Conference taveng::bagels

RE:-1,

	Dick that is your right.  But, Karen has those same rights.

	Good day.
	-Sultan

       I for one find Karen refreshing.  I mean I think this
       conference would be kind of boring without some *strongly*
       opposing poiints of view.  A jewish issues conference could
       too easily degenerate into everyone agreeing on a knee-jerk
       "Israel right or wrong" and "we can never talk to the PLO".
       Here in TAVland especially it's too easy to forget that
       most of the world (or rather most of the world which
       bothers to think about the Middle East at all, which
       probably isn't very much percentagewise) tends to see
       Israel the way Karen does, and it's important to know what
       they are thinking.
       Also, I think a lot of Karen's digs are on-target and give
       us something to think about.  And some of the repartee
       between her and some of our more creative correspondents
       are actually pretty funny.
       I know we aren't supposed to get personal in this
       conference, but I am curious to know more about her.
       Karen, are you Jewish?  Who are Holly and Sweetie (my guess
       is they are your cats, but that's just an idea that popped
       into my head -- I don't know why)?  Do you have strong
       opinions on American politics too?  Are you a regular
       contributor to other conferences?

    Dick,
    
    Don't let stupidity and ignorance get you upset. Just relate to
    those issues which deserve recognition.
    
    Cb.

    re: .2
    
    I happen to agree with Sid's reply.  This notesfile does need a
    designated opposition, otherwise we could spend all out time discussing
    the quality of pastrami.  I don't let Karen's opinions bother me,
    after all Greece, Rome, Spain, Czarist Russia, Joe Stalin, and Adolph
    Hitler couldn't defeat Am Yisrael, and neither will it's present-day
    enemies.
    
    David

    Guys,                                      
                                               
    For more then thirty years I lived in a country (USSR) with government 
    sponsored anti-Semitism which eventually got deeply rooted in the 
    society.  I think after those years it would be stupid of me to let 
    Karen's posting bother me in any way.  I read both soc.culture.jewish 
    and talk.politics.mideast where she is active (or at least used to be).
    I have never been able to agree with her position.  Very often it
    was at the very least rude insensitivity.  Very often it was a
    knee-jerk reaction (something like "What do you mean it is bad?  Just 
    look what Israel does!") no matter whether it has any connection to 
    Israel or not.
                                               
    On the other hand I use her posting as a sourse of info, usually
    documented (even though sometimes irrelevant) and as a "mirror"
    that reflects views of the other side, such as Israel or Zionism
    haters.  I think it is important to "know your enemy".

    Leo Simon

    Re: .0
    
    Holy cow, I called the Germans "malevolent", and you think I am
    saying I think they are good guys?  I express sympathy for
    Amerindians, and this means I have no sympathy for Jews?
    I am criticizing Israeli government policies, and the actions of
    the Israeli military, all of which fly in the face of what I understand
    to be respect for human rights, which Jews as a group have long
    been in the forefront of defending themselves;  distinguish between
    this and "attacking Jews", please.
    
    Re: some other one.
    
    Not Jewish, Danish/American.  S&H are cats.  Yes, active in American
    politics, peace activist.  other conferences:  FELINE,
    ARABIC, COOKS, etc.
    

    I'll join in with Sid & Co.  Karen's contributions are interesting,
    sometimes (but not always) to the point, and generally quite calm.
    
    Now if you _really_ want to see things get hot & heavy, tune in
    to soc.culture.jewish or its offshoot talk.politics.mideast, on
    usenet.  (I only follow s.c.j but lots of stuff is cross-posted,
    though it usually shouldn't be.)  You've got some serious extremes
    and flamage coming from the university environment.  Characters
    like Raif Hijab (wants his homeland back, as it were) and David
    Makowsky (makes Kahane look like a libbural) going at it for round
    upon round.  Remember, these usenet groups have no moderators, and
    anybody can join in.
    
    BAGELS is so calm & orderly by contrast...
           fred

    Fred,
    
    It might be of interest for some people here, over the pond, to
    get information on how one can access the usenet confs. which you
    are mentioning.
    
    Could you make this public?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Chris

    My point was to say that she has a knee-jerk reaction
    that rejects Jewish people's rights to feel the way we feel. After
    a note containing quite a few passionate replies about people
    having very strong feelings about German products for various reasons,
    she comes up with comments that say, to me, "Oh, but you shouldn't feel
    that way. You're not the only ones who have experienced persecution.
    Look at what the X's did to the Y's during the years nnnn to mmmm".
    That seems to me to espouse denial of the validity of one of the
    myriad of things that makes us feel Jewish (and also to minimize
    the Holocaust, a trend I find disturbing). That's what I tried
    to say in my base note. Of course her political comments are welcome.
    It is her persistent implied denial (in my opinion) of our right to feel
    Jewish, however that may manifest itself, that I object to.          
    
    Dick                                     

< Note 478.8 by ULYSSE::LEHKY "I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool" >

    The USENET is a news system which spans much of the world of uucp
    based networking.  The most common way (on VMS, within DEC) to access
    USENET is to have the USENET server on ROLL:: send postings to
    you in the mail.  More information on what is available in ROLL::USENET.

    Hit <select> or KP7 to ADD ENTRY ROLL::USENET

    Gavriel

	re: .0

	When thoughts are censored, thinking dies...

	Not that I like what Karen says, "...but I will defend to the death
	her right to say it" (thank you, Voltaire).

eric

    SET MODERATOR

    This conference is for the discussion of topics of Jewish interest.
    As such, all opinions on these topics and all people with information
    or opinions on these topics are welcome.  However, dragging the
    discussion into personal attack is not welcome.  The displeasure
    that some noters feel because of the opinions expressed by others
    is understandable but that is not and will never be grounds for
    driving anyone from this conference.

    SET NOMODERATOR

    The Moderators

    The problem is that some of the opinions voiced would not suffice
    seeing others driven merely from this  conference, but would like
    to see them driven entirely off the face of the earth.
    
    Cb.

    Re: .9 the right to feel Jewish
    
    I think that there is a common thread in some of my notes, but I
    think it isn't quite the thread you identify.  I see time and time
    again in notes from people defending Israeli actions, no matter
    how horrendous, references back to the historical suffering of the Jews
    as a justification for any actions taken now, even when the actions
    are directed against others.  My reaction is to want to pick people
    up, shake their brains loose a little and say "these are other people
    you are talking about, most of whom weren't even born then, and
    they are suffering too.  For a minute, stop thinking about your
    own suffering and look at what is happening to other people, some
    of it as a result of your actions."  (Apologies for generalizing
    as though I was talking to a homogeneous group, here.) 
    

    Re: talk.politics.mideast
    
    If you want to follow the discussions in full, you need to follow
    t.p.m, since many people post only there and not to either
    soc.culture.jewish nor soc.culture.arabic, regardless of where
    the original message was posted.  I believe that various
    Israeli universities have recently gotten onto BITNET, in which
    case your system administrator can arrange access to the groups
    (I think).
    
    Besides, Eli Posner, of "Jewish women held captive by Arab slave
    ring in West Bank" fame, is back from vacation.  Things should liven
    up again.
    

re: .13

	And that is her right. You cannot, in a public forum, legislate against
	points of view. I dare say, you and Karen will never go out for drinks
	together, but you should respect each other's *right* to an opinion, if
	not the opinion itself.

re: .14

	Karen, you are right in many aspects. But, you tend to go as far in the
	opposite direction. Weak acids and bases, when mixed, boil. Strong acids
	and bases explode. It's like sitting the KKK and Stokely Carmichael at 
	the same table.

	In that vein, try to understand (and take into consideration when noting
	here) the fear, the frustrations and the anger of a people who *are*
	continually persecuted, and whose security concerns get short shrift in
	comparison. "PLO" strikes fear, so does the prospect of having an Israel
	(if at all) with a incredibly narrow waist (which an M-1 tank could do 
	in much less than an hour). Also, understand the frustration of poss-
	ibly losing Jerusalem, where Jews were not permitted before 1967, and
	which is also the center of *their* religion. Also, consider the
	infamous "Zionism is racism" UN resolution and all the other attempted
	condemnations of Israel, held back only by US fiat - and weigh that
	against the total lack of compassion the world holds for Israelis
	killed and maimed by PLO terrorist actions.

	Also, although I'm not sure you have, don't call what the Israelis do
	terrorist. Terrorism is blowing up buses, not reacting to attacks by
	villagers. I do not condone the methods used by the Israelis, but there
	is a vast gap even there between the overkill they use and the PLO's
	cold-blooded murders.

--axe--

Re: .16
    
>    	And that is her right. You cannot, in a public forum, legislate against
>	points of view. I dare say, you and Karen will never go out for drinks
>	together, but you should respect each other's *right* to an opinion, if
>	not the opinion itself.

    I will respect anyones point of view or opinion up to the point 
    where such point of view or opinion propones to negate my (and/or my
    people's or for that matter anyones people's) right to exist. The
    distance between "freedom of speech" and "freedom to act" is too
    close for my comfort.
    
    Cb.
    
    

    Two kind of people. Those who love to disturb the others, and those
    who like to be disturbed.
    
    In any case, take your opponent's irrational opinions with love,
    put them carefully on ice, and let the sun do the rest.
    
    No need to feel down. We can't accept to be down. There is still
    too much to be done: Israel is there to stay, and if someone doubts,
    he has the right to. But if someone tries to 'act' against this
    fact, again, take him by the hand with love... and put him carefully
    on ice.
    
    The sun will do the rest.

    
    >In any case, take your opponent's irrational opinions with love,
    >put them carefully on ice, and let the sun do the rest.
     etc.
    
    I give up.  ???

    Re: .16
    
    I believe that you are correct, in that I probably can't empathize
    totally with that fear.  I do try to keep empathizing.
    
    As for terrorism, there are activities which are unquestionably
    terrorism, such as the Jewish Defense League's assassination of Alex
    Odeh in Los Angeles (hopefully done without the advance notice of
    the Israeli government).  There are other activities which I would
    call terrorism, as they are activities which are intended to inspire
    terror and consequent subjugation, but these fall into the tar pit
    of the definition of terrorism, which seems not to be a productive
    area of discussion.  I think that the reason they are often called
    terroristic is that it angers proponents of the Palestinian view
    to hear Israeli supporters denounce the PLO as a terroristic
    organization with the implicit inference being that Israel is somehow
    therefore morally superior, while at the same time Israel is inflicting
    suffering and death on Palestinians literally every day.
    
    The word terror has been so misused (e.g., to describe writing a
    newspaper article), that it is probably best avoided.
    

re: < Note 478.20 by CIRCUS::KOLLING "Karen, Sweetie, & Holly; in Calif." >

>    As for terrorism, there are activities which are unquestionably
>    terrorism, such as the Jewish Defense League's assassination of Alex
>    Odeh in Los Angeles (hopefully done without the advance notice of
>    the Israeli government).  

	I don't know who Alex Odeh is, but I would tend to agree that the
	JDL is a terrorist organization.

	I don't think there is much of a link between the JDL and the
	Israeli government. If the Israelis want to kill someone, they
	use the Mossad. There probably is a link between the JDL and the
	Israeli Kach party, due to Meir Kahane's involvement in both.

	BTW, Meir Kahane is a subject unto himself.

>    The word terror has been so misused (e.g., to describe writing a
>    newspaper article), that it is probably best avoided.

	Agreed.
    
--eric--

    Re: .21
    
    Alex Odeh was an official of the Los Angeles branch of the
    American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.  The day after he appeared
    on a local news program in which he was interviewed about the
    Israeli/Palestinian situation, the ADC office was bombed, killing
    him and injuring another person.  The people that the FBI believes
    did it were JDL members who fled to Israel;  Israel has refused
    to let the FBI even interview them.  A bomb was also planted in the
    Boston office of ADC, reportedly also by JDL, but it was found before
    it went off.
    
    I know people who go around quoting statistics about "column inches"
    in the New York Times about this vs. the murder of Leon Klinghoffer
    when they are feeling particularly bitter about the value that
    Americans seem to attach to Arab lives vs. Jewish ones.
    
                                         

    Re: .20
    
>    I believe that you are correct, in that I probably can't empathize
>    totally with that fear.  I do try to keep empathizing.

   So you want to empathize?  So come on over and experience.
   And I mean both sides.  The type of empathy you can drum up
   reading newspapers, watching TV, and talking to people on the 
   lecture circuit or going the student route are artificial at 
   best.  They are doing a good job.  Your empathy is one of 
   their prime targets.

   If you really want to understand the Israeli's fear, I could 
   introduce you to our next door neighbor.  Their eighteen year old 
   son was shot and killed by an Arab a few weeks ago.  Or then 
   again, I could introduce you to my son's class-mate who is 
   recovering after being stabbed in the back while on his way home 
   from school.  

   You want to empathize with our feelings?  
   Come over and understand us.

    Re: .-1
    
    When I say empathize, I mean I believe that Jews have been so
    traumatized by recent history that they are unable to see the
    destruction they are causing to other human beings in their
    single-minded focus on their own safety, and they are unable to
    distinguish between real and imagined threats to that safety.  By
    empathizing, I try to remember what they have gone thru and
    consequently think that they are less guilty for the atrocities
    they are now inflicting that if they were seeing clearly.
    I think that this psychological damage is probably what also makes
    it impossible for them to acknowledge the Palestinian peace offers
    which they constantly ignore, such as the recent Algiers declaration.
 
    (Again, I know that this is not a homogeneous group I am addressing,
    and that a lot of people do not fall into the above category and
    in fact are actively looking for peace.  Unfortunately, they seem
    to be in the minority in Israel.)
    
    As for your friends who have been injured, I think you are talking
    about a self-perpetuating situation:  the brutality of the Israeli
    military occupation and ever-increasing confiscation of Palestinian
    land continues, the Palestinians protest and the Israelis kill one or
    more Palestinians a day, _extremely_ less frequently a Palestinian
    kills an Israeli and Israel erupts in fear and rage and continues the
    occupation and confiscation.  I think it is a minor miracle that
    the Palestinians have so much restrained their own people from violence
    that the injuries to Israelis are a few percent of the injuries
    done to Palestinians.  If you want to do something to make the
    situation better, how about speaking out against the further
    confiscation of Palestinian land in the territories for Israeli
    settlements?  The status quo is bad enough without making it worse.
    
    As I said before, no way am I adding one cent to Israelis coffers or one
    iota of an increase to it's tourism statistics until it starts acting
    for peace.
    
                                        

  
   You really believe that stuff don't you?  
   They are good, real good.

    Karen,
    
    Let me do a bit of polemism, here:
    
    When will the US government give their land back to the Indians or
    Alaskan Eskimos? Oh, there are almost none left who you could give it
    back to? Too bad, really.
    
    With regards to civic rights and mutual respect: talk to some black
    people in smaller towns in the South of the US how nice and easy it is
    to get registered for the presidential elections.
    
    More examples on request.

    Now, what has all of this to do with Israel? Answer: nothing. With
    your way of reasoning? A lot.

    If you say that you will only start believing in Israel not being
    terroristic when they start talking about peace, I would like you to
    give a hint to an average European, like me, what measurement criteria
    he should apply to start believing and trusting the US to be a real and
    complete democracy, with fully established respect for ethnically
    different groups (in California and New Mexico, see for instance the
    problems with regards to Mexicans and immigrated Vietnamese). 
    
    If you believe in your land's (the US, I presume) present and future
    whilst remembering its past, give me a solid argument why people in
    Israel should actually NOT be convinced that they will have a great and
    free home country once they made sure all Palestianians have left? 
    
    Thanks G** (asterisks for the Jewish readers), there are people in
    Israel who even believe that this migth be possible WITH the
    Palestinians. 

    Probably at this point, you might say to yourself: "but he can't
    compare these things!!" Well, I just wanted to point out that I think
    you're applying measurement scales to Israel which, if you would apply
    the same to some of the US' internal problems, would also let your land
    appear VERY undecent. Which it doesn't seem to be. So, could that
    mean you got your scales wrong?
    
    Chris
    
    (Neither a Jew nor an Israeli nor a Palestinian)

    P.S.:	I can find similar comparisons for almost ANY country
    		on earth. So don't get me into the European anti-American
    		feelings discussion. I picked the US because I think
    		they are your home country. Also, please don't get me
    		into number comparisons (so many killed on the West
    		Bank, only so many racist killings in the US, which
    		by the way, would be a wrong comparison), try to compare
    		the 'quality' of events, using your scales.

       re .24:
       
       > ...Jews have been so traumatized by recent history that they are
       > unable to see the destruction they are causing to other human
       > beings in their single-minded focus on their own safety, and they
       > are unable to distinguish between real and imagined threats to
       > that safety. 
       
       Now those remarks are racist.  It fits the definition: Kolling has
       assigned a derogatory characteristic/trait to an entire ethnic
       group. 
       
       Anyone who goes around saying "Jews behave this way" or "Arabs
       behave that way" isn't interested in finding a solution to the
       Israeli-Arab problem, except on their own terms.  That Kolling's
       chose to make such racist comments in this conference demonstrates
       an insidious insensitivity at best.
       
       I'd urge no one to ask that .24 be deleted or hidden. It should
       remain in this conference, as an example of blatant racism. 
       
       --Mr Topaz 
             

re: < Note 478.27 by CALLME::MR_TOPAZ >

	Jeez! Would you like her to list the traumatized Jews? Yeah, she should
	have said "some" (actually, "most" would have been more accurate), but
	I don't think the statement was racist. The Israelis, in general, *have*
	been traumatized - and such people, by defintion, develop tunnel vision.

	What Karen needs to realize is that we are not totally responsible for
	these failings - just as other traumatized people (e.g. rape victims)
	are not responsible for theirs. Hopefully, yes, we will grow out of
	them, but healing is not an overnight process.

--eric--

< Note.20 by CIRCUS::KOLLING:
  

I disagree.  Just because a word has been coopted and abused by some
doesn't mean the rest of us have to surrender it, especially when it
provides a necessary distinction in tactics (unless of course an
equally valid substitute can be found).

It's still important to distinguish between tactics which make victims
out of non-combatants (innocent men, women, and children in airports,
synagogues, schools, etc.) and those which attack military people and
facilities.  I'm not thrilled when soldiers die either, but I think we
lose a lot when we blur the distinction.  This should be of particular
importance to the majority of people in the world who don't give a
damn about what's going on in the middle east and just want to be able
to travel in security in Europe's airports.  A plague on both your houses,
they say to Arab and Israeli alike.

I admit that we Israelis are guilty of this when our news reporters and
diplomats kept referring to the PLO **Army** we were battling in Lebanon
as "the terrorists" when it was clear this was a case of two armies
shooting at each other.  Also the attack last year on an Israeli army base
by a PLOist on a hang glider, though a great tragedy for us, was not a
terrorist attack.  On the other hand, we still hear the great moderate
Arafat lauding the attack on a bus of civilians in the Negev. 

Western countries (and maybe the new USSR we're seeing these days, also,
though I am skeptical) need to stick together to fight against outlaw
countries and organizations which really ARE terrorist.   Let's not
give up on the word yet.

(Taken without permission from: Jean-Paul Sartre, "Jew and Anti-Semite",
 Schoken Books, New York 1948. pp. 55-58)

    The Jews have one friend, however, the democrat. But he is a feeble
protector. No doubt he proclaims that all men have equal rights; no doubt
he has founded the League for the Rights of Man; but his own declarations
show the weakness of his position. In the eighteenth century, once and for
all, he made his choice: the analytic spirit. He has no eyes for the 
concrete syntheses with which history confronts him. He recognizes neither
Jew, nor Arab, nor Negro, nor bourgeois, nor worker, but only man - man
always the same in all times and places. He resolves all collectivities
into individual elements. To him a physical body is a collection of
molecules; a social body, a collection of individuals. And by individual he
means the incarnation in a single example of the universal traits which
make up human nature...
    The democrat, like the scientist, fails to see the particular case; to
him the individual is only an ensemble of universal traits. It follows that
his defense of the Jew saves latter as man and annihilates him as Jew. In
contrast to the anti-Semite, the democrat is not afraid of himself; what
he fears is the great collective forms in which he is in danger of being
disintegrated. Thus he has chosen to throw in his lot with the analytic
spirit because it does not see these synthetic realities. Taking this 
point of view, he fears the awakening of a "Jewish consciousness" in the 
Jew; that is, he fears that the Jew will acquire a consciousness of the
Jewish collectivity - just as he fears that a "class consciousness" may 
awaken in the worker. His defense is to persuade individuals that they
exist in an isolated state. "There are no Jews," he says, "there is no
Jewish question." This means that he wants to seperate the Jew from his
ethnic community, in order to plunge him into the democratic crucible whence
he will emerge naked and alone, an individual and solitary particle like
all the other particles. 
    This is what, in the United States, is called the policy of assimilation;
immigration laws have registered the failure of this policy and, on the
whole, the failure of the democratic point of view. How could it be
otherwise? For a Jew, conscious and proud of being Jewish, asserting his
claims to be a member of the Jewish community without ignoring on that
account the bonds which unite him to the national community, there may not
be so much difference between the anti-Semite and the democrat. The former
wishes to destroy him as a man and leave nothing in him but the Jew, the
pariah, the untouchable; the latter wishes to destroy him as a Jew and
leave nothing in him but the man, the abstract and universal subject of the
rights of man and the rights of the citizen.
    Thus there may be detected in the most liberal democrat a tinge of
anti-Semitism; he is hostile to the Jew to the extent that the latter
thinks of himself as a Jew. He expresses this hostility by a sort of
indulgent and amused irony, as when he says of a Jewish friend whose Semitic
origin is easily recognizable: "Just the same, he is too Jewish." Or when
he declares: "The only thing I have against the Jews is their clannishness;
if you let one in, he will bring ten more with him." During the Occupation
the democrat was profoundly and sincerely indignant at the anti-Semitic
persecutions, but he sighed from time to time: "The Jews will come back from
exile with such insolence and hunger for vengeance that I am afraid of a new
outburst of anti-Semitism." What he really feared was that the persecutions
might have helped to give the Jew a more definite consciousness of himself.
    The anti-Semite reproaches the Jew with being Jewish, the democrat
reproaches him with wilfully considering himself a Jew. Between his enemy
and his defender, the Jew is in a difficult situation: apparently he can
do no more than choose the sauce with which he will be devoured.

    Re: .27 racist...some...more  etc.
    
    You seem not to have read the immediately following paragraph which
    included the "not all" qualification.
    

    Re: US history and present
    
    You seem to be a couple of decades, at least, in the past in terms
    of what your idea is of what is going on in the U.S. internally
    in terms of race relations.  For example, the federal government
    protects voter registration rights in the south and elsewhere.
    (I know, I'm up to my gills in politics.) Certainly there is still
    racism, but there is a giant difference between a country which has
    individual instances of racism which the society as a whole disapproves of,
    and a country where racism is institutionalized by the government.
    
    However, I think the U.S.'s past and present in terms of racial
    relations and foreign policy sucks eggs in many respects (and I've
    said so in this very notes file).  Because the U.S. has committed
    shameful acts, does that imply that it's okay for Israeli to do
    so?                  
    

    Re: .30 Sartre
    
    There's something interesting going on here, I think, in this note
    and one (Cherson?) posted awhile ago.  I value diversity highly,
    and I think an unfortunate aspect of U.S. assimilation is that people
    tend to lose the cultural heritage of their ancestors.  (Just like
    I find the insistence on television announcers not having regional
    accents annoying, to use a trivial example.).  So how come two
    different people think I am trying to erase "Jewish consciousness"?
    What is it that I say that gives this impression?
    

re: .33

Karen,

You have in the past expressed the opinion that a state for a single
people, dedicated to their needs and aspirations was anethema to
democracy.  If Jewish consciousness is expressed through the desire
to form such a state and to maintain such a difference and separation
from other nations then Jewish consciousness is be anethema to
democracy as you have described it.  Not all value systems are universally
or absolutely applicable.  And quite possibly all value systems are not
universally or absolutely applicable.

Gavriel

    Re: .34
    
    Oh, I see.  Let me try to make myself clearer.  What I object to
    is that the present instance of such a state is, it seems, inextricably
    involved in harming others in order to establish and maintain its
    particular character.  I don't see how it could be otherwise,
    given the current world geography, questions of descent, etc.  You
    are quite correct, I think, that if it could be done without harming
    others there seems to be no objection to it.  The value I place
    on "democracy" is because of the needs of disparate peoples who coexist
    in one place.  So, the two state solution to the current situation
    seems more and more the way to go, I guess.
                                               

re: < Note 478.30 by NAC::RUBY > Jean-Paul Sartre, "Jew and Anti-Semite"

    A most incisive statement.
    
    A relevant comment -- It is interesting that during the currently
    fashionable glasnost in USSR some of the liberal intelligentsia
    are saying that they are "all for" the religious freedom for the
    Jews, and the right of Jews to emigrate, but they are "concerned"
    about the potential "outbursts" of anti-semitism.

    I'm trying to find the original article again. However, in a reply
    to the Indian notesfile, I submitted the views of a French sociologist
    on the difference btw. 'Heterophobia' (he hates the therm, but uses
    it in lack of a better one) and 'Xenophobia'. Maybe this may add
    to the 'what's anti-semitism' argumentation going on. I'd appreciate
    your comments.
    
    Chris
    
    P.S.:	Without having seen the context of the excerpt, what
    Sartre says is also true for any 'other' minority: Free masons,
    Gypsies, Maghrebinians in France, Mexicans in Texas, what have we...

               <<< VAXWRK::NOTES$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]INDIA.NOTE;1 >>>
    Xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers and foreigners or of anything
    that is strange or foreign.
    
    All in all, a very deplorable attitude.
    
    What the sociologist, which I mentioned in my reply had mentioned with
    regards to 'Heterophobia' was the following, in short: 

    He says that EVERYONE, several times in his life, feels some kind of
    fear or slight insecureness, when he enters an unknown environment. For
    one, I did have this feeling when I first walked into Delhi's old
    city, or when I first entered an Arabian Bazar, or when I first
    came to the junkie section of Amsterdam. This is heterophobia, a
    feeling which may last only seconds, or may last longer periods
    of time.
    
    If you can overcome this feeling, and most of the times you do, then
    your relationship with the previously unknown (or 'different')
    environment becomes normal, partly also because you 'live' for a
    certain while in this environment (like me walking on my first visit
    for three hours through a basar, being welcomed in a very friendly way,
    etc...). If, on the other hand, you are not given a possibility to
    experience this personally, or your personal experience turns out
    negatively (like with my friends, who were broken into their car and
    stolen documents and cameras, in Marseille, so don't ask them what they
    think of the Arabian part of this town) and on top you get
    'brainwashed' with rumours and polemics, your heterophobia develops and
    is likely to turn into xenophobia. 
    
    I thing this sociologist has reasonable thoughts.

    Am I a Xenophobe? I don't think so. Does it happen to me to have
    "heterophobe" feelings? Certainly.
    

Re. Note 478.37
    
>    P.S.:	Without having seen the context of the excerpt, what
>    Sartre says is also true for any 'other' minority: Free masons,
>    Gypsies, Maghrebinians in France, Mexicans in Texas, what have we...

    This is exactly right. It is an important point because it shows part of
the dark side of the (in Sartre's language) democrat's position. That is, it
shows him to be thoroughly untrustworthy.
    The democrat presents himself as the champion of the universal; the 
defender of man as man. But man as man does not suffer; only men and women do
that, particular men and woman in particular circumstances. Their suffering is
tainted by their particularity; it cannot attain the universality which alone
could render it worthy of the democrat's notice. 
    "You Jews think you have suffered", we can imagine him saying, "Well, so
you have, but you are not alone. Why must you be so caught up in your own 
troubles? Why can't you see beyond you own problems to those of others, of 
humanity as a whole? Others have suffered besides yourselves. Think of the 
Indians and of the horrors they underwent and undergo to this very day." 
    We can equally well imagine him saying "Yes, it is true. Terrible crimes
were commited against you Indians. But you mustn't let that cloud your vision
or cause you to think of none but yourselves. Other people have also suffered.
Think of the Cambodians under the Pol Pot regime." 
    Or, he might say "The problem with Cambodians is that they think that
they are the only people in the world who have been the victims of massacres.
The famine in Ethiopia is really a massacre. Its not a natural event at 
all..." And so on ad infinitum. He might even return to the Jews eventually.
    Its a wonderful image, isn't it? One atrocity rushes after another in a 
ceaseless whirl. It's a dance of the great crimes and catastrophes of human 
history; each disaster follows the next, pushing its predecessor out of its 
way. 
    In fact, its not so much a dance as a game of musical chairs. The victims
of each crime are particular people(s), not man as man. However they may
plead, their case is only one among many; the democrat may, at his discretion,
pass over their plight since it is just a particular case and there are, after
all, many others. The democrat's standards are so high that mortal flesh cannot
meet them. As a result, he has no standards at all and bestows his sympathy as
he chooses. His time and attention are not infinite, only so many chairs are
available; some victims will not find a place.
    This accounts, I think, for the tone of the Jewish responses when the
democrat's position is evoked in this notesfile. What we hear is a cry of
despair. The Jew is being reminded that his closest ally in this society, the
ideas and men upon whom he relies, are by conviction and declaration
completely untrustworthy. This is not good news; we cannot expect a display of
joy when it is rubbed in the Jew's face.

    As for the context of the Sartre extract; I have to say it is the book as
a whole. The quoted passage is the book's entire second chapter, less one
paragraph. The omission is indicated in the note by the three dots following
the first paragraph. You might want to read the book. If nothing else, it is
both short and a good introduction to Sartre.

    Philosophy has never been my strong point.....  It seems to me that
    it is none of my business if people want to spend their time thinking
    about their own suffering.  The crucial point in the current situation,
    it seems to me, however, is the _additional_ factor that harm is being
    inflicted on others because the suffering of others somehow seems
    not to matter in relation to one's own, whereas ideally it should
    matter just as much.
    
    I also don't think that it is required that no problem can be solved
    just because there is not the time and resources to solve all problems.
    

    re .38: Churchill once said: "Democracy is a lousy system, but still
    the best one that I can imagine."
    
    Now, I do respect Sartre's point of view. Does he propose a better
    alternative, in his book, or could you imagine a better one?
    
    I kind of do not cherish the idea that by extrapolation
    democrat/tolerant .eqs. anti-semite. In total reverse logic, this would
    lead you to dictator/non-democrat .eqs. pro-semite, which I definitely
    think cannot hold its base. Where's the hook, in there? 
    
    Chris

    Shalom,

    Sartre does not really say that democracy is bad.  He says only that
    "the democrat" is not so great an ally as he would have you believe.
    "The democrat" is still described as our best ally.

    What it really comes down to is that we have to be able to do for
    ourselves.  If we can get help from others, great.  If we can give
    help to others, great.  But we must not RELY on outside help.  Because
    that help may not be there when we really need it.

    Gavriel

    Hi,
    
    Please forgive me if this has been said before, but could
    someone give some background on Sartre, so we can know what 
    influenced him?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Malcolm

Re 478.39

>    Philosophy has never been my strong point..... 
    
    Well, here's a philosophical concept for you. Its called "induction".
    Induction works like this: one day I touch a wire, I get a shock. "Hm", I
say. Sometime later, I touch the same wire; again, I get a shock. After a
third such experience I say "I know, touching the wire is connected to getting
a shock. I won't touch the wire anymore."
    This is also called learning from experience; some people consider it 
praiseworthy, or, at least, useful.


>   It seems to me that it is none of my business if people want to spend 
>   their time thinking about their own suffering. 

    That's rather patronizing, I think. Exactly how do you want us to respond
to the murder of a third of our relatives? "Ho, ho, ho, well, that sort of 
thing happens sometimes." Would that be an appropriate response? Perhaps you're
one of those people who point out that these unfortunate events took place a
whole fifty years ago. My goodness, fifty years; the mind boggles at such an
enormous span of time. Only a fool could believe that the events of today
might be related to a history so ancient.
    Look, the broad pattern of Jewish history in Western society over the past
two and a half centuries is fairly clear. The Enlightenment promised the
integration of Jews into Western society (with certain restrictions, of course,
"To the Jews as men, everything. To the Jews as Jews, nothing"). It is hardly
a secret that the Enlightenment project in general (as embodied in the American
and French revolutions and in the Liberal societies of Western Europe and North 
America) foundered in the last half of the nineteenth century; beginning, let's
say, with the revolutions of 1848 and ending with the first World War (for a 
long and highly regarded account of this process in the United States see David
Montegomery, "Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans 1862-1872", 
Alfred A. Knopf, 1967 and 1981). The consequences for the Jews (especially in
Eastern Europe with the growth of nationalisms in the Austro-Hungarian empire,
that empire's breakup after the first World War, the failure of reform in 
Russia after the assasination of Czar Alexander I in 1880) are well known. Jews,
upon considering this melancholy history, can hardly be blamed for feeling that 
you are peddling two hundred year old snake oil.


>    I also don't think that it is required that no problem can be solved
>    just because there is not the time and resources to solve all problems.

    I consider this an inconsistency on your part. Please explain to us the
grounds upon which you choose to expend your energies on one cause rather than
another.

    1. I was afraid the word "democracy" could lead to this kind of 
misunderstanding. Perhaps the word "enlightenment" would be better. As Sartre
implies, the phenomenon in question is certainly related to, perhaps began
with, the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. As you may
remember, the philosophes of the Enlightenment portrayed themselves as the
champion of Man as such, and of the Rights of Man. They presented themselves
as sweeping away the superstition, ignorance, and selfishness which divide
people from one another. If people would only put aside their petty 
prejudices and fears they would see that they are not so different after all;
they would see that they are all part of a single Humanity, etc. A position
which appears, I think, in this notesfile with some regularity.

    2. Democracy/enlightenment is not only an ideology or a moral claim; it is
also an historical project. In Western European society this project has 
a - let's say - 250 year history. As a result, there is a great deal of 
historical experience with the project of enlightenment and a good deal of
reflection on that experience.
    Sartre's piece is just that, a reflection on the enlightenment project in
view of historical events. His book was written in 1944 at the end of the
Occupation and of the Vichy Regime in France. Sartre does not start from the
premise that democracy is good or from the premise that it is bad; he starts
with the historical fact that - on the European continent in the 1930's -
democracy showed itself to be disasterously weak. The problem he sets for
himself is to discover the source of that weakness.
    As I believe you imply, Sartre argues that part of the weakness of
enlightenment is found within the enlightenment project itself; that the
the democrat is not fully commited to democracy. He does not make the argument
fully because he assumes his readers already know it. His book constantly 
refers, implicitly, to the chapters on the Enlightenment and on the French 
revolution found in one of the great philosophical works of modern times, the 
"Phenomenology of Mind" by G.W.F. Hegel (written about 1812 as I remember). 
Hegel did think that the enlightenment project has a self contradictory aspect;
that there is an undemocratic element to democracy. I have been trying for some
time to write a note giving Hegel's central argument, an argument I consider
brilliant, important, and, worse yet, true. I have not succeded, but let me
give a small part of it.
    It is not so hard to see that, in one sense at least, the democrat
contradicts himself. He claims be a champion of the universal, opposing 
selfish and particular interests. But, if he is what he claims to be, his 
universal is not truly universal; it does not include the particular interests
he explictly opposes. If it really held for all humanity, it would hold for 
all of humanity's members; if universal Humanity does not include Jews as Jews,
it is not truly universal. After all, are we not men? When the democrat 
criticizes the particular in the name of the universal he criticizes himself; 
he shows that the position he holds is just one possible postition among the 
many which people can hold, not a universal perspective at all.

    Re.:.44
    
    I think the argument you show about Hegel is right, but dangerously
    out of context.
    
    If the title you give is right (Fenomenolog�a del Esp�ritu, is
    "esp�ritu" translated into Mind in English??) I think it worths
    the note reading Hegel carefully... there where he proudly states
    the 'everything real is rational'...
    
    I think a walk around Auswichtz 44 will prove the stupidity of his
    argument. Or maybe a walk around Chile. If murdering others is real,
    and reality is rational, I prefer Nietzsche's point of view:
    
    Not to vote the obvious. On the other hand, even 'contextualizing'
    enlightenment, I think slavery and prosecution of innocents still
    was a valid point of view.
    
    The problem was also emphasized by Heidegger: one of those men who
    prefers to shrink his shoulders before opposing unjustice, or by
    Husserl, or even Jaspers: after Auswichtz, it was clearly stated
    that political solutions are only unstable, temporary ones.
    
    Democracy is not bad. But beware of democrats and remember the Nazi
    uprising. It's a psychological problem, not a political one. It
    is a question of mental disease versus will to be free. Ask the
    Turkish in West Germany 88: Hegel would be proud of their situation.
    
    ... as was Voltaire when asked about the slaves he was selling...
    
    
    I definately prefer Nietzsche's view: Not to vote the obvious.

    Actually, the central paradox is even worse than the ones I managed to
write up so far.  It goes like this: if universal equals good then
particular equals bad. But, every individual human is necessarily particular;
that's what being individual means after all. Therefore, every individual is
always in the wrong. The logical conclusion of enlightenment is universal
guilt and the logical conclusion of universal guilt is terror.
    Hegel talks about this while discussing the Terror in the French Revolution.
Let's say faction A is in power. It governs France in the name of the 
People/State/Humanity, in short, in the name of the universal as such. But it
is easy to prove that faction A doesn't truly represent the universal at all:
it's a particular faction, its members made deals with certain special
interests in order to gain and keep power, the members have individual
goals and needs which are not those of society as a whole, etc. So, faction B 
seizes power in the name of the People and has faction A guillotined. But, what
was true of faction A is just as true of faction B: off with their heads and 
welcome faction C, for however long they last. The beauty of this process is
that everyone is right. Not only is faction B right to claim that faction A
placed particular interests over those of the whole; it is right to judge 
faction A guilty on these grounds since these are faction A's own principles.
And faction C is right about faction B just as C's executor's will be 
justified in condemning C. The process goes on and on until Bonaparte seizes 
power in his own name and simply procedes to smash everyone.
    So you see, we may simply find Karen guilty according to her own rules, as
indeed she is. I believe it was an Isreali who asked if she was Jewish; 
an American Jew knows a Protestant or an assimilated Catholic when he hears 
one. An American Jew could never identify himself with the universal so
immediately - the same society which tells Karen that people are fundementally
the same everywhere (i.e. just like her, i.e. middle class American
Protestants) continually reminds Jews that they are a wierd minority. A Jew in
America who wanted to be the voice of Humanity would need to take an 
intermediate leap - through the proletariat perhaps. At the same time, any 
American knows the sound of a well to do suburb when he hears it. That is, a 
place where a complex and expensive system of zoning regulations, highways, 
and, of course, legions of stalwart policeman, make sure that the residents 
never have to confront a poor person who isn't emptying a trash can. That is 
Karen's particularity and Karen's crime. Conservatives have seized on this 
point. They talk of "Brie eaters" and "limousine liberals" and they are 
right; that's why people listen to them. If you look at the smarter liberal 
Democrats - Mario Cuomo for example, see the comments on "liberal bigotry" in 
"Forest Hills Diary" - or the smarter radicals - Christopher Lasch comes to 
mind - you'll see that they accept the justice of this charge. Just as well,
since, as all good Hegelians know, acceptance of our particularity is our first
step torwards true universality. [And don't Jews say that each nation (or 
perhaps even each person) has its own interpretation of the Torah, specifically
intended for it from the time the world began?].


Re 478.45

    Well, there are disquieting elements in Hegel; there's a real acceptance
of the inevitability of conflict and violence, for example. As for the
"what is real is rational" quote, people used to throw that up to him
during his lifetime. Which annoyed him no end, a man who has written a two
volume logic, he thought, can legitimately expect people to realize that he
is using the word "real" in a technical sense, not to simply denote any
situation that happens to exist. It can, however, be argued, that Hegel
did have a tendancy to justify existing relationships purely on the grounds
that they exist - see, for example, Karl Marx, "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy
of Right".
    As for the suggestion that Hegel would have approved of death camps or
the Bundes Republick's treatment of its Gestarbieten, this is simply false. It 
has been argued, though, that Hegel's philosophy is totalitarian in spirit and
in the line of German thought which led to Hitler. Rivers of ink have been 
spilled on this subject. The classic text for the prosecution, in English, is 
"The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper. Unfortunately, in this 
case, the distinguished philosopher of science hadn't the slightest idea of 
what he was talking about. For a very appreciative treatement of Hegel from a 
Jewish standpoint see Emil Fackenheim, "Encounters Between Judiaism and 
Philosophy". Also, Shlomo Aveneri, "Hegels Theory of the State".
    In any case, I feel that the proper way to take the arguments given above
is exactly out of context. They are not presented as part of the Hegelian
system but purely on their own; I ask you to accept or reject them on their
merits and make no further philosophical claims.

    Re: .46
    
    As I said before, I find philosophy rather difficult to follow.
    Could you explain what it is that you're trying to say relatively
    clearly and shortly?  In particular, what am I guilty of and what
    "rules" of mine are we talking about?  P.S.  I am not a Protestant
    or Catholic, I prefer Velveeta to Brie, I drive a 69 Mustang, and I
    come from working class roots, although I am not sure what all that
    has to do with anything.
                                                       

    RE.:.46
    
    �I ask you to accept or reject them on their merits and make no
    �further philosophical claims.

    
    Sorry there. But while alive, I will make any philosophical claim
    I happen to find useful for my life.
    
    Hegel was a man. He lived within a given society, subject to the
    constraints and limitations imposed by the cultural environment
    from within which he tried to construct a 'model'. His totalitarian
    view ('Wirklichkeit') was that kind of global view that hates accepting
    that, in any corner of the planet, there are and will be different
    people, with different beliefs, ethical systems, and different views.
    
    About Karen being 'guilty' the only thing I can say is that our
    world is not composed by an uniform cultural humus: there are
    differences even in a country, no matter how large or small that
    country is. There is no philosophy justifying enough the need to
    fight. No religion. No culture.
    
    If a culture neglects the existence of another one or tries to impose
    its views as the right ones, automatically becomes the opposite
    of culture. Karen and many others have the right to oppose your
    views, and my views, obviously. You still have the right to oppose
    hers. That's the world in which we live. That's the world Hitler
    hated as he figured out an uniform world, with a dominant race,
    one language, the same value systems: he was a dreamer and he had
    the right to dream. The problem begins when you take a gun and shoot
    at the differences, and kill the others, and concentrate them in
    camps.
    
    Philosophy, my friend, has the obligation to detect unjustice, to
    fight against it, and to rise the dignity of the man as a HUMAN
    being. Totalizing, uniforming, and imposing views to the rest of
    the living beings is precisely the opposite to philosophy.
    
    About terror, the only thing I can say is this: we have lost the
    capability to feel terrified. And when philosophy succeed to show
    us an unjustice... we just turn off our TVs and go to bed.
    
    That's the guilt: we don't give a damn for unjustice.
    
    PS.: I'm not American. I'm not a Jew. I'm just human: and that's
    the real thing.

Re 478.48
   
    Why don't we agree to stop the ad hominum attacks on a dead man - let us
certainly agree to stop blaming him for a political movement which started
a century after his death (you'll notice I haven't said anything about the
scandal over Heidegger's conduct as chancellor of the University of Freiburg 
under the Nazis ... Oops, I guess I just did. A nice example of affirmation by 
negation, below we'll see an example of negation by affirmation).
    Instead, let's look at the text of your last note; it is a fine example
of the paradox I have been trying to explain.
    You said,

>       PS.: I'm not American. I'm not a Jew. I'm just human: and that's
>       the real thing.
    
What is this "human" you appeal to? Well, clearly its meant to be the same for
every one, for me, for you, for Americans, Jews, Christians, Arabs, the past, 
the present, the future, etc. We're all Human and we're all part of Humanity. 
Fine, so we are. 
    Also, this humanity is our most important characteristic, its

>   the real thing.

    Notice that this humanity transcends all our differences, all our 

>        different beliefs, ethical systems, and different views.

This "human" therefore, immediately implies 

>       totalizing, uniforming, and imposing views to the rest of the
>       living beings.

You (and Ms. Holling) are advocating totalizing, uniforming etc.; your 
name for this process is Humanity.

    Now, that's not completely right. You have made it very clear that you
advocate no such thing. What I claim is that you are inconsistent; that
given your premises you should advocate a

>   uniform world, with a dominant race, one language, the same value systems.

Or rather, that such an advocacy is a logical conclusion from your premises.
I appeal to you, on the basis of our common belief in the value of diversity,
to examine those premises.



    In passing, let me answer this point:
        
>    �I ask you to accept or reject them on their merits and make no
>    �further philosophical claims.

    
>    Sorry there. But while alive, I will make any philosophical claim
>    I happen to find useful for my life.

This seems to indicate a breakdown in my ability to handle English grammar.
I did not mean that I ask you to make no further philosophical claims. I
meant that I make no further philosophical claims. I put forward these
arguments on their own; I do not ask that you accept the entire Hegelian
corpus (who does?); just these arguments without reference to their source.


Re 478.47

>   What is the crime of which I am accused?

    Impersonating a deity.

RE:  478.0, 478.5. 478.40, etc.,


>> I was afraid the word "democracy" could lead to this kind of 
>>  misunderstanding. 

>> As you may
>> remember, the philosophes of the Enlightenment portrayed themselves as the
>> champion of Man as such, and of the Rights of Man. They presented themselves
>> as sweeping away the superstition, ignorance, and selfishness which divide
>> people from one another. If people would only put aside their petty 
>> prejudices and fears they would see that they are not so different after all;
>> they would see that they are all part of a single Humanity, etc.

>> Democracy/enlightenment is not only an ideology or a moral claim; it is
>> also an historical project. 


>> He claims be a champion of the universal, opposing 
>> selfish and particular interests. But, if he is what he claims to be, his 
>> universal is not truly universal; it does not include the particular 
>> interests he explictly opposes. 

- "Democracy" without "history" of championing the "Rights of Man"?

- Palestinians are Semites too.

- Humanity should have no bounds including that of the religion.

- Torture and violence of MAN upon the fellow MAN has no bounds of
     religion, race, culture, creed, or caste.

- Expressing opinions on deeds or words of someone, because of the nature
     of the deeds or words, not because the person is a Jew, is not 
     anti-Semitism.  How about anti-Christianism and anti-<take-your-pick>?


The following "letter to the editor" reprinted without permission from
the Boston Globe of July 13, 1988.

=========================================================================
CHARGES IRRELEVANT TO ISSUE OF TORTURE IN ISRAEL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The response of Itzhak Oren, the Israeli consul in Boston, and Michael
Scheetz of the Anti-Defamation League to my Globe article are 
verification of Israel's refusal to be truthful about its prisons or
to tolerate independent scrutiny of its treatment of inmates.

Both the consul and Sheetz assert that the 1968 International 
Committee of the Red Cross report contains no reference to torture
in Nablus prison.  After extended telephone conversations with the
Israeli consulate, it became apparent that Oren and Sheetz were
referring to the 1968 annual report of the ICRC.

In my June 5 article, I wrote that "As early as 1968, the 
International Committee of the Red Cross published a report documenting
the techniques of torture in Nablus prison ..."  This reference was
to the Feb. 26, 1968, ICRC report on Nablus, which documented the
specific forms of torture perpetrated on Palestenian prisoners.

My word-for-word source can be found at the Boston Public Library,
specifically United Nations Document A/8089, 25th Session, p. 43.  As
the consul is well aware, the ICRC keeps its reports of torture
confidential in order to protect prisoners from reprisals.  The ICRC
was concerned with the issue of confidentiality, not the truthfulness
of the report, as the consul maintained.  In fact, the UN report,
published in 1971, states clearly that the "[n]one of the reports
quoted in this publication have been refuted."

Given the clear documentation of torture in Israel, one wonders if the
consul will continue to claim that these reports have been refuted.
Given his track record, the consul will probably claim that my
article has been refuted.

Orem seems to believe that stirring up controversy without merit is
the same thing as refuting facts.  Nowhere in his statement, however,
does the consul deny that more than 300,000 Palestinians have been
imprisoned since 1967 or the existence of torture in Israel, nor
could he deny it since the Israeli government's own Landau Commission
last year verified reports which the Israelis ahd long branded as
untrue.

The consul states that "fewer than 5,800 security detainees are in any
form of imprisonment in Israel today."  My figure of 10,600 was
released by Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's minister of defense, on April 28, 
1988.

The consul asserts that "delegates from ICRC are permitted to meet
with security detainees on a regular basis."   The 1983 Annual
Report of the ICRC (p. 67), however, states that the ICRC was 
notified by the authorities of only 16.6 percent of the detainees under
interrogation in the West Bank.

The consul informs us that the Israeli authorities grant "detainees
their full rights according to the regulations."  He neglects to mention
what the regulations are.  In fact, Israel continues to deny that the
Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 applies to its prisoners.  The 
consul's assertion that prisoners are treated humanely is absurd.

To name just one example, at Ansar prison camp in Negev desert, more
than 2,000 prisoners are held in tents in an area where the 
temperature is often 120 degrees.  According to The New York Times,
these prisoners complain of inadequate water and are allowed "no
personal possessions - not even a book, a radio or a wristwatch."

In his letter, Sheetz asserts that my "self-proclaimed 'expose' sought
to condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinians during the uprising of
the last six months."  This is untrue.  I document torture for 20
years, not six months; my article did not claim to be an expose,
since it used material published by the US Senate, the ICRC, the UN,
the Swiss League for Human Rights, Amnesty International, the
Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights and numerous Israeli
newspapers.

Sheetz lifts statements out of context from my book and attacks me
personally.  Even if his charges had any merit, they are irrelevant
to the issue of torture in Israel.  When an "anti-defamation" league
writes writes such a defamatory letter, what does it say about its
credibility?

The consul asserts that "for some of the detainees, among them
convicted terrorists, lying comes easily."  This is the most blatant
example of the anti-Arab prejudice that underlies the consul's
entire analysis.

    RE.: 49
    
    Okay. Thanks for mentioning Heidegger's affaire. I was afraid you
    didn't. And not: human does not imply 'totalizing'. But it's just
    a question of DIFFERENT views: and I like it.
    
    
    RE.: 50
    
    Just wondering... has the ICRC a chance to visit the hostages in
    Lebanon? Has Hezbollah or Amal ever condemned one of their terrorists
    for inhuman treatment of their hostages?
    
    What's the temperature inside one of those dirty rooms in the Musulman
    quarter of Beirut? Do they have air conditioning by chance?
    
    Just wondering...
    
    Rub�n.

    Somebody already mentioned here that IDF troops live in Negev desert
    in the same type of tents, with the same temperature, under the
    same conditions...

				RE: <.51>
    
>    Just wondering... has the ICRC a chance to visit the hostages in
>    Lebanon? Has Hezbollah or Amal ever condemned one of their terrorists
>    for inhuman treatment of their hostages?
>    
>    What's the temperature inside one of those dirty rooms in the Musulman
>    quarter of Beirut? Do they have air conditioning by chance?
>    


As I said in .50, torture and violence doesn't have any bounds as far
as _human behavior_ is concerned.  My faith and my conscience tells me 
that the inhuman treatment of the hostages in Lebanon is very despicable 
and barbaric.  So is what I describe in note .50.  The reason for that
were remarks made earlier about anti-Semitism.


What you are trying to do is to _justify_ a wrong by bringing up 
another wrong.  To me both are wrong; it doesn't matter whether 
the perpetrator is Jew, Musulman, Christian, or whoever.


Do you _NOW_ have the guts to admit that the deeds described in .50 are
as much despicable as those you describe in .51?  Do you agree that
denial of Rights of Man is universal, and that "anti-Semitism" is
just one aspect of it, either real or perceived?



				RE: <.52>


You have completely failed to grasp the underlying difference between
the two situations, viz., Rights of Man.

I don't know of anyone who joined armed forces to have picnic.  IDF 
is out in the Negev desert by choice; the prisoners, on the other hand, 
are incarcerated there.  The conditions described have been intentionally 
kept that way.  By mentioning "under the same conditions",  you don't mean 
to tell me that IDF doesn't have adequate water and no personal 
possessions do you?

The point I am trying to make is that Rights of Man should be respected
as universal, with no bounds of religion, culture, caste, or creed.  
In practice, they have frequently been out-voted by democracies, 
transgressed by terror and violence, and shoved off by prejudices.
Even in this note, the author of <.13> is ready to drive someone
entirely off the face of this earth; the prejudice shows!

    Obviously. I suppose anyone interested in peace and human rights
    is automatically forced to reject prejudice and single-minded one-track
    thinking.
    
    That's why your note was so impartial, as you forgot to include
    the situation occuring some miles north of the place you were talking
    about.
    
    Your quotation was biased. Mine was just a wondering.
    
    Unjustice must be fought. But before throwing stones against unjustice,
    we must first learn to fight against our biased 'hates'.

    What nonsense is .53.  Thos who break the law are incarcerated in
    prison.  No.  It's no picnic.  Those who attempt insurrection can
    expect prison. The rights of man include the right to self protection.

<RE: .53>

.50 appeared to be biased because it was in _response_ to earlier notes, 
to prove that suffering discrimination is not limited to just a specific 
class of human beings. It is universal.  We should strive for justice 
_both_ a few miles north _and_ south of the place.

I re-iterate what I said in .53.  It doesn't matter whether a person
is Jew, Christian, or Musalman, or whoever;  the basic rights of
freedom and liberty should be guaranteed.  Terrorism against, bombings of,
and hostage taking of innocent victims, be it by individuals or 
governments, for whatever pretext (including self-defense) is despicable
and cowardly.

Is that what you call "bias"?


<RE: .55>

I fully agree with you that those who break "the law" should be 
incarcerated in prison.  And that the "rights of man" include the right 
of self protection.  


But you know and I know what's been alluded to in .50.  The pathetic
conditions intentionally created for such "self protection".  And, as I
said this is not limited to one geographical area, but universal.The law
should be for the protection of everybody not "self".  You can't have 
a segment of population with more _equal_ rights of protection at the 
expense of others.  You can't have two sets of laws on the books, and 
apply them selectively.  For one segment of population, the law is 
"presumption of guilt unless proved innocent", and "swift and severe 
punishment on suspicion, before having proven guilty".  Making entire 
communities suffer because of misdeeds of a few, because it is "the law".


I don't know what kind of intellect did you use to call this "nonsense".
This may be an indication that your ability to reason may be very limited.  
I consider it very unfruitful to go into your kind of emotionalism, 
especially in a note on "Rights of Man" and am going to back out of 
here. 8-)

    Okay. No need to quarrel on this particular issue about Rights.
    
    I only wanted to state that applying selectively the law attending
    to sex, race, religion or beliefs is not precisely what I would
    call LAW or JUSTICE or RIGHT to whatever you imagine.
    
    But, on the other hand, underlining and pointing out unjustices
    selectively chosen is also an unjustice. To this I call 'bias'.
    
    The only open issue, as I see it, is the right to self-defense.
    I'm reluctanct to call this a 'right': is a MUST. And each of us
    feel it that way: Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, etc.
    
    The problem, obviously, starts when you try to define who is
    self-defending himself and who is just attacking.
    
    And I guess this dicotomy is not even that simple.
    
    I haven't the key yet. This makes me wonder whether your statement
    of 'The law should be applied to all' is acceptable for me. I will
    add to it: 'The law freely chosen should be applied to all who freely
    chose it".	    

    re: 56
    
    I must respond to your reflection on my ability to reason.
    
    My ability to reason ends when the individual confronting me makes
    a fist.  Jews have learned that then is the time to act.  When that
    hand opens, I will take it in friendship.