martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (12/30/84)
In a rather disgusting address presented at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Desmond Tutu showed himself unfit to have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Tutu showed immense bigoted bias by ignoring the Arab Jewish dimension the Middle Eastern question. He was upset that Israel had to drive out some of the Muslims who fought to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel. Given the treatment which Muslims traditionally have given to Jews and other non-Muslims, the Muslims in Israel received much less than they deserved by Middle Eastern standards. Clearly, Tutu's racist bigotry lead him to address this issue rather than the multitudes of heinous acts which take place much too frequently in Muslim countries. Tutu cited the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles at the temple in Jerusalem as a model for the racial separation in South Africa. This is simply just disgusting bigoted racial antiSemitism from the worst of the nineteenth century German critique of Judaism. Judaism recognizes that there are righteous non-Jews who wish to worship the one true God. However there is no obligation for such righteous non-Jews to adopt Jewish ways. If such a righteous non-Jew were to have come to Jerusalem 2000 years ago, as one of a few non-Jews worshipping at the temple, he could easily have felt himself under pressure to become Jewish. The wall of separation prevented such pressure. If he wished to become Jewish, he might do so and then worship on the other side but Judaism works hard to avoid pressuring non-Jews in this fashion unlike -- I should point out -- Islam or Christianity. The Jews of the Getto in Venice historically were forced to attend Catholic services so that they might be more susceptible to pressure to become Christian. This compulsory worship among the Christian congregation was an expression of bigotry. The wall of separation was an expression of tolerance and magnanimity. Tutu like Brutus before him then went on to express sympathy for Muslim nationalist causes. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of Muslim nationalist causes realizes very quickly that a large part of Muslim nationalist causes is beating on non-Muslim minorities. After learning of Tutu's and Brutus' support of barbaric Islamic movements, I must suspect that perhaps they campaign for majority rule in South Africa in order to establish the right of the black majority to persecute white and asian minorities (as in fact has been the case in several nations in East Africa) just as Muslim majorities apparently inevitably persecute non-Muslim minorities. Therefore, while I find apartheid disgusting (in fact several of my family members have been refused entry to South Africa for constituting mixed marriages -- many South Libyan Jews are dark like Indians), I am beginning to feel that supporting people like Tutu and Brutus is inappropriate because deep down these people do not care for justice but wish instead to establish majority oppression to replace minority oppression.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/04/85)
What Martillo immediately ascribes to anti-Semitism may simply be uninformedness on Tutu's part. Of course, it would be uncharacteristic of Martillo to entertain this possibility. Regarding nationalism, I suggest Martillo not limit his diatribes to Moslems. It seems almost all nationalistic movements, even if they begin constructively (preservation of culture, furthering of identity, advancement of education), assume malevolent form (supression of other nationalities). It is not something peculiar to Arabs or Islam, nor something from which Jews are themselves immune. Before flaming, check what I said, rather than what you think I said. David Rubin
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/05/85)
> Regarding nationalism, I suggest Martillo not limit his diatribes to > Moslems. It seems almost all nationalistic movements, even if they > begin constructively (preservation of culture, furthering of identity, > advancement of education), assume malevolent form (supression of other > nationalities). It is not something peculiar to Arabs or Islam, nor > something from which Jews are themselves immune. HEAR HEAR!!! Well said! May Martillo call you a "cosmopolitan vus-vus". (I consider that a high honor if ever there was one. No smiley intended.) -- BRIAN: "You're all different!" CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
wkp@lanl.ARPA (01/06/85)
[David Rubin states:] > Regarding nationalism, I suggest Martillo not limit his diatribes to > Moslems. It seems almost all nationalistic movements, even if they > begin constructively (preservation of culture, furthering of identity, > advancement of education), assume malevolent form (supression of other > nationalities). It is not something peculiar to Arabs or Islam, nor > something from which Jews are themselves immune. > Now that David Rubin and Rich Rosen have again demonstrated their universal love for all of mankind, maybe now we can discuss the facts. To call wholesale murder by Muslim governments of non-Muslim peoples "supression" (sic) is a criminal understatement. It is also a very insensitive remark to make, especially since many Bahais, Kurds, black Christians, and ethnic Chinese are continuing to be murdered every day by these governments. Martillo is definitely not singling out Arabs; Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia are especially well-known for their brutality and inhumanity. If you can find any ethnic Chinese left in these countries, just ask any one of them. Finally, we should ask how nationalist movements like Zionism, Gandhi-ism, and the American civil rights movement managed to avoid including wholesale murder as a basic policy. Islam is an historically mature movement, with an age of over a thousand years, and yet still shows no willingess to accept the basic tenets of civilized society. American Jews, more than any other people in this country, should be especially and painfully aware of the treatment their brothers have had at the hands of these governments. bill peter !seismo!cmcl2!lanl!wkp
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/08/85)
>[David Rubin states:] >> Regarding nationalism, I suggest Martillo not limit his diatribes to >> Moslems. It seems almost all nationalistic movements, even if they >> begin constructively (preservation of culture, furthering of identity, >> advancement of education), assume malevolent form (supression of other >> nationalities). It is not something peculiar to Arabs or Islam, nor >> something from which Jews are themselves immune. >> [Bill Peter states:] >Now that David Rubin and Rich Rosen have again demonstrated their universal >love for all of mankind, maybe now we can discuss the facts. See facts below. >To call wholesale murder by Muslim governments of non-Muslim peoples >"supression" (sic) is a criminal understatement. Your critique of word choice is well-taken, though "criminal" is mite too strong. >Martillo is definitely not singling out Arabs; Muslims in Indonesia and >Malaysia are especially well-known for their brutality and inhumanity. >If you can find any ethnic Chinese left in these countries, just ask any >one of them. He has singled out both Arabs and Moslems in the past; I was just covering all bases. >Finally, we should ask how nationalist movements like Zionism, Gandhi-ism, >and the American civil rights movement managed to avoid including wholesale >murder as a basic policy. Islam is an historically mature movement, with an >age of over a thousand years, and yet still shows no willingess to accept >the basic tenets of civilized society. First, Ghandi-ism (Indian nationalism) did not avoid such murderous tendancies. Second, the American civil rights movement was not a nationalistic movement. Third, Zionism is the exception rather than the rule in its success at avoiding a murderous stage. However, it, too, has moved into a supressive one. Those are the facts. Please note that I did not say all nationalistic movements were murderous, and the reference to one which is not murderous does not refute my claim that most are and nearly all are surpressive (If criminal understatement may be permitted here). Also note that the "basic tenets" of civilized society are a concept not observed by any nations until nuclear terror forced them upon Europe following WWII. If Christians arrived at the observance of such tenets only in this century, after having half a millenium head start on the Moslems, why should we consider it unusual that Islam still lags? >American Jews, more than any other people in this country, should be >especially and painfully aware of the treatment their brothers have had >at the hands of these governments. > bill peter > !seismo!cmcl2!lanl!wkp I am aware, and am more receptive to suffering by Jews than by any other people. However, Moslems do not have a monopoly on the oppression of Jews and Jews do not have a monopoly on suffering oppression. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/08/85)
never once in this article was it noted that Israel is one of the key supporters of apartheid. It supplies South Africa with military goods to further the repression of blacks and asians in that country.
elb@hou5e.UUCP (Ellen Bart) (01/09/85)
I don't see how you can say that selling arms to South Africa makes Israel a supporter of apartheid (if in fact they do sell arms). Does trading with the Soviet Union make the U.S. a supporter of communism? ellen bart
norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) (01/09/85)
>I don't see how you can say that selling arms to South Africa makes >Israel a supporter of apartheid (if in fact they do sell arms). > >Does trading with the Soviet Union make the U.S. a supporter of >communism? > >ellen bart > Yes, trading with the Soviet Empire, an evil empire ruled by an evil regime, does make the U.S> a supporter of that evil regime and a supporter of communism. The ability of the Soviet regime to survive has been partly and perhaps largely due to support from Western trade. Even the ability to calculate costs of production in the Soviet Union (or anywhere else) depend on the existence of free or relatively free markets. More important, perhaps, than the material value of trade with the west is the value to the Soviets of all kinds of *information* that is passed from the west. But, perhaps the greatest support free countries give to the Soviet Union's regime is moral. The people oppressed by the Soviet Union are not only betrayed by the actions of the freer nations, but they even, to a large extent, *know* that they've been betrayed, and that hurts. I'm sure Solzhenitsyn (spelling?) would back up my remarks, but are there any net readers out there who can/dare_to provide first hand information? on this? Norm Andrews AT&T Information Systems Mail Station HO1C325 Crawfords Corner Road Holmdel, New Jersey 07733 vax135!ariel!norm (201) 834-3685
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/09/85)
> [David Rubin states:] > > Regarding nationalism, I suggest Martillo not limit his diatribes to > > Moslems. It seems almost all nationalistic movements, even if they > > begin constructively (preservation of culture, furthering of identity, > > advancement of education), assume malevolent form (supression of other > > nationalities). It is not something peculiar to Arabs or Islam, nor > > something from which Jews are themselves immune. > > > Now that David Rubin and Rich Rosen have again demonstrated their universal > love for all of mankind, maybe now we can discuss the facts. > [INSERT INVECTIVE ABOUT MUSLIMS HERE] ... [BILL PETER] Now that Bill Peter has "discussed the facts", perhaps he can uncover the fact that Muslims are not alone (as he and Martillo might be perceived to believe) in anti-human atrocities, and that sometimes those he wishes to defend are as guilty of such things themselves. Why is there always a response to requests for egalitarian, unprejudiced treatment of all human beings that goes something like: "Yeah, right, but we can only REALLY have world peace/brotherhood/etc. when we've gotten rid of the damn [INSERT SOME GROUP HERE] ..."? But then, not "pointing out" such things is tantamount to cosmopolitan vusvusism... (It's funny that the author thinks it's OK because Martillo wasn't "singling out" Arabs, but Muslims in general.) > Finally, we should ask how nationalist movements like Zionism, Gandhi-ism, > and the American civil rights movement managed to avoid including wholesale > murder as a basic policy. Islam is an historically mature movement, with an > age of over a thousand years, and yet still shows no willingess to accept > the basic tenets of civilized society. This is about as far from the truth as one can get, since all the movements described here have had their share of atrocities and repression by at least some subset of its adherents. ALL nationalistic movements hold the seeds of such activity, and these seeds ripen through the proliferation of notions of one group's superiority/inferiority to others. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
wkp@lanl.ARPA (01/10/85)
[Mike Kelly writes:] > never once in this article was it noted that Israel is one of the key > supporters of apartheid. It supplies South Africa with military goods > to further the repression of blacks and asians in that country. This statement is a vicious lie. Because it has absolutely no basis in fact, it all the more unfair. Mike Kelly says that Israel is one of the key supporters of apartheid. Where are his facts? Trade? From the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the following countries account for 2/3 of South Africa's trade: 1. United States 4. Switzerland 2. United Kingdom 5. Japan 3. West Germany So how is Israel a key supporter of apartheid, Mike? Where is mention of Germany or Switzerland in your article? Or do you think they export tomatoes to the South Africans? (Maybe you just like them better, that's all.) By the way, how much trade do you think South Africa does with its neighbors in Black Africa? Are you saying the black Africans are a key supporter of apartheid? How does Israel come into the picture? Well, let's look at weapons. Jane's Fighting Ships makes the following remark: "Since the Republic of South Africa has been embargoed...the country has found it necessary to create its own defence industry.". Let's be more particular about South Africa's weapons trade: Major Aircraft: French Mirage planes Submarines: 3 French-built Daphne class subs Frigates: South African made. Fleet Replenishment Ship: Danish-made Amphibious Forces: 1 Soviet Polnochny and 4 Soviet T-4 class ships Mine Warfare Forces: UK-made and South African-made. Machine Guns: Some are U.S.-made, some U.K.-made, and some South African made (patterned after NATO MG4) Rifles: All are South African made (patterned after NATO R-1 and Israeli Galil rifles). Submachine Guns: South African made (patterned after NATO and Czech guns). Handguns: South African made (patterned after NATO) [The above info from Jane's Fighting Ships]. So where are all the military goods Israel is sending to South Africa to subjugate blacks and asians, Mike? Where are your facts? Shame on you. --- bill peter wkp@lanl.ARPA [My reply to Dann Seeley will appear in net.politics only.]
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (01/10/85)
In article <> elb@hou5e.UUCP (Ellen Bart) writes: >I don't see how you can say that selling arms to South Africa makes >Israel a supporter of apartheid (if in fact they do sell arms). > Right. THey're *also* involved in a policy of constructive engorgement -OOPS-engagement :-) Greg
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (01/10/85)
In article <tty3b.567> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: >never once in this article was it noted that Israel is one of the key >supporters of apartheid. It supplies South Africa with military goods >to further the repression of blacks and asians in that country. Israel is NOT a supporter of apartheid. It strongly disapproves. Nevertheless, do to the hypocritical boycott of Israel practiced by many second and third world nations, (and terrible economic problems at home) Israel has little choice but to trade with whatever country is willing. Israel does not discriminate. For instance: Israel has traded with black African nations that also repress blacks and asians (e.g. Ethiopia and Unganda). Israel has also traded with nations that oppress white people (e.g. nations in the Soviet block. They oppress people of all races.).
rjc@snow.UUCP (R.caley) (01/11/85)
> Regarding nationalism, I suggest Martillo not limit his diatribes to > Moslems. It seems almost all nationalistic movements, even if they > begin constructively (preservation of culture, furthering of identity, > advancement of education), assume malevolent form (supression of other > nationalities). It is not something peculiar to Arabs or Islam, nor > something from which Jews are themselves immune. > > David Rubin "Nationalism is an infantile desease,it is the measels of the human race" - Albert Einstien Any body got any antibiotics :-) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the beginning was a flame ...... " Paul Kantner. .......... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!snow!rjc [ Any opinions in the above crawled in while I wasn't looking ]
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (01/12/85)
>Yes, trading with the Soviet Empire... >does make the U.S. a supporter of that evil regime and a supporter of >communism. The ability of the Soviet regime to survive has been partly >and perhaps largely due to support from Western trade.o > > Norm Andrews Thank you, Norm, for bringing to the surface this buried truth. I, and my Eastern European friends agree with you whole-heartedly. My many friends and aquaintances from the Soviet Block countries concur to an extent rarely found among independent individuals, that the *vast* majority of E. Euorpean citizens do not want the West to trade with the Soviet Block. They realize that, without that trade, the Soviets wouldn't exist today, and the people would be free. BTW, have you noticed that, while the E. European people don't want the USA to trade with the Soviets, and most Black So. Africans do want the USA to trade with So. Africa (see recent TIME mag.), the standard liberal line is that the USA should trade with the Soviets and not with So. Africa? The Conservatives stand along side these people, while the Liberals tuurn their backs on the people's wishes. Those people are in a far better position to know what is in their best interests than the avg. Massachusetts politician. Al Algustyniak
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/12/85)
> The Soviet Empire, an evil empire ruled by an evil regime, ... > Norm Andrews From all my Eastern European acquiantances, I know this to be a fact. Yet it still sounds like jingoistic rhetoric. What a terrible thing that has happened in Western politics, that ultra-conservatives should say such things along with emotional/jingoistic arguments, and ultra-liberals should accuse anyone that says such things of being a dangerous fool. ----- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (01/13/85)
> Israel does not discriminate. For instance: > > Israel has traded with black African nations > that also repress blacks and asians > (e.g. Ethiopia and Unganda). > > Israel has also traded with nations that oppress white people > (e.g. nations in the Soviet block. They oppress people of > all races.). I believe that accusations of Israeli discrimination are usually directed at domestic rather than foreign policies, not unlike South Africa in that regard. Israel may not be one of South Africa's biggest trading partners, but as two regionally dominant international paraiahs, they have long history of close diplomatic relations and strategic co-operation. I doesn't matter if the persistent reports that South Africa has nuclear weapons courtesy of Israeli technology are untrue. The fact that they are believed in some circles means that Israel and South Africa are so linked in the minds of Tutu's constituency that he was obligated to speak out. Baba
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (01/13/85)
>> == Dave Rubin > == Richard Rosen >> Regarding nationalism, I suggest Martillo not limit his diatribes to >> Moslems. It seems almost all nationalistic movements, even if they >> begin constructively (preservation of culture, furthering of identity, >> advancement of education), assume malevolent form (supression of other >> nationalities). It is not something peculiar to Arabs or Islam, nor >> something from which Jews are themselves immune. >HEAR HEAR!!! Well said! May Martillo call you a "cosmopolitan vus-vus". >(I consider that a high honor if ever there was one. No smiley >intended.) Yet another example of Richard Rosen's fossilized leftist Vus-Vus hypocrisy. In net.religion, Rosen will dump on Christianity and Christian clerics for the tiniest possible reason. Now Tutu, a major Christian cleric makes a statement which with inane generosity would be called ignorantly insensitive in an area which Tutu as a bishop is supposed to be an expert. Res ipsa loquitur. If Falwell had expressed similar sentiments Rubin and Rosen would have squealed. Traditional Christian anti-Semitism is avoided nowadays by mainstream Christian Churches and by the Moral Majority. But Tutu as a leftist is able to combine traditional Christian anti-Semitism and radical New Left anti-Semitism. Since Rosen and Rubin are grovelers who prize their connections to a non-Jewish community via leftist movements more than any tie to the Jewish community, they will make apologies and rationalizations for any leftist barbarism even if that barbarism is directed at them themselves. Their behavior is just like the Ashkenazi quislings in the Soviet Union who apologized for Soviet anti-Semitism as a way of mobilizing the masses for the good of the Marxist cause. By the way, if Rubin and Rosen bothered to read my articles, they would note that I constantly dump on Zionism not for what Zionism did to Arab Muslims about whom I could not care less but for the abuses Zionism committed on Sefardic and oriental Jews. Members of my family are of the opinion that voting in Israeli elections may be a violation of a mitswah mide'oraita' (commandment in the pentateuch). I personally am strongly anti-Nationalist and therefore recommend immediate subjugation of Muslim nations which would then be returned to European colonial rule. While I am perfectly willing to dump on apartheid, Castro's treatment of homosexuals, PRC mistreatment of peasants, or India's forced sterilation program, I concentrate my attacks on Muslim barbarism because Muslim barbarism is directed against me, my family, and my people. This is simply the common sense of self-preservation which self-destructive VusVusim like Rosen and Rubin would not understand. They would have made good members of the Verband deutscher Nationaler Juden (League of German National Jews -- Jews who voted for Hitler). Statements that Rosen made on the impropriety of defining him as a Jew and as a member of the Jewish community via Jewish law were quite typical of the sentiments of members of this political organization.
donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (01/14/85)
[What is this discussion doing in net.religion.jewish???] From bill peter (wkp@lanl.ARPA): Martillo is definitely not singling out Arabs; Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia are especially well-known for their brutality and inhumanity. If you can find any ethnic Chinese left in these countries, just ask any one of them. I seem to recall that there are more ethnic Chinese in Malaysia than ethnic Malays... (In fact the Malaysian Communist Party, a brutal group of thugs if there ever was one, is almost exclusively a Chinese movement.) The British encouraged the immigration of Chinese to Malaysia to work in the tin mines and rubber plantations, and so many came that they now form close to a majority of the population. The proportion of Chinese in the population of Indonesia is much smaller but there are still millions of them. The presupposition in Bill Peter's paragraph is that these Chinese communities are somehow dying out, which is simply not true. The friction that does occur between 'bumiputras' (natives) and Chinese is primarily political. The economies of the two countries are controlled by rich Chinese in collaboration with members of politically important native families. Local demagogues sometimes encourage jobless natives to take their frustrations out on the poorer Chinese, the ones who can't retaliate; the usual form which this takes is a series of riots in which small Chinese-owned shops are looted or burned. This does not seem to have upset the dominant position of the Chinese in the marketplace, needless to say. Religion is not usually an issue: power is. When political tensions relax, the two groups get along reasonably well. There are communities in Indonesia which are called 'peranakan' Chinese (from the Malay word for 'child') whose members have assimilated so thoroughly that their language and culture are more native than they are Chinese. Other, more recent immigration has produced communities of 'totok' Chinese who are culturally (and politically) tied to China, and there has been some friction between the two groups similar to the friction between radically Orthodox and assimilated Jews. I suppose Martillo would denigrate the unique culture of the 'peranakans' because it is a distortion of a (somehow better) 'pure' Chinese culture... It's true that there are radical Muslim fundamentalists in both countries but they are definitely in the minority. They spend much more time bickering with each other than oppressing Chinese or Jews (if there are any of the latter). The 'Islam' practiced by the bulk of the population bears about as much resemblance to the real thing as modern Christianity does to BenDavid's N'tzarim. Read V S Naipaul's book AMONG THE BELIEVERS if you want to get a feel for what the situation is really like. (In my opinion, the religious climate in Iran and Pakistan is much scarier than it is elsewhere in the Muslim world. Radical religious fundamentalism is most dangerous when practiced by converts...) Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
rosen@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
To add to Bill Peter's response to Mike Kelly's uninformed
and incorrect assertion about Israel supporting apartheid
in South Africa --
Let us not ignore Arab dealings with South Africa. Numerous
Arab countries engage in a significant amount of trade with
South Africa.
And just in terms of amount of goods involved, Israel's trade
is close to negligible.
And what about the United States dealing with Russia? Does
that mean that we support communism (and everything else that
goes on in the USSR?)
Why don't we look at what is behind Mike Kelly's statement (now
that we have refuted it with facts, not blind opinions)?
My question is --
Why is Israel ALONE so often judged and condemned for things that
-- are not usually true (why can't people look for and
at the facts before making judgment calls)?
-- are done by many, many other nations to a greater,
more visible extent?
It certainly leads one to believe that Israel's enemies are
not really interested in the issues (be they moral, economic,
whatever), but are simply looking for new excuses to justify
their unfounded opposition to the country.
It is unfortunate (and quite unbelievable to me) that rather than
support a country that is based on a moral code and so obviously
goes out of its way to live according to that standard on a human
level (witness the rescue of the Ethiopian Jews, the rescue at
Entebbe, the continuing effort with Soviet Jews, despite the
economic problems and the security risks involved), some "humanists"
insist on denouncing the country.
Carol Rosenstock
{ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!rosendavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/16/85)
>>> == Dave Rubin >> == Richard Rosen > == Joachim Martillo == David Rubin redux >>> Regarding nationalism, I suggest Martillo not limit his diatribes to >>> Moslems. It seems almost all nationalistic movements, even if they >>> begin constructively (preservation of culture, furthering of identity, >>> advancement of education), assume malevolent form (supression of other >>> nationalities). It is not something peculiar to Arabs or Islam, nor >>> something from which Jews are themselves immune. >>HEAR HEAR!!! Well said! May Martillo call you a "cosmopolitan vus-vus". >>(I consider that a high honor if ever there was one. No smiley >>intended.) >Yet another example of Richard Rosen's fossilized leftist Vus-Vus >hypocrisy. In net.religion, Rosen will dump on Christianity and >Christian clerics for the tiniest possible reason. Now Tutu, a major >Christian cleric makes a statement which with inane generosity would be >called ignorantly insensitive in an area which Tutu as a bishop is >supposed to be an expert. Res ipsa loquitur. If Falwell had expressed >similar sentiments Rubin and Rosen would have squealed. Not necessarily. It would not disturb my perceptions terribly to find Falwell as ignorant of Judaism as Tutu. >Traditional >Christian anti-Semitism is avoided nowadays by mainstream Christian >Churches and by the Moral Majority. But Tutu as a leftist is able to >combine traditional Christian anti-Semitism and radical New Left >anti-Semitism. Since Rosen and Rubin are grovelers who prize their >connections to a non-Jewish community via leftist movements more than >any tie to the Jewish community, they will make apologies and >rationalizations for any leftist barbarism even if that barbarism is >directed at them themselves. Their behavior is just like the Ashkenazi >quislings in the Soviet Union who apologized for Soviet anti-Semitism as >a way of mobilizing the masses for the good of the Marxist cause. Me, a leftist? Surely you jest. Unless, of course, you consider, say, Howard Baker, a leftist... Those who advocated the new order in the Soviet Union after the revolution of 1917 believed that Russian anti-Semitism would die out without the impetus it had been receiving from the government. Their thesis was never adequately tested, as Stalin rose to power less than a generation after the revolution. At worst, they MIGHT have been mistaken. That does not make them quislings. Christian anti-Semitism not practiced by the Fundamentalist Right? I think that Martillo is mistaken (and thus as much of a "quisling" as the Soviet Jews who sided with the 1917 revolution). Perhaps he needs to hear a Fundamentalist preacher denounce Jewish "control" of the media and banking to be brought back to his senses. The Fundamentalists are not as virulent as they once were (score one for progress), but to state the Fundamentalist Right has been purged of its anti-Semitism is an exercise in wishful thinking. As for Tutu's supposed blending of Christian and leftist (the difference between the two brands seems contrived to me), this diatribe serves only to distract the readers of this group from the lack of satisfactory response from Martillo to challenges to demonstrate ANY anti-Semitism on Tutu's part. We're still waiting. >By the way, if Rubin and Rosen bothered to read my articles, they would >note that I constantly dump on Zionism not for what Zionism did to Arab >Muslims about whom I could not care less but for the abuses Zionism >committed on Sefardic and oriental Jews. Members of my family are of >the opinion that voting in Israeli elections may be a violation of a >mitswah mide'oraita' (commandment in the pentateuch). I personally am >strongly anti-Nationalist and therefore recommend immediate subjugation >of Muslim nations which would then be returned to European colonial >rule. I have bothered, and am fully aware of such. Perhaps it is time to note, that however culturally arrogant Ashkenazic Zionists may have been, (1) Martillo exceeds them, and (2) Sephardic Jews would still be living in Muslim societies but for their efforts. >While I am perfectly willing to dump on apartheid, Castro's treatment of >homosexuals, PRC mistreatment of peasants, or India's forced sterilation >program, I concentrate my attacks on Muslim barbarism because Muslim >barbarism is directed against me, my family, and my people. This is >simply the common sense of self-preservation which self-destructive >VusVusim like Rosen and Rubin would not understand. They would have >made good members of the Verband deutscher Nationaler Juden (League of >German National Jews -- Jews who voted for Hitler). Statements that >Rosen made on the impropriety of defining him as a Jew and as a member >of the Jewish community via Jewish law were quite typical of the >sentiments of members of this political organization. Granted, Muslim barbarism is the most immediate threat to Jews in the Near East. Self-preservation (a moral necessity) does not compel me to seek the utter annihilation of those who have persecuted me. Else, I'd be demanding a world populated only by Jews. Perhaps that is what Martillo is driving at. I'd suggest (so long as the mud is flying) that Martillo would have made a better member of the Verband der Deutsche Nationale Juden, as it would provide an excellent means to eliminate leftist influence on effette Ashkenazi Jews. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david