Conference taveng::bagels

    If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that
    over 75% of the teenagers in Israel support
    Kahane which shows the future of Israel's
    youth.

    Personally, I don't take political sides as no one
    can be trusted, but the man has Chutzpah.

     re .0:
     
     > ...when an Arab terrorist dumped a bag of red ink on his head. 
     
     The way I read the story, the "Arab terrorist" was a Jewish journalist
     who doesn't think much of Kahane.  "Rounding up the usual suspects"
     tells us more about the person pointing the finger than about the
     people at whom he's pointing. 
     
     --Mr Topaz

    I once heard a phrase:  "A shonda fur de goyim".
    
    The man shouldn't be shot, since I don't believe in capital punishment.
    His ideas are Naziism through a mirror.  Some people say it's
    exactly the opposite, but to me it's a reflected image.  His views
    on territorial rights and human rights are, to me, aspostasy.  He
    belongs in Iran, where like-minded people are in power.
    
    Kahane reflects the dark side of Israeli politics.  Every society
    has its dregs.  In America, they're based in places like Hayden
    Lake, Idaho and a few southern hamlets.  France has its National
    Front.  Germany has its neo-Nazis.  Northern Ireland has Paisley.
    So why shouldn't Israel have Kahane?  It's people's taking him 
    seriously that's so scary.

    (Translation:  "shonda" means "shame"; "goyim" means "gentiles".
    Idiomatically, the phrase means something like "makes us look bad
    to the rest of the world".)
           fred 

    Meir Kahane scares me.
    
    But then, so does Ayatollah Khomeini, and Yasser Arafat, and
    Muamer Khaddafi, ....
    
    Fanatics scare me in general.  Most of them seem to be too actively
    making spears out of pruning hooks, turning plows into swords,
    and in general trying to lead the rest of us more peaceful-coexistence-
    oriented people into World War III.   Horrors!!

    Funny how public opinion can change.  I can remember being in
    Beit-Shean about eight years ago when Kahane came through.  He was
    literally stoned out of town.  Now Beit-Shean is a town that is
    occupied mostly by Jews of Morrocan origin, the very same people
    that Kahane seems to be exploiting today.
    
    What he does is appeal to pure gut emotions, and not to any
    intelligence.  It's also strange to me that the two people who have
    tried to exploit the emotions and social standing of the Mizrachi 
    population have been Ashkinazim, Begin and Kahane.
    
    The best policy to take vis-a-vis Kahane is the one the Israeli
    press decided to take, and that is not to give him any attention
    whatsoever.
    
    David
    Ashkanazim, Begin and Kahane

    Apologies for the typo below my name in the previous reply!
    
    David

    I watched Kahane's speech live.  It was not exactly a speech but
    rather he answered questions of different journalists, many of whome
    were Palestinian.
    
    All I had heard of Kahane was second-hand.  And I thought of him
    as of out of his mind.  No more.  I caught myself during his answers
    that I agree with him.  He didn't play on emotions, it was all logic
    and real life examples.  Sometime close to the end of the meeting a
    Palestinian journalist made a statement, that after listening to
    Kahane she only got more determined to work toward liberation of
    Israel and that this land will be Palestinian.  Kahane's reaction 
    was amusing.  He said that if the journalist didn't come, he would 
    have paid to invite her because her attitude showed real intentions 
    of Palestinians -- to make Israel an Arab state.
    
    I listend to his many examples and historical analogies.  I listened
    to his theories and suggestions.  And the more I listened the more
    I got convinced of the sence of reality that Kahane has.   At list
    what he said coincided in many points with my opinion on the whole
    situation.  Just one more proof that I should never trust secon-hand 
    information.

    I know that I am touching an open nerve and that many people will
    call me ... (you choose it).  However, my background and experince
    make me show my views in the open.
    
    Leo

    
    
    THE FOLLOWING IS A STRAW-MAN POSITION, NOT NECESSARILY ONE THAT
    I AGREE WITH (I AM MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN THIS!).  PLEASE FEEL FREE
    TO SHOOT AT IT, NOT ME!
    
    *****************************************************************
    
    There seem to be two possibilities for the future of Israel:
    
    1.  Let things go the way they are.  If that is done, what what
        will happen is this:
    
        The Arabs are increasing in numbers faster than the Jews.  This
        seems to fit the model where the lower class has more kids, as
        seen in many countries, including the US.
    
        Eventually, there will be more Arabs than Jews in Israel.  The
        Arabs, who do not have the same rights as the Jews, will attempt
        to secure majority rule.  Much of the world will see the situation
        as another South Africa, and will come down on the side of the
        oppressed majority, rather than that of the oppressive majority.
        The Arab states with money will help forment revolution, even
        as they try to change world opinion to favor the Arabs in Israel.
    
        Eventually the Arabs will win - time is on their side.  The
        government will be replaced.  The harder the jews fight against
        the revolution the more oppressive the new government will be
        to them.  Israeli Jews have a tradition of fighting very hard.
    
    2.  Kahane will win real power.  He will attempt to expel the Arabs
        from Israel.  The surrounding Arab countries don't want them;
        they will end up in refuge camps; there will be many deaths.
        
        The wealthy Arab countries will arm these people in their struggle
        to "liberate" Israel.  Much of the world will be aghast at the
        horrible thing Israel did, and help will be hard to find.
    
        Israel, having lost the labor of the Arab Israelis, will have
        additional economic problems, making it harder to keep the
        government function through the war.
    
        Since Israel will not be able to afford a long war against that
        many Arabs, it will have to kill them;  Israel cannot afford to
        take a million Arab prisoners, and fighting against ten year old
        boys and girls will demoralize the Israeli soldiers, who have
        high ethical and moral standards for the Middle East.
    
        Millions of Arabs and/or millions of Jews will die in the war.
        The Jews may win some battles, but there is a limit to how long
        they can fight an all-out war against an enemy with so much
        more resources.  Also, since there are not enough Israelis to
        effectively occupy all the Arab countries even if they won,
        long term victory is impossible for Israel.
    
    In the first scenerio, there is a possiblity of a peaceful transition
    to a secular government, although it is not likely that it will happen.
                                                     
    In the second scenerio, millions of people will die in a war.
    
    Do you consider an Arab life to be worth as much as a Jewish life?
    
    				Paul
                           

The first wave of immigrants to Israel were Europeans, with European
sensibilities and values.  The recent immigrants are from the Middle East.
It seems reasonable to suspect that the recent Jewish immigrants share
many of the attitudes and opinions of their Arabic ex-countrymen. 

To the extent that that is true, Israel may well change from a European
country one that is essentially identical to its neighbours, except for
the character of the state religion. 

Martin.

I guess I can't stop myself from throwing at least $0.02 in, and drawing
some fire....  If you must attack this, please attack these issues,
not me.

Kahane is a very interesting person.  Ten years ago, I would have been
one of his severest critics. But, I have come to several realizations.

You may think that you revile Kahane's proposals. But first, you must 
hear him in person, or read his writings directly.  You will find him 
UNBELIEVEABLY misquoted in the press.

It is exceedingly easy to make charges of "Nazi-ism" of "Fascism", and so on.
It is not so clear how to effectively deal with very difficult social problems.
It is essential that you make your judgements after examining some 
first-hand information.

Kahane will meet with you. I know; he met with me for an hour in Jerusalem.
I absolutely "blitzed" him with verbal attacks.  But I also listened
to what he had to say.

You may not like it, but Kahane has his finger on -- and is opening publicly --
some EXTREMELY SENSITIVE, SERIOUS problems for Israel.  And NO ONE ELSE IS
WILLING TO DO SO.  I don't care about Kahane personally.  But I DO care a 
lot about many of the issues he's talking about.

Here is only one.  It is not intended as a "flame".  It is intended to look
at a real problem:

	   It is of the UTMOST PRIORITY for Israel to continue to exist
	   as a Jewish state.

	   Not as a "secular democracy" in the usual sense of the word.

	   I mean it that way: a JEWISH state.

	   The Torah aside (THAT's a whole discussion in itself...):
	   Have we not learned anything from the lessons of World War II,
	   from the progroms, from the Inquisition, from ..... (you name it)?
	   (I forget exactly where I read this...but at one time or another
	   in history the Jews have been thrown out of every country in the
	   world with the exception of the United States.)

	   One thing Kahane is reviled for is raising the extremely
	   sensitive reality that the world (and many Israelis and American 
	   Jews) would rather not deal with:  ISRAEL IS A HOMELAND FOR JEWS.
	   IT IS A COUNTRY THAT THE JEWS WILL NOT GET THROWN OUT OF, AS LONG
	   AS IT REMAINS A HOMELAND FOR JEWS.  If it ever becomes a "secular
	   democracy" with an Arab majority, it WILL be yet another
	   country that the Jews have been thrown out of. And that's a FACT.
	   Do you understand that this is exactly what many Arabs - probably
	   a majority - want for Israel? Perhaps, in 1948, people were
	   more idealistic.  History has proven them WRONG.

	   Kahane asks you:  Is this what YOU want for the Jews?
	   Or do you not care enough?  Would you rather give up your
	   Jewishness and assimilate fully? That's a choice many are taking.

Ask yourself:  Where were the waiting, accepting arms of the rest of the 
world (including the US) during and after W. W. II?

	   The answer to the question is: Nowhere to be found.  ISRAEL is the
	   ONLY EXISTING answer.

I agree -- this IS uncomfortable.  So please propose a SOLUTION! The problem 
is getting RAPIDLY WORSE as a function of time. If we do nothing, we WILL 
lose Israel as our homeland. This problem will NOT "go away".

	   If you don't agree with Kahane, great. But please join the
	   discussion and propose concrete ways, more to your liking, that will
	   preserve Israel as the Jewish State.

I heard Meir Kahane speak some years ago.  He is a spellbinding orator.  
There is no question in my mind that what he appeals to are emotions of 
pride and anger.  He exhorted the audience to stand up for our own 
self-respect, to show by action that we will never again march into the
ovens of the enemy.

As magnetic as he is, the man is a demagogue and a racist.  His goals of
an Arab-free Greater Israel are contrary to the ideals of an open and
pluralistic society.  The means he advocates are thuggery at best.
I am appalled and frightened by his tremendous appeal among Israeli youth.

There is something childishly satisfying in turning around and doing to
our enemies what they have been doing to us, but it negates whatever it is
that makes us special.  Golda Meir said "I can forgive the Arabs for killing
our children, but I cannot forgive them for turning our children into
killers."  We don't need one of our own to turn our children into killers.

Kahane is a dangerous man.  He ought to be recognized as a threat to freedom
everywhere.

David Ellis -- Secure Systems Group -- LTN2-2/C08 -- DTN 226-6784 

    re: .10
    
    Don, I understand fully the point that you are trying to get across,
    but I think that you are misunderstanding a few things.  Yes, we
    could have a "racially pure" Israel, i.e., a land without the presence
    of any minorities, but it wouldn't be a Jewish state.  In this I
    mean that any of the precepts that Judaism and our culture are based
    on would not be present in such a state(reference Jeremiah for what
    I am talking about).
    
    Realistically, if Israel would expel it's Arab citizens to the
    surrounding countries, then the state of war would be guaranteed
    to exist into the next generation's lifetime, as it already guaranteed
    for our's(sorry, but that's the way it's going to be).  
    
    Contrary to common perceptions amongst Jews in the diaspora, there
    were forced expulsions of non-combative Arabs in 1948.  Not all
    the Arabs were drawn away from the land by the radio broadcasts
    of the mufti.  The movie "Hirbet Chiza" which was shown on Israeli
    TV some years ago recreated one of these expulsions, it caused quite
    a controversy as I recall.  So Kahane isn't talking about anything
    new tactically, he might ask himself what Israel gained from those
    actions.
    
    Israelis in 1948 weren't so "idealistic" as you picture them.  They
    spent years living with a hostile Arab population, fought battles
    with them, experienced the pogroms of 1929, '36, and '39.
    
    The real solution to guaranteeing the Jewishness of the state lies
    in the law of the return.  Only substantial immigration will guarantee
    a Jewish majority in Israel.
    
    David

    Meir Kahane proposes a solution to the problem of Israel's survival.
    I have many problems with his solution:
    
    I don't think it will work.  If the Arabs were forced to leave,
    they would try to come back.  Israel would be fighting a war against
    an enemy with superior numbers and resources.  Time will be on the
    side of the Arabs, as it is now.
              
    If a war was fought now, Israel would probably be able to win because
    of it's technical advantage.  I feel that advantage is eroding, and
    that scares me because I am afraid that Israel will provoke a war now
    in order to destroy for a while the Arab ability to attack.  I am
    also scared because the obvious solution to the refugee problem is
    to kill them all (and, by inference all the arabs in Israel, who
    under Kahane's plans might become refugees) before they can obtain
    enough weapons and technology to defeat Israel.
    
    All this begs a bigger question - What are we willing to pay for
    Israel?  It's nice to say that Israel must remain a Jewish state,
    and point to history for reasons.  But the reality, today, is that
    keeping it a JEWISH state may mean killing Arabs - Lots of Arabs.
    
    Can you justify killing a million Arabs to save a million Jews?
    How about killing two million?  How many to keep the state of Israel
    Jewish?  These are not rhetorical questions - they are the kind
    of things Israel's leaders may have to decide in coming years.
    
    Kahane's answer seems to be "As many Arabs as is necessary to keep
    Israel Jewish".
    
    I can't accept that answer.  My upbringing, my JEWISH upbringing,
    won't allow me to accept that answer.  If mass murder of Jews is
    wrong, then mass murder of Arabs is wrong.
    
    My solution?  I would try for peace with Jordan, Lebanon (if a
    government can be discerned), even Syria.  Even if it involves
    giving back some land.  Then if Israel fails, it will be an honorable
    failure, and Jews can go back to being "A light unto the nations".
    And if it succeeds, Israel will be a state living up to the highest
    of ideals.
    
    You could argue that I am dreaming, but my dream has at least as
    much chance of success as Kahane's; and if it fails the costs will
    not be as great.
    
    Kahane is WRONG.  His methods have always been wrong, and will always
    be wrong.  Next time you listen to him, whenever he says "Arabs" or
    "Jews", replace it with "People".  Then see how good it sounds.
    
    				Paul
    

    Yes, Kahane has identified a real problem.  In a rather weird sort
    of way, only loosely hinged to reality.
    
    Israel could retain a Jewish majority forever if there were a separate
    state in which Palestinian Arabs could have citizenship.  There
    ain't one today; pre-1967 Jordan tried, but the Hashemite monarchy
    is not Palestinian and didn't cut it.  The Palestinians don't want
    it back, either.
    
    Keeping the occupied territories guarantees minority status for
    Jews.  Kahane invokes the concept of "lebensraum" (sp?) and says
    Israel must keep them.  If one drops that notion, and accepts a
    scenario for peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian Arab homeland,
    then the demographics will not be a problem.
    
    Achieving "peaceful coexistence" is the toughest nut to crack, but
    it's the only long-term solution.

Kahane has built a long chain of argument demonstrating the necessity
of choosing between 2 extreme outcomes: national suicide (letting the
Arabs stay) or national moral degeneration (deporting legitimate residents).

Look, when a car dealer says "either you sell your first-born son
so you can buy this Porsche, OR you'll die the next time you take
your 20-year-old heap out on the highway", don't you say "Whoaaa
there must be  some other choices".

Kahane bases his chain of argument on statistics about the Arabs current
birth rate.  I would like to know where he got his degree in demographics;
or what past social predictions of his have come true, that we should
all jump at the chance to buy in to his extremely dubious 'models'.

For example, in most populations, as income level increases, birth
rate decreases.  Also, birth rates as high as the Palestinians' are 
generally thought to be maintainable for a limited period of time, and
there is evidence that they are decreasing.  Israeli Jews, for example,
and Jews in the generation after the Holocaust, had interesting blips
in their birth rates.  These things change. There's no reason why the
Arabs' won't.  If Kahane is telling you 
that decisions as serious (to understate by a long shot) as the one
described above should be based on LINEAR EXTRAPOLATIONS OF current
birth rates, what in the world makes you want to believe him?

Although I don't for a moment suppose that there is ever going to
be an 'independent (that is, from Jordan or Syria) Palestinian State'
on the West Bank, alot of the heavily Arab territory will eventually
be given back to Jordan/Syria.  That would be one way of taking care of the
danger of Arab population overtaking Jewish population...interesting
that when Kahane considers that option, suddenly he starts to relie
very heavily on Biblical notions of the boundaries of the land.

I also believe that Israel should remain a Jewish state (although I'll
be damned if I have heard a good precise definition of 'Jewish' that
I think most Jews and Israelis (no good forgetting them...it's their 
country too) agree on....)

Still, there is a long way from accepting that, to accepting Kahane's
notion of protecting the state from possible future trouble at any
price.

Finally, wasn't Kahane the guy who had all kinds of interesting predictions
about the future of American Jewry and Judaism....according to his
predictions it's a wonder there are any of us guys left in this country
anymore.

>For example, in most populations, as income level increases, birth
>rate decreases.  Also, birth rates as high as the Palestinians' are 
>generally thought to be maintainable for a limited period of time, and
>there is evidence that they are decreasing.  Israeli Jews, for example,
>and Jews in the generation after the Holocaust, had interesting blips
>in their birth rates.  These things change. There's no reason why the
>Arabs' won't.
	
	Do you have any numbers to support the claim?

>Although I don't for a moment suppose that there is ever going to
>be an 'independent (that is, from Jordan or Syria) Palestinian State'
>on the West Bank, alot of the heavily Arab territory will eventually
>be given back to Jordan/Syria.  That would be one way of taking care of the
>danger of Arab population overtaking Jewish population...interesting
>that when Kahane considers that option, suddenly he starts to relie
>very heavily on Biblical notions of the boundaries of the land.

	Are you willing to give Jerusalem back to Jordan?

>I also believe that Israel should remain a Jewish state...

So do I.  But calling Kahane names will not solve the problems.  He 
offers his solutions, which, in my opinion, based or a correct 
evaluation of reality, not just wishful thinking.  What are yours?

Leo

     re .16 et al.:
     
     Yes he offers solutions.  And the foundations of his solutions,
     their very bedrock, are bigotry and intolerance.
     
     Sorry, but I can't go along with the "ends justifes the means" crowd.
     Do I have an alternative solution?  No, not one that is feasible
     today.  But not having a good answer is no excuse for turning to an
     answer that is morally and ethically repugnant to Jewish teaching and
     human sensibility.
     
     --Mr Topaz 

    re: .16
    
    Leo, in all respect, I think you overlooked some important points
    in Kathy Rosenbluh's response.  What makes you think that she was
    advocating giving Jerusalem "back"(they never "had" it) to Jordan.
    Outside of posssibly the Communist party in Israel, there aren't
    many on the left in Israel who would advocate giving back East
    Jerusalem to Jordan or any Arab governing body.
    
    Whether we like it or not, or whether they had been in the majority
    or minority, the Arabs have always lived in Israel, and there just
    has to be a modus vivendi for living together in the same space.
    I used to be a sponsor of the two-state idea, but since I have realized
    that the political leadership of the Palestinians has not changed
    in philosophy from the Mufti(Husseini), the only Palestinian state
    that I could support is a completely demilitarized one.  So my
    perspective is not so "idealistic" as you might paint it.
    
    Listening to the advice of a demogogue from Brooklyn will only send
    the situation into an endless vortex of more blood than we are already
    programmed for.  I stated it before, and I'll say it again, the
    only guarantee for a Jewish(yes, I wonder what this means sometimes
    also)state lies in increased immigration.
    
    David
    
     
    
    

    Re.17

    To what Jewish 'teachings' do you refer ?

    Michael

     re .19:
     
     I can't believe that you're asking for support of a respect-for-
     others ethic.
     
     For starters, try Love thy neighbor as thyself.
     
     --Mr Topaz

    I am very much interested of what our friends in Israel think about
    this whole situation and about Kahane in particular?  After all,
    they are the people affected the most.
    
    Leo

    Just TALK about Kahane and a fight breaks out!

			Fred

    I must have missed something - has a fight broken out?
    
    I must admit, though, that I too can't make any sense out of 235.23
    either.  That someone on the E-net does not like someone else on
    the E-net, and that this conference is members-only have no effect
    that I can see on Kahane or his policies.
    
    Although I have heard the idea of removing the Arabs from Israel,
    I still don't know where they are to be removed to, or how it will
    keep the Arabs from attacking and eventually defeating Israel.
    
    				Paul
    
    (I'm going on vacation - See you all in 2 weeks)
    

    	I have a cousin in Tel Aviv who once said, only partially
    cynically, that the Arab nations are missing the point about Israel.
    He said that all they have to do is to make peace unconditionally,
    open their borders, and accept Jews and Israelis as equals in the
    Middle East.  He said that the Jews of Israel would rapidly spread
    out throughout that part of the world and resume their former roles
    in the Arab countries as a mercantile and professional elite.  Very
    quickly Israel would cease to exist as a majority Jewish state.
    All this would come with no bloodshed, no cost, good will throughout
    the world, etc.  (He based this, at least in part, on the fact that
    in Israel the Jews are abandoning blue-collar jobs to the Arabs.)
    
    	This same person is always trying to convince me that he remains
    in Israel because he sees it as the only guaranteed way his children
    will be Jews.  Then again, I think that Tel Aviv is more secular
    and cosmopolitan, in general, than Jerusalem, and Kahane's approach
    has a strong element of religious fanaticism about it.
    
    	Anyway, I agree with whoever said it above--there has to be
    some solution between the outrageous extremes of Kahane or no state.
    
    	By the way, does anybody have any information, documentation,
    or statistics about the forced deportations in 1948?  I've been
    absorbing a certain amount of abuse on the subject in SOAPBOX. 
    (OK, OK, so I get what I deserve for stepping in that ****.)
    
    			David

    re:.27
    There's another corrolary.
    
    If the Arabs simply started ignoring Israel, the Israelis would
    argue themselves to death.  Something about "absent a common enemy..."
    
    There's been some evidence of this lately.  (see .0-.27)
         fred

    Ha, very true Fred.

    Re:.26 by YOUNG::YOUNG

	Let me explain, you see Mr. Topaz came in saying something
    towards the end that Jews should respect their neighbors
    (feeling/property/etc) and that we, perhaps, are being
    a little hypocrital; I was pointing out that even
    he, yes HE, can be accused of the same violation of
    humanity.

Just some information about the person himself (including his supporters):

 o  Almot always when there are some people attacked (e.g. by terrorists),
    you may find Kahane and his people. It's easy to "play with" emotions
    of somebody whose realtive(s) where attcked/killed.

 o  I wouldn't dare quoting here what Kahane and his supporters call some
    of our ministers and Knesset's member, the president also.

 o  Most of the violence by Kahane's supporters has been against 'jews'
    who they think are not on 'their side'.

Now, if I would want to hurt the state of Israel I would vote for Kahane.
In fact I think I heard some of the Arabs did so. My solution? I don't
think I can form one here and immediately. Just some parts of it:

 -  In our world it's not enough to exist. You have to have economic
    relations with others (from which both sides will benefit). You need
    to have projects on both sides, so everybody has things to lose.

 -  Are you worried about birth rate etc.?  Why won't you come here?

Nitsan

    		Hello from sunny Israel.
    	Such a little person and so many answers . This proves that
    he gets the attantion he wants. That is the problem with us. 
    	We talk a lot about things which are minor in their importance
    because of the ELCTRONIC MEDIA. Believe me that he dosen't bother
    most of us in Israel and no chance he'll ever get too much power
    in our politices life. 
    
                         ruven caspi

    
    I would tend to agree that our friends across the pond are inflating
    Kahane into something that he's not.
    As Nitsan correctly stated if you're worried about the birthrate
    (because it definitely seems you're worried about the politics)
    then your place is in Israel. However I would agree that it's easier
    to be incensed or supportive from Boston...

    (I'm back from vacation)
    
    I don't think my moving to Israel would solve the "problem" of the
    differing birthrates.  I don't think that any amount of Jewish
    immigration would make a big difference - at best, it would just
    postpone the time the Arabs are a majority by a few years.
    
    I also don't think that the solution is for all Israeli Jews to
    have six kids.  All it would do is increase Israel's population
    beyond what could be supported.
    
    Here's a more controversial statement:
    
    I belive that if all Jews made aliah now that it would be a bad
    thing for Israel and for Judiasm.
    
    				Paul
    

    Paul,
    
    First of all, Fred's note (#242) could probably be the best place
    for this discussion.
    
    I think ANY amount of Jewish immigration would make a qualitative
    difference to both Israel and Judaism.  In particular, immigration
    from the developed countries of the West, where Jews often possess
    the skills necessary for a modern society. 
    
    The question is not whether we can outdo the Arabs at reproduction
    (actually the talk of the Arab birthrate is a little exaggerated,
    according to latest statistics it will peak and then decline), but
    what the future of the Jewish state will be.
    
    No, all the Jews in the world shouldn't make aliyah, but there is
    certainly room in Israel for at least seven million more Jews, and
    this is according to Arye Eliav, a former planner, and somebody
    known for his pro-Palistinian state views.
    
    David

    I don't think this belongs in note 242 - that is a discussion about
    how to take a long-term visit to Israel, not a discussion of the
    implications of the Arab birthrate.
    
    I think that the wide diversity of Jews is good for Judiasm, and
    that geographical diversity is part of that.
    
    I also think that Israel needs support from Jews around the world,
    to influence their governments and to supply the money that is
    necessary, at least in the short term.
    
    And I think that Judiasm is most likely to survive if it flourishes
    both inside and outside of Israel.
    
    My sister and her husband will probably make aliah next year.  For
    myself, although I guess I could see living in a Moshav, I don't
    see it happening.  While I love the people, the politics of the
    religion and the region would keep me from being comfortable there.
    The situation may change, although certainly not if Kahane's thinking
    becomes popular.  Perhaps that's why I'm so strongly against him.
    
    				Paul
    
    
    

    I can't wait until I can't my keyboard back so I can start noting
    at home, this is one discussion I'd like to get into in more depth,
    but time constraints here at work hamper my thought processes and
    produce hurried responses.
    
    You may want to note Paul, that in my reply I stated that I didn't
    think that EVERY Jew should make aliyah, but that there was a need
    for many more immigrants.  Yes Diaspora Jews can make valuable
    contributions, but if we are talking about monetary contributions,
    well I have an opinion on that.  As much as money is important,
    no matter how much is contributed, money dries up, but a person's
    physical and intellectual contributions don't.
    
    Although I am officially an "aliyah failure", whatever that means,
    I would definitely consider going back again.  Of course since coming
    back I got married to a woman who hasn't been there since 1965,
    and who is extremely close to her family.  Well these are my issues
    to work out.
    
    I would just like to see the North American Jewish communities add
    the issue of aliyah to their agendas, and give it as much seriousness
    as they do other issues.
    
    David

    My first entry into Bagels, and a dated note.  
    
    I can't help but feel what Hillel would have thought of Kahane.  
    
    To see our heritage corrupted so is sad.  To follow the teachings
    of Kahane is to cease being a Jew.
   

    I've heard that Kahane's party has been disqualified from the
    elections.  
    
    On one hand, I'm glad that the Israeli government will not
    be forced build a coalition with them.
    
    On the other hand eliminating a party from the elections is a
    scary thing for a "democracy".
    
    				Paul
    

    Re.-1
    Paul,I disagree.I think that Kach disqualification,hard as it is,was
    a smart move.I really don't know how much you know about thier
    "idiology",but to me who lives here it sounds scarry (sp?).Kach
    is working on emotions (every time something happens here,like a
    bomb or a murder-people tend to "go for Kach"),and I hate to think
    what happens if "chas vechalila" something like this will happen
    just before the elections.Then they will really get votes,and THAT
    I dare saying,will be a danger to democracy.
    Hurts,but so true.
    

.38>    I've heard that Kahane's party has been disqualified from the
.38>    elections.  

The Elections Committee did disqualify Kach, but the party announced that
it would appeal the decision to the High Court.  The appeal will be heard
by a larger panel of judges than is usual, an indication that the Court
considers this a very important case.

Motions were filed to disqualify various other parties, but all of these
failed.  Most of the motions were defeated unanimously or almost so, but
the Progessive List for Peace survived by only one vote, and there were
several last-minute switches on that one.

    Re: .38
    
    I hardly believe that disqualifying Kach would hurt democracy: I
    wish that democracy would have been hurt in 1933 and Germany would
    not have elected Hitler as Kanzler... ( I am not implying that
    Kahane == Hitler; the Kach party is fascist enough not to be
    qualifyed as a democratic party and entitled to participate in the
    elections as a "par inter pares")
    
    The point is that we cannot for the sake of an abstract ideal of
    democracy entitle Kach to participate in the elections as a "Kosher" 
    party. I believe democracy has the right and the duty to preserve
    itself.                         
    
    Juan-Carlos

    Of course disqualifying Kach hurts democracy.  In a pure democracy
    anyone can run and perhaps be elected.  However, there are reasons
    for not having a pure democracy.  The US is a Republic, and Israel
    has a parlimentary system.
    
    I understand the good reasons for disqualifying Kach.  I think zero
    is the correct number of seats for Kahane's party to hold.  But I
    also get a little nervous; today Kach, tomorrow the communists,
    then maybe the liberals...  Eventually you have a one-party state,
    and we all know about those.
    
    The ability to disqualify a party is a powerful weapon.  Perhaps
    in this case it's use was justified.  But I am always concerned
    when governments use powerful weapons against their people.  (This
    could have something to do with my opinion of most governments).
    
    				Paul
    

	re: -1

	You made good points


	When you support democracy, you automatically bestow on people
	responsibility.

	Democracy does not guarantee that a leader will be good but 
	only that it will be the choice of the people.

	These are the ground rules in democracy. 

	Giving anybody the power to disqualify political parties
	is very DANGEROUS. I see this as much more dangerous than
	permitting somebody like Hitler to get elected. If people
	in this country wanted Khomeini as President then he should
	be permitted to be President.

	If they wanted me as ... naaah, that would really be going
	overboard :-)

	Darryl

    
    	>>Democracy does not guarantee that a leader will be good but 
	>>only that it will be the choice of the people.

    Certainly and obviously--given recent and potential national leaders.  
    However, we put constraints on this choice as it now
    stands.  Our presidents have to be native born Americans and can
    only be elected twice.
	
	>>Giving anybody the power to disqualify political parties
	>>is very DANGEROUS. 
    
    Agreed.  But because it is very dangerous doesn't mean it should
    never occur.  I believe that limiting free speech is very
    dangerous; however, I believe certain limitations are still possible:
    e.g., the proverbial, yelling, "Fire," in a crowded theatre or giving
    strategic military information to an enemy during wartime.
    
    
        >>I see this as much more dangerous than
	>>permitting somebody like Hitler to get elected. 
    
   I certainly would have supported not allowing the Nazi party on 
    the ballot back in 1932(?), if it would
    have thwarted Hitler - would have prevented him from overthrowing
    the democratic Weimar republic and would have prevented him from
    wrecking the havoc on the world that he later did.
    

    

	Hitler was able to wreak so much damage because he was
	popular and had strong grassroots support among the
	European population. What if he had died, would it
	really change things. Some people say yes others say no.
	The only thing we can do is look back and say what if.

	My MAIN concern is who is going to make this decision. 
	Somebody or some group of people will have to play "god"
	and protect me for my own good. People who are usually
	eager to take this assume this "responsibility" are usually
	more repressive than the people they want to move against.

	How would you like me to announce that people who you
	support for public office are not fit so I tell you
	that you have an alternate choices that I have approved.
	You might object and I say, hey, what about Hitler and you
	say that's absurd and I say that's your opinion but I
	have facts to back it up which you don't see and I have
	been appointed with this special power to help protect
	you.

	When you approve such ideas, there are very enormous
	implications for the concept of democracy. You give the
	opponents of democracy a BIG LOOP HOLE to destroy democracy.
	Even Hitler can rationalize having this special power for
	the good of the nation.

	The source of the problem in the Weimar Republic was not
	Hitler but the darkside of human nature that can engulf
	society. It just pointed out that even if that society
	is the most technologically advanced, most highly educated,
	and seemingly the most civilized, it does not mean they can't
	be any less barbaric than the so called "uncivilized savages."

	I rather take my chances with the voters even if they decide
	to elect Idi Amin. I find giving other people this special
	power an even worse alternative. I am a firm believer in
	giving people what they want. I seriously doubt you really
	prevent evil things from happening but probably just postpone
	and make them even worse especially since you are dealing with
	complex situations. Sorta like controlling the weather. You
	may make it rain today but what you cause later on may be even
	worse.

	Now, if we can agree that I will get this special power, hey,
	i'll go along with that although I'd rather be omnipotent. :-)

	Darryl

    We have been discussing about the possibility that banning Kahane
    might affect the democratic character of Israel. Every society has
    the right to preserve its own continuity. I believe even the U.S.
    has found to be in the interest of its preservation to ban the Ku- 
    Klux-Klan and similar organizations.
    
    The banning of Kahane's Kach party was not decided by someone playing
    god, but there was an Elections Comitee, with representatives of
    all the parties that had representatives in the previous Knesset
    (this includes Kach) and by an apalling majority Kach was voted
    out of the Knesset. This National Elections Comitee is in charge
    of supervising the elections and guarantying that the play is fair.
    The members of the Ve'idat Habechirot - Elections Comitee - are
    members of the Kenesset and they represent proportionally their
    parties as they were voted to the previous Knesset. As such they
    represent the people of Israel and as representatives their vote
    represents the "vox populi".
    
    In my opinion, the banning of Kahane is then a perfectly democratic 
    decission.
                                                 
    By the way, the decission of the Elections Comitee can be contested
    by apealing to the Supreme Court, and there is now where Kach is
    asking for a 2nd. oportunity.
    
    Juan-Carlos Kiel
    

	So the political majority can ban the political minority if 
	they deem that political minority a threat to the "continuity". 

	Still a dangerous practice to introduce into a democracy.

	Darryl

       re .45/.47:
       
       Darryl --
       
       Suppose that some voters in a bunch of states -- for example,
       maybe 12 or 14 states in the South -- decided that they wanted to
       propose a measure that would allow these states to secede from the
       US and set up their own government, one where the 13th and 15th
       amendments (especially) to the US Constitution would not be
       included.  
       
       Which is more dangerous to a democracy -- allowing such proposals
       to be voted on, or not allowing such proposals to be voted on?
       
       --Mr Topaz

	We are talking about the freedom and right to be represented by
	whoever we want. 

	The most important safeguards we have against abusive leaders
	especially against the politically powerless which is usually
	the case in democracies, is things like the Bill of Rights.

	Let's talk reality. If Kahane was so popular, there is nothing
	nobodies going to do to prevent him and similar minded people
	from taking power. Historically, people like Kahane have always
	engendered strong support in democracies. Kahane appeals to
	the hate and fear within Israel but so did people like Menachem
	Begin. Announcing that Begin is not fit for office would not
	have done anything but postpone or intensify the situation.
	People have to work out their own problems even if it means that
	I may think the leader is a demagogue.

	Darryl

    re: -1
    
    Comparing Menachem Begin to kahane is a gross insult, although in
    this case I think it comes from misunderstanding the Israeli political
    scene and society.
    
    Begin and the Likud represent nothing more than the conservative
    strand of political thought.  They may be for holding on the
    territories, etc., but noone supports the outright racist ideology
    of kahane's.
    
    David

    Democracy is not a simple matter of letting elections decide everything.
    
    The ideological underpinning of the American political system was
    described by Calhoun in rather specific terms.  There are different
    interest groups to be respected; each group, while achieving an
    internal majority, must be represented in an overall consensus.
    No group should be locked out by simple majorities; consensus and
    consent of all groups are most important.
    
    Israel's system is rather immature.  It has been paralyzed by minor
    parties who eternally hold the balance of power.  In theory, this
    should support the democratic consent.  But in practice, it is so
    easy for groups to get represented that they do not need to become
    part of a national consensus; instead, they work to prevent it.
    
    Hence Kanane's exclusion can be said to promote democracy, because
    his faction is sufficiently distant from any possible national 
    consensus that his inclusion in government would distract from
    achievement of consensus.  In other words, tiny parties screw up
    the works, and tiny loony parties, if granted representation (without
    their needing to compromise their way into a larger party), can
    be particularly harmful.
          government_major

    Perhaps an Israeli noter can throw some light on this subject by
    describing how the Israeli election system works.  I seem to remember
    a move to increase the percentage of the popular vote that must be
    obtained to get members into the Knesset.

	You say including tiny or "loony" parties may prevent consensus.
	Excluding them prevents true representation. I believe that
	under many parliamentarian systems that if your party gets
	5 percent of the vote, you can get representation. From a
	practical point of view, you have to have some minimum limit.

	How much vote should any small party receive before they get
	to be represented? Rules should apply equally to all parties
	to me, you and even Kahane.

	Politicians who use the hate and fear of the population to
	achieve political power all come from the same basic substance.

	If you take a honest look at the people who make up political
	mainstream parties on this globe, in general, extremism has 
	always been inherent aspect except that since it is in vogue, 
	it is not considered extremism. Kahane may have aspects of 
	extremism that may not be in vogue at this moment.

	Some people outside of South Africa may see apartheid as extreme
	but to the overwhelming white population within, it is mainstream and
	considered necessary for their security and way of life. 

	Darryl

    A couple of nights ago, while "twirling" my TV remote control, I
    spotted Kahane on what turned out to be the Morton Downey, Jr. show.
    This is a show almost exclusively reserved for "loonies" (although
    at times it does have more rational people on).
    What I found interesting while Kahane "ranted and raved" was that he
    got very indignant about being called a LIAR. Not more than 30 seconds
    he later said to an Arab member of the discussion, that if he denied
    Kahane's allegations then he would be a liar. I found this ability
    to fume at the mouth and then commit the same "crime" to be
    enlightening about Kahane's personanlity.

	"Looney" people already are in control. Reagan and Bush's 
	platform comes from the mindset of the Morton Downey audience. 
	If we prevented "looney" people from holding office, that would 
	exclude too many candidates and leave "democracy" in the hands 
	of a few who seem to know better. I'll take my chances with the 
	loons. 

	Darryl

	p.s. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    re .48, allowing a vote on secession and slavery:
    
    It's more dangerous to not let people vote on the issue.
    
    If you don't let them vote, the "bad guys" will be able to
    claim that they would have won, while if there is a vote and
    the bad guys lose, everyone knows they lost.  Indeed, if a
    vote is denied, they might just secede anyway, thinking that
    they are more popular than they actually are.
    
    Only if they vote and win, is there a bad result.  And if they
    win an election, then it's likely they would win a civil war.
    Civil wars are even worse than seccession.
    
    Further, if they win this election, it's quite likely that they
    might lose the next one, while once you let people fight wars
    they tend to be unwilling to lose by the ballot what was won
    with so much blood.
    
    In short, denying free speech, especially political speech, is
    not only morally wrong but pragmatically dangerous.
    
    				-John Bishop

    
    I agree.  In a democracy, we can have the luxury of allowing the
    crazy groups, be they Kahane's JDL or the American Nazi Party, to
    exist.  We hope they will never take power, and rely on all the
    "normal" folks to never let the percentages get high enough.
    In Israel, their belief in basic existence overrides the luxury
    of letting loonies get in the act.  They're too small, and as we
    found in the USA and pre-WW2 Europe, some people know how to play
    up the Hate and Fear game.  I don't know if I agree with this -
    but that certainly disqualifies them as a democracy.  
        
    Darryl is RIGHT.  There are plenty of looney people in control of 
    the USA.  And with the self-righteous arrogance that the USA
    displays to the rest of the world growing, and continuing to
    grow if Frank Burns (8^() gets elected, we could see some dangerous
    nationalistic outbursts in the US.  We may see examples of
    serious intrusions on our privacy.  But we have to take our
    chances here.  Israel has NOT been around long enough and feel
    secure enough to take such chances - therefore, we *really* can't
    call them a democracy.
    
    Israel is a police state in one sense, and a democracy in another
    sense.  If you are an Arab in Israel, the racism is overtly apparent.
    Your life expectancy is lower, and that life isn't necessarily worth
    living.  As far as you're concerned, you live in a police state.
    If you are an Israeli non-practicing Jew, you can debate in the street 
    with an Israeli Orthodox Jew over whether the stores should be closed
    on Saturday, and both of you are entitled to yell at each other
    and call each other names, without anyone going to jail, assuming
    a fist-fight doesn't ensue.  To you, that's democracy.
    
    In the international political arena, Israel is considered a police
    state by most countries (I said "most countries", *not* "most American
    Jews").  Banning Meyer Kahane is merely another example of this, 
    to them...  So it merely depends on WHICH side of the fence you're
    on.

                                                      .steve.

	The Israel Supreme Court just announced their verdict on
	Kahane's appeal.  They ruled that his Kach party will not
	be allowed to participate in this election.

	This is probably good news for Isreal in general, but most
	of all for the other right wing parties (particularly Tehiya)
	which stand to gain the most from Kahane's disqualification.

re: < Note 235.46 by TAVIS::JUAN >

>	I believe even the U.S.
>	has found to be in the interest of its preservation to ban the Ku- 
>	Klux-Klan and similar organizations.
    
Since when? There are no banned *groups* in America - merely banned *actions*.

The only action against the KKK or the American Nazis occurs when they break the
law.

To do otherwise is to abridge freedom of expression. (Except for "clear and
present danger", as in shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre).

--axe--

    re .57:
    > If you are an Arab in Israel, the racism is overtly apparent.
    > Your life expectancy is lower, and that life isn't necessarily worth
    > living.

    How does the life expectancy of an Arab living is Israel compare with
    that of an Arab living in Jordan?  Iraq?  Beirut?

    In response to .55's response to my .54.
    I was only commenting on Kahane and not the restrictions on any
    political party. I agree that in a democracy you must NOT do that.
    However, there is not one true democracy on the planet(including
    the US -- actually a REPUBLIC), so that argument is not completely
    applicable. In fact there have been "banned" parties in the US.
    The Communist party which for many years was legal was in fact banned
    because of it's stand on changing our mode of government. 
    
    While Kahane does appear to have a substantial following he is too
    close to Hilter for the majority to go along with. As a result many
    feel that restricting his activities and power is the only sane way 
    from falling into the abyss. Whether this is right or wrong will
    depend on whether or not it is tried again to restrict the activities
    and power of others the majority is afraid of.
    
    As to our goverment being made up of loonies I wouldn't say they
    are all loonies, but then I've been wrong before.

    re .61
    
    As far as I know, even the Communists were never banned in the U.S.
    It may have been illegal for them to be employees of the Federal
    government, but I believe they have been able to run for office
    (and, very rarely, when elected, take it, though I can't remember
    an election which was won by a Communist of any flavor).  The
    Nazis and the KKK have never been banned, either.

    If Kahane is not acceptable to the majority, then he's not a
    danger when he's public--as long as he's public he's likely to
    be losing support, not gaining it.  Force him underground and
    you give him a legitimate gripe, and remove the incentive to
    be legal.
    
    The banning is a mistake, and an act by Israel which reduces the
    freedom of its citizens.  I can't approve, and I doubt the rest
    of the "free" world will.
            
    			-John Bishop

    In the United States, a party that can't garner a plurality of the
    vote in some constituency doesn't get any seats.  (This is a "fine
    British tradition".)  This creates the two-party system:  One united
    party on either side can gain the plurality over two other parties
    who are collectively larger but individually smaller. 
    
    Proportional representation allows smaller parties to play along.
    In some countries (Germany, I believe) the minimum is 5% of the
    vote.  In Israel, it's absolute -- get 1% of the vote and you're
    an MK.  This is pretty easy, so there's little incentive to create
    larger parties -- if you're at the extreme, you don't need to moderate
    your views.  The mainstream parties in Israel are however combined
    into two large alliances (Likud and Labor), moderating the views
    of their own constituent paries.  But of course, those are the "middle
    of the road" parties, so they aren't bending their views too far
    to enter into alliances.
    
    I have met the person who ran for US Congress on the Communist Party
    line against Tip O'Neill.  It's definitely legal.  But of course,
    while she probably got over 1% of the vote (who else was running?),
    it was strictly symbolic.