[net.religion.jewish] Tutu Makes a DooDoo

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!rosen

david@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