Conference taveng::bagels

    Lessee, are you talking about a)  the USA vs. the Native Americans,
    b) Turkey vs. the Armenians, c)  the USSR vs. various,  d) the
    Indonesians vs. the natives of West Irian, e) South Africa vs. various;
    need I go on?
    
    I don't think this is germaine.  Yes, we know there were lots of
    cases of genocide committed.  Yes, we know that Israel's alleged
    oppression of the Palestinians doesn't come close.

    re .1
    
    Exactly. So where is the outcry of the "civilized world"? Looks
    like the "bleeding heart" world is completely oblivious to most
    of the cases you listed (most "civilized" citizens would be hard 
    pressed to come up with even these examples). 
    
    Hence the double standard (the subject of the note). 
    
    On any given day one can read at least one major newspaper
    and find a 1/2 page article on front page about 1 dead Palestinian 
    in Israel, a 10 line article on page 10 mentioning 10 dead Arabs in
    an Arab country, and finally a 5 line article on the last page 
    about 1000 dead somewhere in Bessarabia.
    
    Plain hypocrisy.

re: < Note 485.2 by LINK02::ALLISTER "Alex DTN 223-3154 MLO21-3/E87" >


>    Hence the double standard (the subject of the note). 

		yes, but that doesn't make what Israel is doing right.
    
>    Plain hypocrisy.

		clearly.

    Alex,
   
    >>  Plain hypocrisy.           
      
    Could be, but I'm more inclined to link it to the number of resident
    and "stringer" reporters working in Israel. There are a lot and they
    must obviously justify their existence. 
    
    
    Looking at this weeks copy of Newsweek (O.K O.K, its not everyone's cup
    of tea ;-) ), there are listed 2 correspondents and 1 photographer
    based in Jerusalem. Not bad for a country with a population of about 4
    million. 
    
    For the statisticians -

    Rome has 1 correspondent, Moscow 2 and Tokyo 1.

    Makes us sound like a super-power -;) -;). We'll swop two
    correspondents for Toshiba, any taker ???
    
    						...... Monty
         
    

    re. .3,.4
    
    I think we are in agreement. My point was not necessarily to defend
    Israel. The larger issue for all of us should be: where should humanity
    direct most of its effort in pursuance of justice (if I may phrase
    myself so pompously :-).
    
    The sensationalist fashion in today's news reporting certainly does
    not help us achieve a more objective view of the world.
    
    I liken the world's behavior on issues concerning Israel to a
    cancer patient who worries about a pimple and neglects the cancer.
    (with some exaggeration and with all due respect to Israel)
                                         
    Alex

    Israel's society claims to be, and in very many aspects actually IS an
    elitarian society in the Middle East. The elite is always watched very
    closely and is exposed to elaborate critique.
    
    Accepting such critique and working on the embedded elements is part of
    the job of any elitarian person and, more so, of an eliterian society. 

    To give a 'live' example: Just think of how much critique DEC's VP's
    have to deal with. In the middle East, Israel took over (or was given
    the image of) the VP role. 
       
    If I were a Jewish Israeli or American, I think I would not feel anger.
    Rather, if you view it as a side-effect of Israel's role, detailed
    critique should be perceived as an integral component of the 'mission'.

    Obviously, the air is becoming thinner the higher you climb up the
    elitarian ladder. If the advantages were accepted, the drawbacks have
    to be, as well.
    
    Chris 

The news from Israel is disturbing to American Jews. That easily explains why
we are so defensive about it. There are some points to keep in mind about the
situation in Israel. First, the Palestinian Arabs are engaging in some media
manipulation. The foreign press always knows _IN ADVANCE_ where and when the
next 'spontaneous' street demonstration will take place. The action picks up
when the cameras arrive. Israeli reporters have learned not to take cameras
into Arab zones.

Second, and it's a point that deserves to be stressed, the battle is really
between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots. Middle-class Arabs
living in Israel tend to be satisfied with living there and take a lot of abuse
from other Arabs who are poor. I do not mean to minimize the severity of the
problems that exist; if we cannot solve the problem of poverty in the USA
(which is large and wealthy), it must be infinitly more difficult to solve in
Israel. I raise the point to assert that the rioting is not wholly based on
racial issues.

Dave

    re: .7           
                     
    David, why is the present situation particularly disturbing to AMERICAN
    Jews?  Does it's basis lie in the "shunda fur da goyim" axiom? 
    Do Israelis have to act according to an idealized stereotype, you
    know the Zionist-Socialist with the thimble hat who makes the desert 
    bloom, embraces all of humanity and dances the hora all night long
    stereotype of the '50's?  For better or for worse Israel is a "normal"
    country with an abnormal problem.  If you think that living up to
    an ideal under less than favourable conditions is easy, than you
    should try it out sometime.
    
    Re: Israeli Arabs, I think you've got a less-than-accurate reading
    of their situation and their relationship to Israel.
    
    David                                                        

    
    re: .8
    
    Hi David-
    
    I'm not sure I understood your question.  Why *shouldn't* the present
    situation be particularly disturbing to us as American Jews? 
    
    I don't think it's entirely for the "shonda" reason you suggest
    (tho that may have something to do with it); and I don't think many
    people seriously expect Israel to live up to an idealized stereotype
    (tho we may wish that it could.)  But it *is* a disturbing situation,
    and it's more upsetting to me than many other (equally bad or worse) world
    situations because I feel closer to it.   (Thievery in general is
    a bad thing; but if my brother engages in thievery, I'm more upset
    than if someone else does...)
                                                

    re: .9
    
    Fern,
    
    I'm not asking anybody here to not be concerned with events in Israel,
    that's normal and accepted.  I was just trying to make the point
    that creating an ideal (and some American Jews do this) and asking
    Israelis to live up to it is wrong and unrealistic.
    
    David

>>    < Note 485.9 by STRSHP::REISS "Fern Alyza Reiss" >
>>                    -< (Always another question:) Why not? >-
  
    Fern,
    
    I'm not quite sure I understood what you were trying to say. That you
    are disturbed by what is reported is legitimate. Living in Israel, we
    are also disturbed about some of the things going on. We all want to
    live in peace and not have people bothering us.
    
    I suppose all sides would like to wave a magic wand and hey presto

    .......... no problem.  However, reality sometimes gets in the way.
    
    I think the subject of THE solution has been discussed many times in
    this notes file and if anyone is a real masochist, I recommend the
    relevant USENET postings ;-) ;-). 

    Don't forget, a lot of the reporting you see has a startling visual
    effect but it doesn't always show the whole picture.
    
    What I don't quite understand was the part in parentheses:
>>                                              (Thievery in general is
>>    a bad thing; but if my brother engages in thievery, I'm more upset
>>    than if someone else does...)
                                                              
    Is it a mixed metaphor, or are you trying to state/imply something ??
                                                                         
    							...... Monty

    
    - .1
    
    >Is it a mixed metaphor or are you trying to state/imply something?
    
    Nope.  Was trying to explain why, as an American Jew, one might
    be more concerned with disturbing events in Israel than elsewhere,
    even if the events are not on a lower moral plane, or worse events.
    They just hit closer to home.  Nothing else was intended.

    Ben Gurion said somethink like: 
    
    	"I want Israel to be a regular country, with its own problems,
    	 its own prostitutes, and its own petty thieves"
    
    Certainly Israel is not trying to be an elitist state. Those of
    us in the US who want it be "the best" may as well choose a desert
    island in the Pacific and wish it to become a "best state".
    Yes, we have the right to be concerned, just as we are concerned
    about hunger in Africa, or situations in North Ireland, or Kurdistan. 
    But judging a country by 10-min NBC spots, and demanding that it tries 
    harder to be "better" is ludicrous.
    
    Israel does have many (MANY) problems, and I disagree with a number
    of things going on there. But it is a country that IS trying to
    solve these problems, and doing a better than mediocre job under
    the given circumstances. So the country does not make top-ten in
    the standard of leaving, and it does not have the relatively peaceful
    history of Switzerland. At the same time, no semi-informed arguments
    about solving Israel's problems thousands of miles away are going
    to be productive.... Oops, sorry, forgot, this is NOTES ;-)

Since you asked what is disturbing, I'll reply. In the past, the media here has
presented a favorable picture of Israel. It is a center of modern Western-style
civilization, democracy, and justice, in stark contrast with its neighbors. It
fights wars for just causes and wins despite being tremendously outnumbered. On
the negative side, the outrageous inflation rate in Israel is almost never
mentioned. Kehane is not taken seriously.

Suddenly we get reports of Arab "protests" in Israel, complete with TV shots of
Israeli uniformed soldiers firing on unarmed teenagers. To an American, the
comparison with our past treatment of rioting blacks in the USA is inescapable.
(I am speaking now of the impressions made by the news reports, not what I
personally believe). The USA treatment of blacks was disgraceful and
reprehensible (and left us feeling guilty), therefore similar conclusions get
drawn regarding Israel.

I would be very interested in hearing more about the status of Arabs in
Israel. My information came from a talk given here by an Israeli journalist.
I may have misinterpreted what I heard.

Dave

    re: .14
    
    Israel really hasn't gotten such great press since 1967.
    
    David

    re: .9
    
    For shame!  The IDF is engaging in protecting the state and its
    population (and, by extention, the Jewish population worldwide)
    from those who would destroy it.  How can you compare such action
    with thievery?

    re: .16
    
    Take it easy!  Fern is not comparing Israel to a thief.  A better
    analogy probably would have served her purpose better.
    
    David

    
    Right, apparently very bad analogy.  I wasn't trying to compare
    the actions (IDF activity = thievery) I was hoping to try to explain
    why people are so upset: because it hits closer to home than most
    world events.

    re: 18
    
    The operative word in your respose is "it", in "it hits close to
    home than most world events."
    
    To what does "it" refer?  The action taken by the IDF?  I cannot
    understand why such action should upset any Jew.  Even in those
    few extreme cases, where a soldier may have been driven temporarily
    berserk -- I think that such is understandable.  It must be pretty
    hard, under the circumstances, to play by the Marquis de Queensbury
    rules all the time.  

    
    >It hits closer to home than most world events.
    
    >> To what does "it" refer? The action taken by the IDF? I cannot
    >> understand why such action should upset any Jew.
    
    No, not the action taken by the IDF.  The entire situation.  Including
    the increase in miluim to 60 days: necessary, but very, very
    demoralizing.  And I'm *not* one of the proponents of the double
    standard--that's the point on which I got into this in the first
    place--but it's inevitable that what is happening in Israel will
    affect me more strongly than what is happening most other places.

    There's also the huge amount of financial aid that the U.S. sends
    to Israel.  I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, so I'm not
    certain if this guess is correct, but I wonder if Israel could
    indefinitely maintain the Occupation under present conditions without
    U.S. money?  If not, then U.S. citizens have a double responsibility to
    speak out.
    

    RE:-1
    
    I always thought a democratic goverment acts according to the majority
    of its citizens. Thus, if US sends money, I suppose it does it
    accordingto the majority.
    
    Otherwise, democracy would be farce.

    Goverments are NOT democratic. They do things becuse
    of their perception of what is in their best interests. 
    
    They may not even be the government because the majority
    of the citizens wanted them, and in some democracies, the government
    can receive less votes than the opposition to obtain power.
    
    Malcolm

    Strange definition of democracy, Malcom.
    Quoting you: "in some DEMOCRACIES", the government can receive less
    votes than the opposition to obtain power".
    
    Strange democracies, indeed...

    Britain, the mother of Democracy, is one such country. The principle
    here is that the country is divided into constituencies. All persons
    living in a constituency have a single vote for the person they would
    most like to represent them as their Member of Parliament. The
    representative can be a member of a political party. The party of
    Government, is the one with the support of most MPs. 
    
    Malcolm
    
    
    

    I see. But I don't understand it yet. If "all persons living in
    a constituency have a single vote for the person they'd most like
    to represent them as their MP, and if the party of Govt is the one
    with the support of most MPs, assuming that even the distribution
    of constituencies is unfair... still happens that, if the Govt decides
    to give money to Israel... it is the the majority of MPs the one
    supporting that operation and, consequently, it is not a particular
    decision of a couple of guys.
    
    I mean, except for obvious political forms, any democracy funding
    any other country is supposed to do it on behalf of the majority
    that elected the members of the govt.
    
    I suppose that if you don't agree with a particular measure taken
    by your government, you always have the chance to vote the opposition
    party. In my country, recognizing Israel was a matter of voting.
    
    The Socialist party included that point in its program. We voted.
    We won. And we established relationships with Israel. Does this
    mean we all approve Israeli way of doin' things? No.
    
    It only means our government decided to expose the question to the
    Nation. And the people freely decided to vote in favor of establishing
    relationships.
    
    The same happened with our membership to NATO. The majority voted
    in favor.
    
    About PLO relationships, our government decided not to expose it
    to voting... I still wonder why... 
    
    Anyway, Malcolm, every country is ruled differently. But at least
    in this particular issue, I'm happy knowing the majority of my country
    fellows chose that option. If we condemn Israel, we do it all together.
    If we accept Israel, it is also the majority's will. That's the
    way it goes here. And that's why I don't understand yet the US and
    Karen's complaint on economic support. Maybe US are ruled also
    differently.
    
    Strange world we are living...

RE: .21

    >There's also the huge amount of financial aid that the U.S. sends
    >to Israel.

    Some of that aid is part of the agreement that led to the Israeli-
    Egyptian peace treaty.  Egypt also gets a sizeable chunk of money.

    Re: -.1
    
    If I remember correctly, in accordance with Camp David agreement
    both Israel and Egypt were supposed to get roughly similar amounts
    of aid, $2.5 b to Israel and $2 b to Egypt for a certain number of 
    years.
    
    Leo

    >...it is the the majority of MPs the one
    >supporting that operation and, consequently, it is not a particular
    >decision of a couple of guys.
   
    Again I disagree. In most countries, there is a cabinet of ministers
    who are entrusted to make policy decisions based upon their
    views and judgements. Quite often decisions are made by ministers
    that are not even communicated to thir own party. 
    
    Malcolm

    Re: democracy, financial aid.
    
    The U.S. government often lags behind U.S. public opinion on an
    issue, for example, military support to the Contras in Nicaragua,
    which is, as well as one can tell, not supported by the majority
    of the public, congress waffles around, and the administration supports
    it.  Even if a majority of citizens take one side on an issue, the
    minority does not lose it's right to speak out in an attempt to
    convince the majority that it is wrong.
    
    I believe that Egypt is currently the #2 recipient of U.S. aid,
    after Israel, although I am not certain.  Egypt, on the other hand,
    has to strictly account for its use of U.S. funds, while Israel
    does not -- it can use them as it wishes.  U.S. aid to Israel tends
    to increase with Israeli military ventures, such as the invasion
    of Lebanon.  I understand that the 1989 request for aid includes an
    additional amount of money to cover the entire costs of the uprising
    so far.  Or, as a political cartoon showing the IDF beating a
    Palestinian goes:  "Your U.S. tax dollars at work."
    
    In any event, the point I was trying to make about financial aid
    is this:  if I see a wrong beng committed, I have an obligation
    to speak out against it.  If my own country is an enabler of the
    wrong, I have a double obligation.
     
    
    

    Direct vs Representative Democracy:
    
    How can a majority of people not prefer a government and yet
    still choose that government democratically?
    
    There are two major ways this can happen.
    
    First, there may be more than two parties.  Imagine an election
    where the results are like this:
    
    		Loonies		30%
    		Goonies		30%
		Toonies		40%
    
    The Toonies win, but the majority (sixty percent) is non-Toonie.
    
    Second, the distribution of voters in districts may not be even.
    Imagine a country with a hundred districts.  Assume that 90% of
    the people are Loonies and 10% are Goonies.  If all the Goonies
    live in ten of the districts, then 10% of the MPs or Representatives
    will be Goonies.  But if the Goonies are evenly distributed all
    over the country, then every district will vote only 10% Goonie,
    and all the MPs will be Loonies (100%).
    
    More realistically, assume that the majority of the voters are
    Loonies, but that the distribution of voters to districts is
    uneven:
    
    		60 districts have 51% Goonies and 49% Loonies,
    		   giving 60 Goonie MPs,
    
    		40 districts are 100% Loonies, giving 40 Loonie
    		   MPs.
    
    There are (40+(60*.49)) = 59.4 percent Loonie voters and only
    (60*.51) = 30.6% Goonie voters, but the Goonies dominate the
    representative body 60% to 40%.
    
    This situation usually evolves when a party is loosing popularity
    and re-draws the district lines to remain in power.  The process
    of drawing district lines to create this kind of distribution
    is called "gerrymandering," based on a Massachusetts legislator
    of the early 1800's named Gerry.
    
    					-John Bishop

    No, named Gerrymander.
    
    						Ann B.

RE .31 .32

	Elbridge Gerry, who was governor at the time, arranged to create
a long, sinuously shaped district, carefully drawn to protect his political
party.  A local political cartoonist drew a map of the district, added some
fanciful appendages, and dubbed it a gerrymander.  The neologism has since
become part of the (American) English language, and now means any electoral
district drawn in a way that protects or promotes a partisan interest.

					Aaron

    Excuse me if this is repetitious, but I am trying to catch up on
    several weeks of absence from the BAGELS notes file, and haven't
    read every reply here.
    
    I was in Israel over the last two weeks of July, and had the
    opportunity of hearing Yitzhak Rabin speak.  He made a comment about
    the "double standard" which went basically like this (paraphrase)
    
        I don't mind if the world judges Israel on a double standard.
        In fact, I welcome it.  If so, I just hope that the media
        coverage will be consistent, and in proportion to the event...
    
    He went on to site two recent incidents: One in which less than
    five Palestinians were killed as a result of Israeli soldiers throwing
    tear gas at them, another in which the Iranians killed thousands
    of Iraqis during a military raid.  The former received weeks of
    coverage on American news reports, the latter, less than 2 minutes.
    Apparently in YR's mind, there is some inequity.

    Hi,
    
    I don't know if there is a problem in .34 as news *is* what people
    want to hear about. Israel figures greatly because so many of the
    audience has an interest!
    
    I think that problems occur when news broadcasting presents
    information in a less than honest way. Now as Israel is of great
    interest, and much time is devoted to her, a proportion of that
    time should be available to *understand* what it is like to be her.
    (rather than judgemental from the outside)
    
    Malcolm