history, but >racism is perhaps a phenomenon of modern history. It arose as a >result of the domination of black peoples through enslavement and >colonialism. We tend to forget that racist views were considered >respectable (among whites) in the 19th century and before. How else >could such an enlightened man as Jefferson have been a slaveowner? >Racism, then, is not just a disposition to prejudge people by their >color or ethnicity -- it also includes an ideological component (the >supposed innate inferiority of the group, their having smaller >brains, a "backward" culture, etc.) to lend intellectual and moral >respectability to domination. I think you are wrong on a couple of counts. First, I don't think your distinction between racism and bigotry reflects a real distinction. The attitudes are exactly the same; it is only the opportunity to put them into practice which is different. Reverse the power relation- ships, and the persecutees become the persecutors. I also don't think this sort of thing is in any way a modern phenomenon. I would have class the ancient Egyptian attitudes toward the Israelites as racist. I believe most if not all ancient cultures had an underclass of slaves, which were culturally and often racially distinct, and were regarded as inferior. (Don't bother telling me that some slaves in such cultures were able to buy their freedom, and that some were held in high regard. The mass of slaves in such cultures were conquered peoples, and freedom was virtually impossible for them.) It is the idea that people of different races are *not* inferior that is of modern origin. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) (12/09/85)
In article <185@hector.UUCP> martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >Given the level of violence and intolerance throughout the Muslim >world and the rotten attitudes which Islam encourages, creating yet another >Muslim state would probably increase violence not decrease it. Personally, >I have mixed feelings about the existence of Israel as a state but given >the behavior and history of Muslims, Muslim states have no legitimacy. Muslims definitely have a DIFFERENT view of the world than the one which you seem to subscribe to. But again, I caution you, that to say that Muslim states have have no legitimacy is totally unfair. Just because their value system happens to be different than yours is no reason for you to say they are illegitimate. Muslim states are here to stay, as is Israel ... this is a given and nothing which you, I, or anyone else can do is going to change this. >What planet do you come from Sinha?! Have you ever heard of *Pakistan*? I will admit that I did not make myself clear here. The point which I was trying to make was that Israel seems to have a unique place in that a committee (made up of prominent British, French, and American Zionists) convinved the French (?), British, and American governemnts that due to the persecution which the Jews had seen the world over, there was a need for a Jewish homeland to be formed. From this, Israel emerged. The non-emergence of palestine is due to a lack of leadership (which immediately leads to cries of pushing all of the people with the leadership into the sea, unfortunately) on the Palestinians part. Pakistan was formed at the insistance of one man who happened to play a very powerful role in the Indian independance movement. Pakistan would have never come about were it not for the Independance of India. This one man was the first President of Pakistan, and the basis for its first round of leadership. As you seem to be knowing about Gandhi, you will know also that the formation of Pakistan was opposed by him, and by many others. However, because of the power/ear-of-the british which this man commanded, it was not possible. (I have forgotten his name, sorry!) You will also note that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. Even though this "Muslim" state is right next door... >>Every indication shows that the PLO is ready to take what ever is offered to >>it. I believe that if Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon could set a side a >>mutually (along the PLO, of course!) agreeable peace of land, the LARGE >>SCALE WAR would end. > >Now I know you are bananas! The only large scale war in the Middle >East is between Iraq and Iran. The Invasion of Lebanon by the Israelis was just a defensive police action, eh? We are not discussing Iran and Iraq here. The LARGE SCALE WAR which I referred tof was the one which the Israeli's are wadging against the palestinians. (the PLO only, openly, but we have all heard what happened at the refugee camps in Lebabnon. The Christian Phalangists were not acting alone.) >>There will be minor incidents for many generations to come, but after a >>few generations, that too could hopefully end. > >Oriental and Sefardic Jews took shit from Muslims for the past 40 >generations, why should they be expected to take it all for the next >few generations? > >Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami Your attitude shows that you are not ready for any compromise. What do you suggest, Exterminate all of the Muslims? ''It is a Filthy Relegion with Immoral practices, and they have been picking on the Choosen Few of God (the Jews), therefore we should nuke them all?'' <-- Is this what you are saying? Martillo: I haven't said things about your mental state, or what planet you are from, or anything else. Please don't say such about me. Let us try to keep this civil, eh? Velu Sinha
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (12/09/85)
> I don't think any speculations about supposed Arab characteristics > are any more helpful than any other prejudices. I don't subscribe to > any. The problem, however is that the Arab goverments not only tolerate > PLO terrorism, they actually encourage it and aid its perpetrators. > Yes, this is stupid and short-sighted (not to mention immoral). > They would be so much better off to look for peaceful alternatives. The US government not only tolerates Nicaraguan contra terrorism, but actually encourages it and aids its prepetrators. The same can be said of Afghanistan mujahedin, Angolan SWAPO, etc. Would that justify a statement similar to those made about Arabs concerning Americans? Thedefinition of terrorism, and justification for supporting it, is highly flexible. Those who are on our side are democratic freedom fighters. Those who are not are bloodthirsty murderers. To get back to the original argument: were Israel to annex the West Bank, would that make the Palestinians Israeli citizens? If so, would they not have a majority of the vote (assuming they were to vote as a block)? Should Israel, then, limit their voting rights, thereby assuring it remains a Jewish state? If it does so, does that not violate the principles of democracy that Israel is founded on? And does limiting the rights of a subset of its citizens, because of their race, not put Israel in a position similar to that of South Africa, or of the US prior to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts? I think these are good questions, that are not well served by inflammatory comments on supposed Arab savagery. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Krik." "Krak." " Kapite`n anba kabann." "Vaz."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/11/85)
> The implication that Arab countries are not members of our "civilized" > society seems to be very inflamatory. Are you really meaning to say that > Arabs are any more CIVILIZED than Israeli's? > > Do you actually believe that any people TOLERATE terrorism? What does it > mean to better tolerate something which hurts people so erratically? [SINHA] Frankly, and unfortunately, it seems that many peoples tolerate and advocate terrorism, but of course, only when it is for "good" causes. And then, of course, they give it a name other than terrorism, because it represents the "goodness" of *their* cause, and thus is obviously unworthy of the name "terrorism". Until we recognize the futility and arrogant violence (and the danger) of bigoted divisive petty nationalistic fervor, we are doomed to witness "our" freedom fighters and "their" terrorists tearing the world to shreds. "The most basic change necessary to our collective survival: the last redefinition of humanity---gradually extending from family to tribe to nation to the human race." ---from Gwynne Dyer's "War" -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (12/12/85)
In article <298@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >In article <260@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >>Thus if an American black says, "All honkies are alike. You can't >>trust them -- they'll get you every time," his statement is >>prejudiced and bigoted, but not racist, properly speaking, because >>his views are not part of an ideology which justifies "keeping whites >>in their [subordinate] place." > >I am not so sure that it is clear cut who is in the subordinate place >here. The Whites may have economic superiority, but I know Blacks who >claim spiritual/moral superiority. I'm not sure I understand Laura here. In general, it's not valid to go from "I'm better on this scale and you're better on that scale" to the inference "Well therefore we must be equal." To me, racism is mostly restricted to a political and economic (organizational if you want to call it that, since that combines both) domain. Unless we really want to get picky about cultural-religious connections, I'd rather leave spiritual/moral superiority out of it. Especially since "racism" as it's commonly used happens to be an almost entirely Christian disease. In Christian eschatology, spiritual/moral superiority usually goes to the politically and economically poor, so it's no argument against the presence of a racist relationship that the victims happen to be Christian. (this is just a logical inference, no offense meant) >I know what you mean, but I am >not all that sure that the distinction you are trying to make is a >useful distinction. The one that *I* make is that racism is organised >prejudice. Bigots who sit at home are prejudiced, but bigots who get >together with other bigots to promote bigotry are racist. Not enough. Organizations have to plug into other organizations or a political system. If an organized prejudicial organization plugs into a set of favorable environmental relationships with a state or with other groups, then it deserves the word racist. If it doesn't, I'd just keep the word prejudiced. An academic example of a group that might fit Laura's definition but not mine would be a group that organizes prejudice towards eye color (blue-eyes or brown-eyes). I think it's this sense of being "plugged in" and the possibility of being plugged in, and the knowledge of how to plug in, that constitutes ideology. At least that would be my definition of ideology -- I prefer avoid the word. >I have my own theory (which probably is not original with me, but I >have no idea where I got it) on racism and prejudice. People walk >around with a great load of frustration and hatred. We are singularily >untaught how to deal with this. The general view seems to be the one of >the ostrich -- we are all supposed to be sweetness and light and reason, >so let us ignore any way in which we are not. This is hardly useful. > >There are, however, a few socially condoned ways to vent your spleen, and >one of them is through prejudice. Maybe Laura is saying you need your prejudices socially condoned, which is much closer to what I'm claiming (her "socially condoned" is my "plugging in" -- but not quite). But the social condonence of prejudice widely varys between different cultural environments. In my experience, for instance: I grew up in a strongly Portuguese city where expressing even vaguely anti-Portuguese sentiments in a public arena (like high school) could get you beaten up fast. No social condonance for prejudice against Portuguese there. Another example: in German-speaking Switzerland, expressing a liking for Wagner gets a barrage of questions demanding that one clarify that one's not a Nazi. The usual "solution" to racism in these cases is to place fire breaks around prejudice, so that a flame cannot become a fire. With an awareness that were those fire breaks not there, the flame might become a fire. For me that means stopping organized prejudice from catching on, which is not the same as suppressing organized prejudice. And I wholly approve of this. I think that's a pragmatic and effective solution. >It is astonishing to notice how many >people who ``ought to know better'' who use this same release. You get >Blacks who are as prejudiced against Whites as they claim Whites have >been to them, and feminists who are thoroughly anti-men, and Gays who >are utterly intolerant of bisexuals. You would think that these people >would have developed compassion though their suffering, but no ... what >they have is an unbareable load of anger and frustration -- and they >dump it in the way that they claim to have been dumped upon. What does compassion have to do with it? And why, if you do, do you reach out and have compassion for them? Maybe because this society values personal understanding above social harmony and justice. The problem with that is it lets people with less compassion use people who have more. Seeing THAT leads to a decline in the compassion of the rest of us. Anger and frustration become unbearable because people with it may be able to find forums where they can let it out and use it for their own vengeful or emotional purposes. If those forums didn't exist or weren't permitted to exist, or if they existed weren't permitted to spread beyond a certain size, and if others didn't express sympathy or empathy for such anger and frustration, people wouldn't store it up, because there'd be no opportunity to vent it effectively. It would just go away and people would go on to new things. Unfortunately, this society again is one which encourages people to dream they can do anything they want. It encourages anomic, disconnected people to actively search for places where their worst dreams can be realized. And it says those places should be available in the name of freedom of choice. And it has very few resources for stopping the spread of organized prejudice. And organized prejudice in the form of slavery was a big part of its history. Then flames are bound to become fires. Often, with unpredictable, sometimes uncontrollable consequences. >I'm not so sure what can be done about it. Admitting that there is a >lot of hatred and anger around, and that we need to do something about it >cannot hurt. I would be interested in what any Jewish people have to >say about it. As I've said, although I appreciate and admire people with great compassion, compassion is not what this issue calls for. Quite the contrary. Substituting "realism", a sense that the world is real and changing it works in strange ways and takes work to achieve, for "compassion" might be better. It's useful to know what someone feels to the extent that one can respond to it, without letting a compassionate attempt to understand it cloud one's judgment. Withholding compassion when you normally give it out freely is a very powerful way to express your beliefs about an issue. Compassion should be a gift, not a reflex. I know that's very tough for some of us who depend on positive communication with others on a regular basis. Me, for instance. >I have lived in a great many Jewish neighbourhoods and >have heard stories that would curl your hair about centuries of oppression. >Ihave known a good many jerks who were Jews, but wherever I go I find >Jewish people working in their communities and being very, very good >neighbours. Somehow, amidst all the anti-semitism, a lot of Jews have >managed to avoid hating others as we have been hated (or at least are >very specific about who they hate and don't spread it around indiscriminately) >I suspect that if I had been an Arab I would not have as good a set of >memories about Jewish neighbourhoods. > >-- >Laura Creighton >sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) >l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (12/15/85)
Marcel-Franck Simon: > To get back to the original argument: were Israel to annex the West Bank, > would that make the Palestinians Israeli citizens? Yes, unless they refused to accept Israeli citzenship. When Israel annexed the old city of Jerusalem, all residents were offered full Israeli citizenship. Few accepted this offer, perhaps out of fear of PLO retaliation. As an aside, I believe the Samaritans on the West Bank have become Israeli citizens (you remember "the parable of the good Samaritan"). > If so, would they not have a majority of the vote (assuming they were > to vote as a block)? Yes. This is the chief argument why Israel should NOT annnex the West Bank. > Should Israel, then, limit their voting rights, thereby assuring it > remains a Jewish state? If it does so, does that not violate > the principles of democracy that Israel is founded on? Right. That is why Israel hasn't done it (yet). > And does limiting the rights of a subset of its citizens, > because of their race, not put Israel in a position similar to ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ > that of South Africa, or of the US prior to the Civil Rights > and Voting Rights acts? Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs If Israel limited Arab's voting rights, it could not be because of race. After all, Arabs and Jews are of the SAME race (especially when you consider that a majority of Israeli Jews are Sephardic, i.e. from Arab countries). What you are describing would have to be described as religious (not racial) discrimination. This would make Israel more similar to the Arab countries, who already have much religious (pro-Muslim) discrimination. There would be no similarity with South Africa, as South Africa does not have any religious discrimination that I know of. Frank Silbermann
arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (12/20/85)
> To get back to the original argument: were Israel to annex the West Bank, > would that make the Palestinians Israeli citizens? If so, would they not > have a majority of the vote (assuming they were to vote as a block)? > Should Israel, then, limit their voting rights, thereby assuring it > remains a Jewish state? If it does so, does that not violate the principles > of democracy that Israel is founded on? > Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs Israel should allow those Arabs that profess loyalty to the state to take on citizenship, with all the priviliges and responsibilities that accompany it. The right to vote AND the RESPONSIBILITY of fighting in the army and paying taxes. Arabs living in Israel proper are allowed to be citizens of the state without serving in the army ; this is certainly unfair to other Israelis . If Arabs in Israel, including Judea and Samaria, feel their allegiance is to another country let them go there -- many Jews living in Syria , Iran etc would be grateful if they were allowed to leave and come to Israel. BTW, I argued this same point at the Arab Student's Club meeting here at Columbia University recently -- if Arabs in Israel, including Judea and Samaria, don't like the State of Israel let them call United and move back to Jordan. I was told "but they don't want to leave" --- I think the proper response to this is "they should be grateful they are allowed to leave". If the Jews in New York City clamored for self-determination and the right to make Borough Park and its environs into an independent sovereign country would anyone take them seriously ? Probably not --- unless they had some oil-rich cousins ........... ari gross ari@columbia-20.arpa arig@cvl.arpa
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (12/23/85)
> Ari Gross (emphasis added by me): > ... If Arabs in Israel, > ***including Judea and Samaria*****, feel their allegiance is to another > country let them go there -- many Jews living in Syria , Iran etc > would be grateful if they were allowed to leave and come to Israel. > > if Arabs in Israel, ***including > Judea and Samaria****, don't like the State of Israel let them call United > and move back to Jordan. I was told "but they don't want to leave" --- > I think the proper response to this is "they should be grateful they > are allowed to leave". "Judea and Samaria" is basically the West Bank. Thus, the residents of a land conquered by the force of arms have the choice of declaring fealty to their conquerors or of leaving their land. Is that not called "imperialism"? -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Manman Pariss pale' Pariss pou'l suspen mache' lan lari " Otomobil lan tout lari, ape' mache' fe` axidan "