mf@cornell.UUCP (mf) (05/28/85)
Charley Wingate writes, in re his comparison of Nazi Germany and Israel: > Israel, by the very nature of its concentration upon nazism, is quite > suceptible [sic] to some sort of persecution of another group. Just listen > to Meir Kahane; what he says can easily be perverted into race hatred. There is no excuse for racism, and Kahane is a racist. Yet is it *symptomatic* of Israel? ``Israel'' does not ``concentrate'' upon nazism. Israel is a country, which has many dimensions to its existence. It ``concentrates'' on integrating thousands of refugees from Ethiopia that no country wanted. And it is not because they are Jewish. How many non-Jewish Ethiopians (or starving Africans) have been accepted by other countries, and what is the ratio of that number to their population? Every country has its Kahane, Willis Carto, Wyndon LaRouche or Don Black (the one from Alabama, KKK grand wizard). Every majority has a tendency to reject minorities. Yet Israel's record at integrating such groups and its system of laws, created so as to prevent those tendencies, make it one of the places least likely for it to occur. It is even more remarkable that in spite of the long state of war she has been in with her neighbours, the human rights violations are minimised (but not to be excused): they are more an exception than the rule, they are not a government policy but the makings of individuals who are subsequently punished by law. The poor record of the USA before, during and after WWII (remember General Paton's statement that the Jews are lower than animals? the internment of the Japanese americans? The unfilled quotas for Jewish refugees?) is significant. And today, in the US, such speech as racism, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-whatever is protected by Constitution. This is not so in such countries as France, Germany or Canada. Why is it that the above writer characterises Israel by Kahane? Is LaRouche characteristic of the US? Why is it that he sees the pursuit of Nazi criminals who killed most of the Jewish people as the cause-to-effect relation with fringe extremism in Israel? His argument sounds familiar: the revisionist theory propones that Israel's very existence is predicated on the so-called ``holocaust hoax.'' Racism is a process. Pointing at one racist is too simplistic a way to find whether or not a culture is predisposed to it. Consider how many followers he has, how many emulators. And the general trends in the population, its history (not merely twenty years, two thousand, for instance), its ethos and religion. > It is precisely when a nation thinks itself to be most civilized that the > risk is greatest. ``Civilisation'' or its perception has nothing to do with the issue. Both so-called civilised and non-civilised countries have had a long history of being either persecuted or the persecutor, qv. Hitler's Germany and Idi Amin's Uganda. > Contemplation of the evils of Nazi Germany should lead one to > self-examination, and examination of one's own nation. Admirable principle. Why don't you examine yourself and your own nation? How do you rationalise slavery, racism, KKK etc... in spite of your nation's Constitution? How do you justify the existence of such political parties as the ``Populist Party'' which is blatantly racist (see its platform), anti-black, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-Third World, linked to violent (murders) extreme right groups? Are the safeguards sufficient to prevent its achieving power? > When it directs one's gaze outward, the tendency towards intolerance > and persecution is increased. This is why I see a problem with the > world jewish community's current fixation with the Nazis; it must be > remembered that others have also persecuted, and unbridled pursuit of > evil can easily breed intolerance. I could say that this is why I see a problem with you, Mr Wingate, directing your gaze at me rather at yourself, but I won't say it. One way to eradicate evil--and that is one of my aims--is to attack it, wherever it raises its head. Many *are* persecuted, even now; many have persecuted; I choose to fight neo-nazism because I and my people are its target. (When this is done, I'll be able to think of the other evils, too.) Moreover, I think it should be the fight of all, for ``an injury to one is an injury to all'' (Ken Perlow, 29 Brumaire An CXCIII). ``Pursuit of evil'' means fighting intolerance. There are indeed individuals who are so absorbed in it that they have trouble seeing other problems. This is human, but certainly not a reason to stop fighting.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (05/29/85)
>Charley Wingate writes, in re his comparison of Nazi Germany and Israel: This characterization of my article is unfair. My point was that Israel was NOT special, not that it was more like Nazi Germany than other countries. >> Israel, by the very nature of its concentration upon nazism, is quite >> suceptible [sic] to some sort of persecution of another group. Just >> listen to Meir Kahane; what he says can easily be perverted into race >> hatred. >There is no excuse for racism, and Kahane is a racist. Yet is it >*symptomatic* of Israel? >Every country has its Kahane, Willis Carto, Wyndon LaRouche or Don >Black (the one from Alabama, KKK grand wizard). Every majority has a >tendency to reject minorities. Yet Israel's record at integrating such >groups and its system of laws, created so as to prevent those >tendencies, make it one of the places least likely for it to occur. >It is even more remarkable that in spite of the long state of war she >has been in with her neighbours, the human rights violations are >minimised (but not to be excused): they are more an exception than the >rule, they are not a government policy but the makings of individuals >who are subsequently punished by law. I will have to take the anonymous author's word on this. If it is true, then it illustrates my original point: that the need is for self-examination and self-control. I don't claim that Kahane is symptomatic of Israel any more than (say) Don Black is symptomatic of the USA. But each is very much a product of his environment. >The poor record of the USA before, during and after WWII (remember >General Paton's statement that the Jews are lower than animals? the >internment of the Japanese americans? The unfilled quotas for Jewish >refugees?) is significant. And today, in the US, such speech as >racism, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-whatever is protected >by Constitution. This is not so in such countries as France, Germany >or Canada. Taking Patton as exemplary of the USA is at least as wrong as taking Kahane as exmeplary of Israel. Examination of court decisions indicates that the protection of racist diatribe continues because of the consistent opposition to any restrait of speech on the basis of content. >Why is it that the above writer characterises Israel by Kahane? >Is LaRouche characteristic of the US? Why is it that he sees >the pursuit of Nazi criminals who killed most of the Jewish people as >the cause-to-effect relation with fringe extremism in Israel? His >argument sounds familiar: the revisionist theory propones that Israel's >very existence is predicated on the so-called ``holocaust hoax.'' This whole argument is very dishonest. I did not say that Kahane was "characteristic" of Israel; but he is certainly a product of the pressures upon Israel. The fact that he has arisen and gained some support (however minimal) illustrates my point: that Israel is not immune. The author is reading my argument much more strongly than I intended. I vigorously object to his groundless implication that I support the "holocaust hoax"; my point was that the reality of the holocaust has blinded many Jews to the possibility that Israel could bring forth some act of terror itself. >Racism is a process. Pointing at one racist is too simplistic a way to >find whether or not a culture is predisposed to it. Consider how many >followers he has, how many emulators. And the general trends in the >population, its history (not merely twenty years, two thousand, for >instance), its ethos and religion. Every culture is predisposed to it; the minute a people believes in their own righteousness, they are sure to perpetrate some act of violence on others. Certainly there are other causes as well. But denying that one is capable of such acts is to take the first step down the same road. >> It is precisely when a nation thinks itself to be most civilized that the >> risk is greatest. > >``Civilisation'' or its perception has nothing to do with the issue. Both >so-called civilised and non-civilised countries have had a long history >of being either persecuted or the persecutor, qv. Hitler's Germany and >Idi Amin's Uganda. I think you would find that Idi Amin thought of himself as the most civilized of rulers. >> Contemplation of the evils of Nazi Germany should lead one to >> self-examination, and examination of one's own nation. >Admirable principle. Why don't you examine yourself and your own >nation? How do you rationalise slavery, racism, KKK etc... in spite >of your nation's Constitution? How do you justify the existence of >such political parties as the ``Populist Party'' which is blatantly >racist (see its platform), anti-black, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, >anti-Third World, linked to violent (murders) extreme right groups? Are the >safeguards sufficient to prevent its achieving power? I am well aware of these groups. I am also very dubious of my direct influence over them. As I originally implied, I don't think they can be prevented from existing, here or elsewhere. The only way to control them is to try to restrict their political power as much as possible. At the same time, one should be very careful not aggravate tensions. Some minority leaders in this country have caused themselves much grief because they took every criticism of their actions as a racial atack, for instance. >I could say that this is why I see a problem with you, Mr Wingate, >directing your gaze at me rather at yourself, but I won't say it. One >way to eradicate evil--and that is one of my aims--is to attack it, >wherever it raises its head. Many *are* persecuted, even now; many >have persecuted; I choose to fight neo-nazism because I and my people >are its target. (When this is done, I'll be able to think of the other >evils, too.) You did say it. My self-examination is my own affair. Your criticisms essentially attack what you you think I'm thinking, rather than my words. Pardon me, but who are you to know what I'm thinking? [By the way, it's good manners to sign your articles] Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mf@cornell.UUCP (mf) (05/31/85)
In article <6152@umcp-cs.UUCP> Charley Wingate writes: > I don't claim that Kahane is symptomatic of Israel any more than (say) Don > Black is symptomatic of the USA. But each is very much a product of his > environment. Right. Kahane is American, this country is the one he grew up in, so he is as much a product of the US as Don Black is, and this is hence symptomatic of the USA, if at all. Now the argument goes as follows: it is not so much ``Israel'' that was meant, but the Jews and their culture. Well, in my book, Judaism stands for tolerance. Judaism--as a religion--never preached for proselytism, never burned people to bring them to slavation, recognises that there are righteous Gentiles ("Zadikei Umot Ha-olam"). If you think that Charles Manson is just an abberation, well so is Kahane. What allows each to occur is democracy. > Every culture is predisposed to it; the minute a people believes in their > own righteousness, they are sure to perpetrate some act of violence on > others. Certainly there are other causes as well. But denying that one is > capable of such acts is to take the first step down the same road. ``Anyone'' is capable of ``any act.'' Fine. Let's see what *is* happening. There have been many voices in Israel related to her activities in Lebanon and elsewhere; public, political. Now why is it that this writer always examines Israel's predisposition (from a point of sheer ingorance) rather than the US's record? Why don't you publish all those articles about neo-nazism, racism, and so on in this very country, yours? You who preach self-examina- tion, please do it. >I am well aware of these groups. I am also very dubious of my direct >influence over them. One can have as much influence as one wants, if one really cares. Not through the net, but by active involvement in combatting intolerance. It depends how important you really think it is. > As I originally implied, I don't think they can be > prevented from existing, here or elsewhere. I do. Try, and you may change your mind. > My self-examination is my own affair. Not when you preach it to others, and examine them.