Conference taveng::bagels

    I want to add a P.S. to my previous note. I hessitated for some
    time before entering the base note. I hope this will not the
    base for an endless discussion of right vs. left, of who killed
    more of the other side and who is a terrorist. I have no doubt
    that this way will not conduce us anywhere. I believe that it is
    requested from both sides of this arab-israeli conflict a lot of
    strength and wisdom, to introduce new ideas, new concepts, to 
    renounce perhaps to some of what each side believes is rightfully
    theirs, to renounce perhaps to some ideals, in the sake of life.
    
    Juan-Carlos Kiel

re .0 & 1

hear hear!!

		Lou

    Hi, every body
    I am new to this note file , I agree with juan , but I think
    the problem is because of the arab_israeli conflict,the only
    solution is a real peace in the middle east , other wise these
    incidents, is going to happen more often, from either side.
    
    I feel that the only person to achieve a real peace is MR.
    Shimon peres, I wish he will persue his peace effort with
    the arabs so every body will live in peace in that holly
    place.
    
    ali

First of all, welcome to the conference, Ali.

Secondly, I disagree with you on the causes of such incidents.  If and when
peace is achieved, by Peres or anyone else (personally, I would bet on "anyone
else"), that won't be enough to stop incidents like this.  Peace will not
prevent mentally disturbed individuals from carrying out acts like this, though
it may (we hope) reduce their frequency.

What we can and should do is to stop treating incidents like these as political
in nature, rather than as the acts of sick individuals.  We should try to help
such people, and we should do our best to see that they don't get their hands
on dangerous weapons.  We should *not* turn them into representatives of their
societies!  And we don't have to wait for a peace treaty to change our
attitudes in this way.

	ERIC, who knows what drove him to the state he's in.  But, one thing
	for sure if there was a infrastructure where he could of been under
	much less pressure, his chances of going wackooo would of been much 
	less.  One thing for sure, in order for peace of mind on both sides
	people must start TALKING.
	
	-Sultan

        P.S.
        WAKE UP, politics drives the world, and you know it.

.5>	ERIC, who knows what drove him to the state he's in.

Well, the courts have referred him for psychiatric evaluation.  Maybe the
shrinks will get an idea.


.5>	     ... if there was a infrastructure where he could of been under
.5>	much less pressure, his chances of going wackooo would of been much 
.5>	less.

That sounds like more of an excuse than a reason.  On the other hand, maybe I
should point out during my next review that tripling my salary would put *me*
under a lot less pressure ...


.5>     WAKE UP, politics drives the world, and you know it.

Not my world, it doesn't.  Oh, politics is an important factor, but not the
overriding one.

Just to bring some perspective to the Palestinians and and Americans reactions
about the recent events (not that I disagree with whatever has been said
on this note before).

The Palestinians: I wish the same concern would have been expressed after the
murderous attack on the Israeli Tourist bus on Egypt three months ago (on
which I had immediate relatives).

The Americans: I wonder if Ted Koppel will dedicate  "Nightline" show to discuss
the 27 Moslems who were shot to death in India yesterday while demonstrating 
for their independence ( Yesterday night he discussed the last events
    in Israel).

And these are only two examples.

    HI,Eric
    Our environment has the biggest influence on our behavior. And could
    be that soldier is mentally sick, or what ever the reason is these
    killing should be stopped on both side,as you mentioned controlling
    the availability of weapons and helping people with mental problems
    these are great solution.
    Any way, peace is very easy to say , but very hard to achieve
    I think all the people in the middle east Israelis or Arabs wants
    peace,and they are looking at there leader for peace, but how, when,
    and who, there could be other than Mr.Peres could be Mr Shamir,and
    his likud party. or it could be (rakah) the israeli communist party
    could be some other leader in israel.
    
    We as people,should encourage any leader to achieve a peace that
    guarantee Israel a safe and friendly boarder with its arab neighbour
    and to guarantee a home land for the palestinian people, Mr Arafat
    on different occasion mentioned that he is for a fair peace and
    he is ready to talk to any israeli leader, let us all israeli.
    and arab encourage leaders like him to come forward for peace
    let us encourage them to sit and talk  peace,and stop this 
    bloodshed,because no body is going to win at the end except 
    the arm dealer, and the sole looser is the people of isreal and
    the people of the arab world.
    
    that how I feel about it.
    
    ali
    

re: <<< Note 944.8 by WFOVX5::AWKAL "ALI AWKAL" >>>
             -< that how I feel about it >-


>    Any way, peace is very easy to say , but very hard to achieve
>    I think all the people in the middle east Israelis or Arabs wants
>    peace,and they are looking at there leader for peace, but how, when,
    
>    ... Mr Arafat
>    on different occasion mentioned that he is for a fair peace and
>    he is ready to talk to any israeli leader, let us all israeli.
>    and arab encourage leaders like him to come forward for peace
>    let us encourage them to sit and talk  peace,and stop this 
>    bloodshed,because no body is going to win at the end except 
>    the arm dealer, and the sole looser is the people of isreal and
>    the people of the arab world.
    

	Uh-huh. Yep.  Public statement last evening by close adviser of
	Mr. Arafat on the radio (on _Israel radio!).  I quote:

	"...we are never going to give up our dream and plan for
	a Palestinian State in ALL [emphasis mine] of Palestine..."

	For the information of those who don't know: "All of Palestine"
	is a code-phrase from the PLO Charter, q. v. ...

		All_of_Palestine :== "Israel" + "Judea" + "Samaria" +
					"Gaza" + "Jordan"

    
	And they tell me that the "strategy of stages" is dead...

	I would like you to do something for this conference, please:
	would you please define for us what the phrase (literally
	translated from Arabic) "the peace of Saladin" means?  Thanks
	very much.


don feinberg

>944.8
>   ... And could be that soldier is mentally sick...

He WASN'T a soldier.  It's a very tiny inaccuracy, which annoys the
hell out of me.  It's almost not worth correcting, and yet it certainly
presents a slightly different picture of what happenned.

I'm sure you are not the only one to present this inaccuracy, and I
wonder if there isn't an ulterior motive.

And as long as I'm in this note, let me say that:

 1. I, too, express my sympathies to the families and wish the wounded a
    speedy full recovery.
 2. I am disgusted at the cynical way political use which was made out
    of a tragedy.  It's not like the attack on the bus in Egypt, either (you
    are playing into their hands, JGILON).  It is more like the countless
    times in the U.S. a sicko has shot up a Burger King or a schoolyard.

Sid

>He WASN'T a soldier.  It's a very tiny inaccuracy, which annoys the
>hell out of me.  

   What always bugs me is when they describe someone as an 
   EX-soldier.  This description fits just about every citizen
   over the age of 22.

    Hi,Don
    1_ Iam not going into details about that person condition
    what the news media described him an ex_soldier, that 
    where I got my information, what I really means that these
    incident should be stopped from the arab and the israeli
    
    2_ about Mr arafat adviser and the equation, I am not up to
    date on their peace plan,or what they asking for peace, I 
    could not talk for him he is entitled to his opinion, what I
    want every body to understand that peace is the only solution
    in the middle east.
    I appreciate if a noter could explain for both of us the arab 
    and the israeli peace plan if there is any
    I read before in this note file a lengthy argument between arab
    and israeli noters about the middle east , I really don't think
    it get us any where , and I don't want to start that again,
    3_ I don't know any thing about the peace of saladen, some other
    noter could explain.
    
    thanks Don and have a nice day
    
    
    

From a country where there is virtually 100% conscription for both sexes, it
would appear that describing any adult individual as an ex-soldier is an
instance of media bias.

Dave

	FWIW:

	I think that it's a fine gesture by President Bush to 
	extend his condolences to the families of the victims.

	What about, for example, the families of the victims
	in the recent bus attack(s), for example?  

Just a thought.

don feinberg

	I think the USA is rapidly withdrawing its hand of friendship
from Israel, and we are seeing the beginning of a deep plunge. I would
expect a cut in aid to come as soon as this year, perhaps fuzzied up by
impossible conditions - sort of "withdraw from all of Jerusalem, or we'll
give you 10% less". Whatever, the Bush Administration will come up with
excuses - and is doing so today, as we speak. The bargain with Arafat to
support UN observers in the OT (not exactly your objective group) in return
for Arafat's non-applying for a visa - it's just another step. I strongly
suspect that this Administration is privately commited to dropping Israel
as an ally - wholly or in part...

DG

RE:-1

    A few months ago I would have strongly disagreed with you, now I don't
    know.  The settlement in the Christian (or was it another quarter) has
    far greater impact then meets the eye.  Especially, when it was 
    announced that the Israeli government had financed the settlement. 
    Bush has had string support from the religious right in the US and has
    gone out of his way to keep their support even when it wasn't
    politically the best move.  Just look at the abortion issue.  The
    settlement has shifted the religious right feelings toward Israel and
    Bush will be able to lower the level of the US-Israel relationship
    without antagonizing the right.  
    
    I don't think that the US will abandon Israel but I don't believe that
    the support is there and it will take a lot to redevelop the strong
    bonds as before.
    
    WS

    I wasn't going to enter this discussion, but I just want to say that
    making the comparison of "your atrocity was as bad or worse than our
    atrocity" is faulty logic to begin with.  I've seen this used time and
    time again.  If your neighbour's house is dirtier than yours does that
    excuse you from doing housework?
    
    Shabbat Shalom,
    David

	If your neighbors house were dirtier than yours, you'd be less
receptive towards his harangues and public complaints about your house's
cleanliness. You'd expect an objective passerby to take your side in any
such argument between you and your "dirty house" neighbor, or at least to
stay neutral.
	Should you grimy neighbor's cries attract a crowd of (sympathetic
to him) cleanliness zealots decrying your unsanitary child-rearing environment,
you'd wonder about their biases, general fairness of life, and whether such
cleanliness standards are worth bothering about. Should the crowd then bang
on your doors, demanding immediate inspection (all the while comforting your
slob the neighbor), you'd call the police - or reach for a shotgun...

DG

         Only a souble standard dictates collective Jewish guilt for the

                                 Rishon murders



                        I'm not shedding crocodile tears





                                   Sarah Honig

           Reproduced without permission:  Jerusalem Post, 25 May 1990





      LISTENING TO the mournful tones and tunes on Kol Yisrael in the  wake

      of  the Rishon Lezion murder of Arab workers on Sunday, I have a very

      heretical confession to make:  I am not  guilty!   I  feel  no  shame

      whatever!  I've never taken the life of anything larger than insect.



           Sorry, but the crocodile tears refuse to flow down my cheeks.  I

      am  not  unlike  millions of American who did not beat their personal

      breats when a gunman recently mowed down diners in a hamburger  joint

      or  when another fired his weapon in a schoolyard.  If my memory does

      not fail me, those  incidents  made  no  waves  in  the  UN  Security

      Council.   Neither  did  the  Ras  Burka  massacre  in  Sinai and the

      slaughter only a few months ago of Israeli tourists in Egypt.



           They are all gone with the wind.  Dead and forgotten -  as  with

      the  bus  passengers  overturned  in  a  ravine  between Tel Aviv and

      Jerusalem, Ofra Moses, her unborn baby and her five-year-old son Tal,

      Rahel  Weiss  and  her  three  tots, or the two oldsters stabbed on a

      Jerusalem bus-stop bench by a hero of the glorious intifada.



           The stabbing of Ein Kerem restaurant owner Ya'acov Shalom,  only

      a  few  hours  after the Rishon bloodshed, failed to so much as flick

      our public eyelash.  We were too busy mourning the Arab victims of  a

      madman to devote much time to the Jewish victim of a cold, calculated

      execution, an act of deliberate hate.



           The double standard is undeniable.  Jewish blood is  cheap,  and

      even  we  Jews  have a far cooler reaction to our dead than the Arabs

      have to theirs.  It is almost natural for Jews to be slain;  it  does

      not   disturb   the  order  of  things.   And  so,  our  own  leftist

      self-appointed guardians of Jewish morality don't get overly outraged

      when  Jewish  blood  is  spilled.   At  most, there is the obligatory

      lip-service for public consumption about "regrettable violence in the

      absence of political compromise."



           IT'S ALL really our fault, anyway.  If Jewish deaths  spark  any

      passion  in the Left it is because "the incident plays into the hands

      of the extremist Right."



           I do not blame the Arabs in the territories  for  rioting.   The

      don't  love us.  Their parents' generation rioted and murdered before

      we had a state or occupied any territories.   We  are  enemies.   Any

      pretext  will  do  to  fuel  hate.   Remember  the  mass  hysteria of

      pre-intifada tales of  Arab  schoolgirls  poisoned  by  a  mysterious

      Jewish gas?



           But our own left wing ought to know better.  They know full well

      that  the  Rishon killer was not sent by anyone, that, legally insane

      or not, he acted as an individual and not as the agent  of  a  group,

      much  less  of  the  government  or  the  nation.  The talk about "an

      atmosphere" conducive to the murder of  Arabs  is  reckless  demagogy

      which in some eyes could justify the murder of Jews.



           The fact is that we are the tamest people on earth.   After  two

      and  a  half  years  of  stone-throwing  and  murder,  other nations,

      including the one led by President George Bush, would have gone on  a

      vengeful rampage.



           Besides, can anyone guarantee that,  after  the  achievement  of

      idyllic,  blissful  peace  (which  the  Left  envisions  after we rid

      ourselves of all our territorial possessions)  no  individual  gunmen

      woul  ever  run  wild?   Perhaps  the assumption is that, after peace

      comes, only Jews will be mowed down by a hail of bullets.



           Like the Left's reaction, that of Israeli Arabs within the Green

      Line  has  given  hypocrisy  and  cynicism  a  bad  name.   After the

      discovery  of  the  body  of  Ashdod's  Avi   Sasportas,   now   also

      conveniently forgotten, some of his neighbors had the notion of going

      out to the highway and stoning some  Gazan  cars.   But  unlike  Arab

      rage,  their  rage was understood by no one, and condemned roundly by

      everyone.



           Israel's Arabs railed agains collectively blaming all Arabs  for

      the  acts  of  a few.  Innocent citizens must not be punished for the

      blood they did not spill.  Very true.



           SO WHY ARE all of us Jews now being blamed for what  Ami  Popper

      did?   If it is indecent to blame all Arabs collectively even for all

      the dastardly crimes committed by the organization  they  admire  and

      claim speaks for them, why should I be blamed for a Mr.  Popper who I

      don't admire, who doesn't speak for me, and whom I didn't  even  know

      existed until Sunday?



           Why is it dangerous  for  me  to  drive  through  the  Triangle,

      Galilee,  the  Negev,  or  even  certain  sections of Lod, Haifa, and

      Jaffa?  These are all located in what  the  PLO  lately  purports  to

      recognize  as  part  of the State of Israel, and not asterritories it

      claims.



           Imagine how Israel's Arabs  and  the  Israeli  Left  would  have

      reacted  had  Jews  rioted after a terrorist outrage, as the Arabs of

      Nazareth did.  If the Arabs are so sensitive to the loss of  innocent

      lives,  why  were  they  not mearly outraged when Israeli mothers and

      infants were burned alive?  Any why are fire bombs  being  hurled  in

      Haifa and Nazareth, within the Green Line?  Why were two busses, full

      of innocent passengers, attacked in Nazareth on Monday?



           But the brutal truth we must face  is  that  Israeli  Arabs  are

      rioting  not  because  they  value human lives so highly, but because

      they hate so intensely.  We can be trendy, and turn a  blind  eye  to

      hate, but that won't make it go away.



           As to our own moralists, let them not subscribe to  the  age-old

      anti-Semitic  axiom that Jews may not have deviants among them, as it

      is natural to all other groups.  Genteel anti-Semitism will  tell  us

      that they put us on a pedestal and expect us to abide by higher moral

      standards.  Les sophisticated bigots simply say that way is okay  for

      others  is  forbidden  for us.  And so any transgression committed by

      one Jew automatically stigmatizes all Jews and makes them liable  for

      the severest punishment.



           By these double standards, I am culpable  for  the  shooting  in

      Rishon.   I  feel as heavy a burden of blame and shame for it as I do

      for the crucifixion of Jesus or the baking of matzot  with  the  pure

      blood of innocent Christian children.

re: .19

You may be surprised that after reading my previous reply that I agree 100% 
with Sarah Honig's arguments.  Jewish life is valued cheaply, particularly
when taken in the context of the current political climate.  I had always 
argued that constant finger-pointing at Israeli policies in the territories
ignores decades of history of organized hate, hatred toward Israel and the 
Jewish people.  The world seems to have collective amnesia, as if pre-1967
history never existed.  Innocent victims? Does anyone remember or know about
the Maale Akrabim Egged bus massacre in 1953?  I could go one and on listing
atrocities, but it would seem futile, and that was my point in .17

Arafat has his usual gaul to talk about climates of hate, when for years 
millions of Arab schoolchildren were taught the Protocols of Zion, and other
maliscious anti-Jewish "educational articles" as part and parcel of their
daily education.  

--David

    I've long ago resigned to the fact that the double standard is and
    will always be applied to Israel and Jews in general.
    
    We've even had well meaning Jewish noters participate here in that
    "righteous" pratice (but we want Israel to be "perfect", but our tax
    dollars...). Some are ill informed, others are mis-informed, others
    lack the guts to stand for unpopular views, others prefer to maintain a
    Jewish uncle Tom profile.
    
    And so double standard reigns. One can expect that the amount of
    attention a country gets is in proportion to its "imperfection" --
    after all, I would understand if nobody wanted to hear that "no one was
    robbed in Lichtenstein today". But "Jews are news"...
    
    Alex

   Yesterday I took my new neighbours, a pair of russian-born Jews, and their
   kids to the beach. My neighbours came to Israel some 3 months ago. We live 
   all together in Herzliya, a beautifull small town by the sea. 

   It was a beautiful day. By noon, we saw flying over our 
   heads some military helicopters. We saw a patrol boat in front of us.
   We didn't know what was happening. I just told my guests "You see, the
   I.D.F. is watching over us".

   I didn't know then how true were my words. At the same time, two boats
   of terrorists were being caught in front of the seashores of Israel. We
   were sunbathing and, without knowing, we were in the battle-front. Neither
   my neighbours nor I did anything to anybody in order to explain an attack
   against us. Unless just being and sunbathing constitutes a provocation.

   We were inocent, and even so, we were targets. That only because IDF was
   alert, I am able today to type these lines.

   This is terror. My provocation, my guilt, is just being. As was the guilt
   of other victims of terror. Just before Pentecostes (Shavuoth in Hebrew),
   another hit was done. At the Machne-Yehuda market in Jerusalem. "Only" 
   one Jew was killed. "Only" 9 were hurt. The whole world shook their heads, 
   said "what a shame" and kept on going.

   No huge demonstrations. No international conferences. The U.N. was not 
   convened in Geneva. Yes, there are double standards. And yes, we, the Jews
   in Israel we do look forward to peace. And we do condemn acts like the 
   crazy shooting in Rishon LeZion, as was my base note.

   But then comes reality and slaps our faces. It is acceptable to attack
   the inocent citizens of this country, and nobody really cares.

   I expect to hear a strong condemnation of all terror _against_Jews_ from
   all peoples and all countries that condemned the Rishon attack. I expect
   the Arabs condemn it to show there are partners in our search for peace.
   I cannot believe the P.L.O., that shelters both the Abu-El-Abass organiza-
   tion, that was responsible for the boat attack, as well as the other 
   organizations that planted the bomb in Machane-Yehuda, can be considered
   a partner for peace talks. 

   Perhaps it is the time that the Arabs that truly want peace, constitute
   an alternative to the P.L.O., an alternative not soiled with innocent 
   blood, so peace can finally reach our shores. And perhaps we should
   also build an alternative, and build a pragmatic peace. For the sake of 
   all men that live in this area.

   Ken Yehy Ratson. Inshallah.

   Juan-Carlos Kiel

    Juan, you're missing an important point: from the perspective of the
    "terrorists" you are not innocent: you are a thief.  You are not "just
    being", you are active in the use of the stolen property.  The
    terrorists don't believe the same things you do, and they think that
    what they are doing is both important and right--they are not people
    who decided to go out and do a bad deed every day.
    
    If someone moved into your house and started acting like it was his,
    would you not think this person was an enemy?  If that person then
    sat in a chair, so they were "just being", would that suddenly make
    them not an enemy?
    
    Understanding your opponent is not the same thing as agreeing with him;
    it is, however, useful in both defense and offense.  While I agree with
    you that killing sunbathers is bad, and empathize with your displeasure
    at being threatened while relaxing, I think I sense a certain blindness
    on your part to why this is happening, and an unwillingness to accept
    that your opponents don't think they are criminals.
    
    			-John Bishop

Very even-handed, John.  Very clinical and very liberal.
Spoken as someone who will not be personally affected no matter
what the outcome of the conflict is.

But tell me, if the "terrorists" had succeeded in killing hundreds
or thousands of people (and from the firepower they brought with
them as well as the maps of their destinations, those numbers were
certainly possible) would they still be "terrorists" in quotation
marks?  How many civillians have to be killed before you will remove
the damn quotation marks?

The problem is that there are conflicts and contentions over real
estate all over the world.  If you are American, then I don't have to
tell you what some Indians think of your claim to your land.  If you
are British, you certainly are part of a long history of colonialism.
Just because someone views you as squatting illegally on their land,
does not give them license to engage in terror.  More than that, as
a civilized human being you are obligated to pass judgment, to say
when the bounds of humanity have been crossed.  And not to say, well
they think of you as a thief, so you have to "understand" them.   No,
I don't have to understand the terrorists who are trying to kill me.  I
just have to kill them first.


Sid

Two announcements on the radio this morning (Sunday, 2 June)

1)  Abu el-Abass announced that the operation last week was only the first
    of a series of violent, terrorist (_his_ words, not mine) operations he 
    has planned for Israel in the coming weeks.

2)  Arafat refused again to condemn the action as a terrorist action
    because, he says, that it was "a military action, without civilian
    impact, and not a PLO action in the first place."

    However, two things:

	- I have an updated list which I received Friday, of the Executive
	  Committee members of the PLO, with their positions and "committee
	  assignments".  I will try to publish this this week, even though
	  I'll be travelling to Europe day after tomorrow.

	  I assure you that Abu el-Abass is on that list. (The list 
	  includes, by the way, all these folks' names and noms-de-guerre,
	  just so you can keep your players straight...)

	- Investigations are showing that the assignment of the people in
	  one of the intercepted boats was specifically civilian: mass
	  murder in downtown Tel-Aviv.

	  Now we are reminded what Mr. Arafat means by "military targets".
	  

don feinberg

re .23:

John, your "important point" is silly.  It's obvious to anyone that the
terrorists believe that they have good reason to carry out such actions;
they would hardly go to the trouble of doing so, otherwise.  Murderers,
rapists, and heroin dealers probably also do what they do for some reason.

What bothers some of us is that the "friends of Israel" in the "civilized
world" don't seem terribly bothered by terror attacks on civilians.  This tends
to make us question whether those people are either our friends or civilized.

    re .23
    
    John, what is the objectivist view? Are you suggesting that in
    this case we dismiss the issue as being inherently "gray"?
    
    Alex

    Look, if you want to talk pragmatic issues like control of territory
    and military power, leave out the whines about "terrorism" and
    "criminals"; if you want to talk about morality and justice, then
    face up to the fact that there is no consensus about what the Good
    is, and there seems to be no way to prove your opinion Right and your
    opponent Wrong (or at least, no way acceptable to the whole world).
    
    I'd respect Israel if it just said "Right, we can't afford this
    police effort; every non-Jew must leave the West Bank and Gaza;
    no compensation, no legality, just go: our right to do this is our 
    ability to do it".  That would make sense militarily, and doesn't
    require any justification of Israel's acts.
    
    I'd respect Israel if it said "We believe our right to the land is
    based on such-and-such legal principles, and we are willing to fight
    a court case on those grounds before the UN and abide by it, so long
    as we can also take certain other groups to court and have them abide
    by decisions".  I'd think they were crazy, but it's consistent, and
    allows Israel to say that any attackers were criminals.
    
    But what I see is reducible to "We hold this land by force, and we
    are angry that anyone would attack us, and they are morally wrong".
    This is inconsistent, unless you assume that Jews have a special moral
    right to take the territory now called Israel by force (as I'm sure
    some people believe).
    
    Does this make sense to you, now?
    
    			-John Bishop

.28>    I'd respect Israel if it said "We believe our right to the land is
.28>    based on such-and-such legal principles ...

The Israeli government has been saying exactly that for many years.


.28>                                             ... we are willing to fight
.28>    a court case on those grounds before the UN and abide by it ...

In 1975, the UN declared that Zionism (a.k.a. "our right to the land") is
racism.  Are you seriously suggesting that they now are capable of impartially
judging this question?  Get serious.


.28>        Does this make sense to you, now?

No, but I'm sure that it would make plenty of sense to Israel's enemies.

    re .29:
    
    Go back and read the parts of my note you didn't quote.  I fully
    agree with you that the UN is not a source of justice.  I already
    am serious.
    
    But (I say it again, maybe it'll sink in) There Is No Universal
    Legal Standard Between Nations.  At the bottom, the claim of the
    US to a large chunk of North America is based on possession (i.e.
    conquest), and so on for all nations.  Right and Wrong don't enter
    into it, except as legal fictions.  At the level of governments,
    Might makes Right.
    
    So a "legal claim" is worthless, get it?  There's no world court system
    to fight it in, and no world policeman to enforce that court's decisions.
    
    So acting the injured innocent about people trying to kill you while
    you sun-bathe is dishonest: your innocence is not a fact, it's just
    your opinion.
    
    Israel is at war.  Civilians die in wars, and no-one is surprised,
    or rather, no-one should be surprised.  It's naive (if you really
    are surprised), or manipulative (if you aren't but are pretending
    to be).  Neither attitude deserves respect.
    
    Now, I consider myself pro-Israel.  I only mildly resent the billions
    the US sends Israel (hey, it's only a few bucks per American, right?).
    But I resent funding people who can't figure out what their real
    situation is, and so won't deal with it successfully.
    
    			-John Bishop

		ISRAEL: MORE THAN A BATTLEGROUND

			Albert Schlossberg
			(Boston Globe, Jun 5th)

	"Why go to Israel now," they asked, "Why risk the danger?"
	"So out grandchildren will witness and be enriched by the brilliant
tapestry of Israel's people, reflecting off an ever-changing, panoramic 
landscape. The nuances of three major religions, cast in time-machine-like
settings. People, places and history juxtaposed against the reality of a nation
and its people rushing into the 21st century".
	It was early morning on the rampart atop the Mount of Olives,
overlooking the ancient Jewish cemetery. The glistening Old Dome of the Rock.
The somber, gray Al Aqsa Mosque. The meandering walls of the Old City of
Jerusalem, spread out in a knot in front of us. Below, in the cemetery, a small
knot of Jews prayed at a grave.
	I turned at the sound of crunching gravel. Two men came toward us. One
Arab, the other a Hassidic Jew. They stopped close to us. I heard their quiet
conversation. Friends out for a stroll on the Mount of Olives, once a battleline
between their two peoples. Now they were sharing the beauty of the ancient city
of Jerusalem.
			*	*	*
	Later, an Israeli asked us an interesting question: "would you like
authentic Vietnamese food for lunch?" In Israel? He had to be joking! But he
wasn't!
	We went in. The food was excellent. The restaurant owner's tale was
fascinating. In fluent English and Hebrew, interrupted by instructions to his
Vietnamese staff in their native language, we learned how he was in Jerusalem.
	He had been a captain in the Vietnamese Air Force, attached to an
American helicopter squadron. He'd piloted a Huey gunship. He'd been through and
suffered the trauma of that conflict.
	When the Americans decided to pull out of Vietnam, he chose to stay
behind to protect his family. Because of his American connection, he was a sure
target for prison at best, execution at worst. Somehow he managed to spirit his
family out of Saigon and ultimately sailed away with them as "boat people".
	Refused refuge at every turn, he and his family were among the several
hundred Vietnamese to whom Israel offered a safe harbor.
	He'd struggled, worked at menial tasks, saved his money and opened a 
restaurant in Tiberias. Though successful, he chose to sell his interest to his
Israeli partner. He moved his family to Jerusalem, and began again. Again he
succeeded. Now a proud Israeli citizen, he told us that inancient Jerusalem he
had found the peace which he'd lost in Vietnam.
			*	*	*
	David Tzur sat in a small cubicle workshop, surrounded by walls
overflowing with prolific examples of his art. He was creating more art with
swift strokes of pen and ink.
	As he moved his arm, I saw the tattooed numbers, an ever-present 
reminder of his hell in a Nazi concentration camp. How, I wondered, could a
sensitive artist have survived the horror of the Holocaust? From what depth had
he drawn enough courage to retain his sanity and regain his jovial sense of
humour and quick wit?
	He told us what he continually told himself in the horror of the 
concentration camp: "Survive! Survive! Then pick up the pieces!" He did. And now
in Israel, he'd found peace. He'd regained his ability to see and reproduce the
beauty of life. His dream had come true. He'd vanquished his evil captors.
	This is Israel today, much more than a battleground.

(sorry about prev empty note - moderator kill it if u wish...)

re .30:

>>    Israel is at war.  Civilians die in wars, and no-one is surprised,
>>    or rather, no-one should be surprised.  It's naive (if you really
>>    are surprised), or manipulative (if you aren't but are pretending
>>    to be).  Neither attitude deserves respect.
		
Civilians might die in wars, but civilized armies dont attack civilians relaxing
on a beach.  If the PLO wants to fight a real war, why dont they stand up
and fight like men, instead of attacking defenseless people on beaches and 
buses?

    The tatics you propose for the PLO have lead to defeat--why do
    you expect them to contine a losing strategy?  They don't want 
    to fight a "real" war, they want to win.  Compare with the Viet
    Nam war: every time the Viet Cong/NVA massed, the French or the
    Americans could clobber them.  So they fought in a different
    manner, and won.  Once the Americans had left, a conventional
    invasion was possible, and succeeded quickly.
    
    "Civilized" armies have attacked cilivians relaxing before, or
    do you imagine that high-altitute bombing is precise enough to 
    hit a factory or rail line and miss the restaurant, beer hall,
    swimming pool or dance hall near by?
    
    If beaches are a new target, it's only because most recent bombing
    has been done at night, to protect the aircraft.  I suspect that the
    long-distance shelling during daytime of Paris in WWI or of Lebanon
    recently by US warships might well have hit some beaches and bathers
    thereon.
    			-John Bishop

.34

There is a big difference between inadvertantly hitting civilians while
attacking military targets and seeking out civilian targets.  The PLO
hits civilian targets because they are easy.

Gavriel

.34>         ... every time the Viet Cong/NVA massed, the French or the
.34>    Americans could clobber them.  So they fought in a different
.34>    manner, and won.

The "different manner" consisted of unconventional tactics directed against
U.S. and South Vietnamese military forces.  *All* sides carried out attacks on
civilians (Remember My Lai?), but that didn't have any noticeable effect on the
outcome of the war.


.34>    I suspect that the long-distance shelling ... of Lebanon
.34>    recently by US warships might well have hit some beaches and bathers
.34>    thereon.

You may suspect all you like, but do you have any facts to back up your
suspicions?  The news reports that I saw indicated that the only damage was
a few holes blown in hillsides.

re: <<< Note 944.23 by MINAR::BISHOP >>>
>   -< Remember that they think they are justified >-

>    Juan, you're missing an important point: from the perspective of the
>    "terrorists" you are not innocent: you are a thief.
    
Are you, John, suggesting that Juan modifies his definitions of ethics and
morality to compromise with those of the terrorists? And why do you quote
the term "terrorists"? I know _they_ think they are "freedom fighters"
What do _you_ think?

>   . . . they think that what they are doing is both important and right--
>   they are not people who decided to go out and do a bad deed every day.
    
Clearly their sense of morality does not agree with mine. Does this make it OK?

re .28
>   if you want to talk about morality and justice, then
>   face up to the fact that there is no consensus about what the Good
>   is, and there seems to be no way to prove your opinion Right and your
>   opponent Wrong (or at least, no way acceptable to the whole world).
    
World has consensus on just about nothing. You made a decision to address
this subject. Clearly you thought about it. What is YOUR view of what is
Right/Wrong in this case, based on YOUR definition/view of morality?

Are you _unwilling_ to make a moral judgement? Do you prefer to say that
in this case your morality provides you with no way of determining what 
constitutes Good/Evil?

Here is a real case for you.

Alex

    I have my own judgements, Alex, don't worry.
    
    First, I am suggesting that Juan modify his ethics to the point
    that he either ceases to assume he is utterly innocent, or that he
    clearly states the universal principles which make him innocent,
    and then abide by them with respect to ownership of land and the
    existence of Israel at all.  The cause of this whole string of notes
    is the irritation I felt at the "injured innocent" tone of Juan's
    initial note about the attack on the beach.  I quoted "terrorist"
    because I did not want to implicitly assert that they were terrorists
    at the start, since I was going to go on to point out that that
    judgement is itself a matter of opinion.
    
    Second, I'm suggesting that Israel isn't facing up to an existing
    choice, but is postponing a choice in a situation which is not
    getting any better (the choice is either integration/compromise, with
    its attendant risks or expulsion/fortification, with its attendant
    risks.  Staying a society with a growing Arab lower class isn't 
    stable in the long run, despite its economic attractions at the
    moment.  I suggest Israel should decide to be poor and free, with
    good defenses).
    
    Third, I have yet to come across a convincing and consistent theory
    of land tenure, so the ultimate ownership of Israel is somewhat in
    doubt, but from an entertainment point of view, I prefer having a
    different state there, rather than just another Jordan.  I'm also
    willing to accept right of conquest in the past as a fait accompli,
    but would rather not have any more conquests in the future.  That's
    a pragmatic judgement, not a moral one, as it clearly means that some
    past crimes will go un-punished.
    
    Fourth, though I would love to live in a world in which war follows
    rules, I don't see that being the case.  If it were clear who the 
    aggressor was, then I would happily assign blame.  I would defend my
    tenure of my house against an attempt by Abenaki to recover the land,
    I would also resist an attempt by Martians to take it--on which side
    lies justice?
    
    Killing largely un-involved people (like babies and tourists and
    sunbathers) is the trademark of war: war is impersonal and unfair,
    it marks the failure of methods which pay attention to individuals.
    But if you think you have been injured, and nice methods of recovery
    have failed, what do you do?  At some point, a wise man gives up,
    but failure to be wise is not a crime.
    
    Fifth, I don't think that all moralities are equal.  But so what?
    I'm not asking you to promote the PLO to moral equality, only to
    be realistic about your claim to innocence, and not to be blind about
    your enemies.
    
    I'm afraid this will unstatisfying to you, as I'm not calling either
    Israel or the PLO a gang of criminals.  I can only say that if I were
    Israeli I'd think about emigration, but I might stay; if I were
    Palestinian, I'd do my best to leave the area, and would try to avoid
    fighting--too little potential gain for the effort.  This is _not_ a
    moral decision, but a pragmatic one.
    
    			-John Bishop

>	Note 944.30    MINAR::BISHOP    
>   	 Now, I consider myself pro-Israel...

Can you explain what you mean by this?  That is, why are you pro-Israel (not
how does this manifest itself, though that is also an interesting question)?
It seems to me that it must be based somehow on the moral or logical
superiority of the Israeli argument in the conflict over the land.  Or is
it because you prefer democracy to dictatorship?  Or do you just like Jews?

>    ... from an entertainment point of view, I prefer having a
>    different state there, rather than just another Jordan.  

Or is it simply because we are entertaining (I realize it was probably 
written with tongue in cheek, but it is a little callous, don't you think?)

Sid

Re: Bishop

> I quoted "terrorist"
>    because I did not want to implicitly assert that they were terrorists
>    at the start, since I was going to go on to point out that that
>    judgement is itself a matter of opinion.

I'm you'd be just as even-handed and unbiased if your wife and kids
were dismembered by the descendants of the Nashua tribe - THIEF!!

Jem

    Why am I more pro-Israel than anti-Israel?  Well, I have some
    Jewish ancestry; I share some cultural background with Israel
    I don't share with Islam; I admire any group who can re-establish
    a dead language and maintain a state with so many enemies; I like
    the connection with the past; and, truely, I do like variety.
    
    As for .40: people who are hurt are forgivable if they are not
    evenhanded and dispassionate about that hurt--but that does not
    mean that they are morally right in their passion and anger.
    Emotion is not thought.
    
    				-John Bishop

    There was a line from a comic monologue about language by George Carlin
    (American comedian) on HBO (cable television) last night that applies
    well, IMHO, to the PLO-
    
    	If crime-fighters fight crime, and
    
    	fire-fighters fight fire
    
    	what do freedom-fighters fight?
    
    -Barry-

John:

You have indicated on several occasions that you do not know the answers
pertaining to the situation (e.g. definitions of innocence, land tenure,
terrorism, aggression, etc.). Are you suggesting that the 4M Israelis and the
2M Palestinian Arabs float on rafts until you research the answers? Or maybe
until the world reaches a consensus on what is "right"? Then perhaps all 5B of
us should do the same and float in an ocean for a while? For same uncertainties
easily apply to most countries.

You say that you do not know the answers, yet you are telling those who
think they know the answers that they need to modify their ethics. Since
you are not directly involved, you are not under the pressure to make
conclusions and make decisions. But those who are directly involved do have
to decide -- and live with the consequences. You are asking these people to
compromise their ethics despite your indecision. I consider this immoral,
even those I realize that you are searching for what is good and right.

Note that I am not specifying "sides" -- if you do not know whether the
now proverbial sunbathers or the freedom-fighters are guilty or innocent,
then you have no business telling them to question their own innocence.

At the same time, you've indicated that you do have your "own judgments".
What prevents you from pronouncing them in this case?

Alex

Re: .41

>    As for .40: people who are hurt are forgivable if they are not
>    evenhanded and dispassionate about that hurt

Can I take this as an admission that you be be less than "evenhanded and
dispassionate" in the circumstance I mentioned? 

>--but that does not
>    mean that they are morally right in their passion and anger.
>    Emotion is not thought.

Since you are so concerned about the "morally right" thing, perhaps you
should practice what you preach - you don't even have to wait for the
warriors to come after you - just voluntarily donate your house to the
Nashua tribe. Or do you dispute their moral right to it?

Jem

    Somehow I get the impression that people aren't reading my notes,
    save to understand that I'm not rabidly on their side, and then
    go flaming away against some imaginary opponent.  Read the notes
    first, ok?
    
    re .43:
    
    No, I don't know the answers, but I have never suggested that people
    go float on rafts.  If you read what I wrote, you would have noticed
    that I don't believe we can apply the concept "right" to nations.
    So I believe that the Israeli claim to have the "right" to control the
    land is a fiction no more respectable than the PLO's equally fictional
    claim.  The fact is Israli control, but the fact is all you get.
    
    Should some genius manage to explain land tenure and rights between
    nations, then I would be happy to see wars replaced by moral argument.
    But I'm not holding my breath.
    
    I suspect what angers you is not what I say, but that I don't attach any
    moral quality to this: it's all in the realm of pragmatics.  I say
    "Israel might benefit by X", and you want "Israel is Right".   I say
    "the PLO finds killing civilians its most effective method to its
    goal", and you want "The PLO is Wrong".
    
    What I keep keep saying is not "modify your ethics because I have
    the answers".  It is "stop being so blind as to think everyone agrees
    with you".  Further, considering the likelihood that WW III could start
    with a war in the Middle East, I think I am in a position to have to
    live with some of the consequences of Israel's decisions.  And as an
    American tax-payer, I _know_ I'm funding Israel, and in a geopolitical
    sense, Israel is an American proxy.  So why shouldn't I have an
    opinion?
    
    re .44:
    
    Yes, if I came home from work to find my house burnt down and
    my wife and child dead, I would be angry and revengeful.  It's true,
    I'm human.
    
    Now, as I have said before, the lack of true international law
    means that nations interact in a world of force, where Might may well
    not make Right, but Right does not exist.  The right to my house is
    a concept within the US and predecessor or successor States.  It's
    part of a game we call "the legal system".  It's not a fact of reality,
    it's a social convention, like the speed limit.
    
    So I don't believe the Nashua Indians have a right to my house.
    Worse yet, from your point of view, I don't believe that _I_ have
    a right to my house.  What I do believe is that I can win a lawsuit
    in the US about ownership due to my in-the-game "right" to the house. 
    But my moral claim to the land is as fictional as that of the Nashua
    Indians.
    
    			-John Bishop

.45>    Somehow I get the impression that people aren't reading my notes ...

Possibly, but it may also be true that you are failing to explain your position
with sufficient clarity.  I, for one, definitely have read your notes, but I am
not at all certain that I understand what you are trying to say.


.45>    ... I don't believe we can apply the concept "right" to nations.

It's not clear to me that you believe that the concept is applicable to human
beings.  Do you?  If so, why can't we apply it to the human beings who are
members of the PLO?


.45>    So I believe that the Israeli claim to have the "right" to control the
.45>    land is a fiction no more respectable than the PLO's equally fictional
.45>    claim.

Do those of us who live in Israel have any rights in this area?

    re .46
    
    "Rights" are as applicable as any social convention.  Within the society
    having the convention, they exist (like highway speed limits--they are
    enforced).  Outside, they have no power.  If "Rights" were real, as the
    the speed-of-light limit is real, reality would do the enforcing.
    
    If you catch a member of the PLO, he or she is within your society, so
    go ahead and apply your laws.  If you don't catch them, what do your laws
    or conventions matter?
    
    You in Israel have just as much right to be there as I do to be in
    Nashua.  But if you lose to the PLO, then they will have just as much
    right to be there as you did.  Zero equals zero.
    
    			-John Bishop

re .47

>    "Rights" are as applicable as any social convention.  Within the society
>    having the convention, they exist (like highway speed limits--they are
>    enforced).  Outside, they have no power.  If "Rights" were real, as the
>    the speed-of-light limit is real, reality would do the enforcing.
>    
>    If you catch a member of the PLO, he or she is within your society, so
>    go ahead and apply your laws.  If you don't catch them, what do your laws
>    or conventions matter?

The PLO pretends to be a member 'state' of the world community.  The community
of civilized nations has rules which govern conduct between them, even during
wartime.    

I am not contending that nations abide by these rules out of some sense of moral
goodness; rather, the nations agree that these rules are to the mutual benefit
of all concerned.  When nations, or would be nations like the PLO, pay lip
service to these rules, but them openly flout them, it is in the interest of
other nations to punish the offenders.

If the nations of the world dont stand up to condemn AND PUNISH terrorists and 
the nations that support them, the terrorists will become bolder and eventually
will cross the line the will start a real war, perhaps even you're dreaded World
War III.

This, by the way, could just as easily apply to coutries like Iraq, which uses
mustard gas against not only its enemies during war (prohibited by the Geneva
Conventions after WWI) but even its own civilians, and Lybia, which arranged
the Shavuot Beach attack. But, alas, our political 'leaders' dont have the guts
to risk thier standing in popularity polls to confront these serious problems 
(easy problems like Panama are another story).

    re .48
    
    As far as I can tell you agree with me.  Your pragmatic point that
    it is in most nations' interest to weaken Iraq and the PLO is also
    one I agree with.  
    
    So where's the circularity?
    
    			-John Bishop

Re: .45

>  I say
>    "the PLO finds killing civilians its most effective method to its
>    goal", and you want "The PLO is Wrong". 

Hmmm. Is this the same guy who was accusing others of not having read 
his eloquent prose? Perhaps you can set an example for the rest of us 
by reading the work of your own keyboard in .23:

>>     from the perspective of the
>>    "terrorists" you are not innocent: you are a thief.  You are not "just
>>    being", you are active in the use of the stolen property.  The
>>    terrorists don't believe the same things you do, and they think that
>>    what they are doing is both important and right

One who questions whether those who butcher civilians should or should
not be branded "terrorists", or worse still, seeks to rationalize those
actions is no longer objective. Whether he likes it or not, he has taken
a stand. 

Is there another side to the story. Certainly - just as there was a rational
perspective to the Nazi position in WWII, or its latter day incarnation, NOI
(discussed in detail in PEAR::SOAPBOX note 772). This may come as a shock to 
you, but I am fairly uninterested in the "rationale" of the terrorists. I know
that if they had their way, they would do away with everything I hold dear -
I need know no more than that I must take every measure in my power to thwart
their goals.

> Further, considering the likelihood that WW III could start
>    with a war in the Middle East,

While we're considering, perhaps *you* could consider that WWII was in large
measure a war against the Jews, and it was "objective observers", who would
take no moral stand who effectively allowed the Holocaust to proceed. Can
we count on a few tears from you when (C"V) the PLO acheives its ultimate
goal and the land is finally Judenrein?

> So why shouldn't I have an
>    opinion?

So then drop this veneer of objectivity.

>    Yes, if I came home from work to find my house burnt down and
>    my wife and child dead, I would be angry and revengeful.

Ah, but this would of course be mitigated by your realization that the
burning and killing was fully justified in the burners' and killers'
eyes. If you were to complain to the police of the attack, you would
fully understand their rationale in explaining that the Indians have
not been proven philosophically to be terrorists, and the police can
take no stand on such action until this theory is proven.

>    Worse yet, from your point of view, I don't believe that _I_ have
>    a right to my house.

Put your money where your mouth is.

>  What I do believe is that I can win a lawsuit
>    in the US about ownership due to my in-the-game "right" to the house. 

Just as a resident of the State of Israel can win his case.

>    But my moral claim to the land is as fictional as that of the Nashua
>    Indians.

Fictional? You seem to have suddenly incorporated judgmental terms into
your vocabulary.

Re: .47

>    You in Israel have just as much right to be there as I do to be in
>    Nashua.

Guess what? I'm not very interested in explaining the Jewish claim to
Israel to you, any more than I would waste my breath explaining the
"Law of Return" to one who has never heard of the St. Louis.

BTW, are you related to that other Bishop, the lighthouse of objectivity 
(as long as it's only Jewish blood being spilled) --- Tutu?

Jem

	C'mon, John is arguing a fairly reaasonable point of view - and not as
an "unfriendly" either. I happen to disagree with this moral relativism coupled
with extreme realpolitic of his stance, but it more of an irrelevant point of
view than one deserving such blasts. 

DG

Re: .51

>	C'mon, John is arguing a fairly reaasonable point of view 

When he can react "reasonably" to his wife and kids being blown to bits,
he can expect to receive fewer verbal "blasts" from others of whom he
demands equal dispassion.

>- and not as
>an "unfriendly" either.

As someone else commented, with such friends...

Jem

Jem, one takes what friends are there, life is too hard as it is...

DG

    re .50, many detailed rebuttals.
    
    I don't see the contradiction in what I say.  In the first quote,
    I'm explaining my opinion; in the second, I'm explaining what I
    think the PLO's opinion is.
    
    As for objectivity, I _have_ taken a stand: I think that "morality"
    is a social convention.  I have desires: I desire peace and quiet,
    but I don't fool myself that I have any "right" to peace other than
    the one I create by being willing to fight for it.  Further, I have
    said several times that I prefer a world with Israel to one without.
    How many more times must I say that before you'll hear me?  I don't
    claim to be "objective", as though I were from Mars; I claim only to be
    far less involved emotionally, and to see objectivity as a tool for
    better thinking.  If I think better, I can better achieve my goals.
    The same is true for you.
    
    Jem, you say, "I need know no more than that I must take every measure 
    in my power to thwart their [PLO's] goals".  That's not entirely
    true: don't you also have to know what measures to take, and something
    about the physical layout of the battlefields, and the likely actions
    of the PLO's leadership, and thus their beliefs about what is possible
    and what is not, and their knowledge of their supporters' beliefs,
    and on and on?  "Know your enemy" does _not_ mean "Love your enemy",
    nor "Trust your enemy", nor "Accept your enemy's axioms".  But if you
    know your enemy, you will do a better job fighting him.
    
    As for the house: what would I do to "put my money where my mouth is"?
    I've already said that I don't believe _anyone_ has a "right", in your
    terms, to the house.  I want it, I have it, I (at the moment) can keep
    it, so I will keep it.  _Real_politik_, not ethics.
    
    Now, in the matter of coming home to a pile of ashes and getting
    an argument about ethics from the police: if I complained to the
    local police and got that reaction, I'd be very surprised--they are,
    after all, fellow players of the "US" game, and on my team.  They
    help me keep my house, and I help them keep theirs.
    
    If, on the other hand, the PLO or the Israelis were to react as you
    have outlined, I wouldn't feel cheated or threatened, as I sense you 
    feel cheated or threatened by my opinion (do you?).  They aren't in my
    game, they are part of the non-legal world, the real world outside 
    the game.  Internationally, there are no police to complain to
    (see earlier notes), so you only get the outsiders' response.
    
    I say fictional because I mean just that: a fiction.  Of course it's
    my judgement, my opinion.  Prove to me that a claim to land is based
    on physics or chemistry or biology and I'll change my mind.  Point
    to a book or to historical records, and I'll say "so what?"--there's
    no force to that kind of claim than that exercised by Israeli military.
    
    I've heard of the St. Louis, and the Law of Return, and the claim based
    on the covenant, etc, etc.  The first is a tragedy but not a proof of
    any land claim, the latter two are at their base only widely shared
    opinions.  But I do know the history and the claim.
    
    Now, it's true that Israel will be stronger militarily in the short run
    if its people all believe that they are Right-with-a-capital-"R", and 
    that that belief is thus a useful asset and worth defending from people
    who argue the way I do.  It's not only motivating, it's comforting,
    and I understand why you are reacting with such heat.  But
    understanding is not agreement.
    
    Further, if you'd rather have a comforting belief than the truth,
    don't expect other people to respect your thinking.  If you think that
    making the obvious pun on my name does anything other than make you look
    silly, you are hopeless.
    
    			-John Bishop

    Re. .53 by TALLIS::GOYKHMAN
    
    Yes DG so few friends, so many enemies and they love to rear
    their hateful heads for what ...congratulations, you deserve
    praise for your hurtful, malicious, destructive actions.
    
    L'chaim l'Eretz Ysroel v'Jehudim who deserve praise for 
    intelligence and strength to endure against such overpowering
    adversity.
    
    Boker tov chaverim v'Shalom,
    Bernice              

Re: .54

> I claim only to be
>    far less involved emotionally, and to see objectivity as a tool for
>    better thinking. 

Then why do you take it upon yourself to lecture to those who are not
only emotionally, but practically involved, through their own blood
and sweat? Get a pair of used Israeli shoes before you judge.

> "Know your enemy" does _not_ mean "Love your enemy",
>    nor "Trust your enemy", nor "Accept your enemy's axioms".  But if you
>    know your enemy, you will do a better job fighting him.

"Knowing your enemy" stands in direct conflict with such musty smokescreens
as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter." The prerequisite
to knowledge of one's enemy is the ability to call a spade a spade, and 
not to tap-dance around reality. 

>    As for the house: what would I do to "put my money where my mouth is"?
>    I've already said that I don't believe _anyone_ has a "right", in your
>    terms, to the house.  I want it, I have it, I (at the moment) can keep
>    it, so I will keep it.

If you don't beieve you have a right to it, you'd be hard-pressed to explain
to your children why they should sacrifice their lives defending it. Lucky
for you, the threat on your house is purely hypothetical - others' are all
too real to waste time philosophizing about their enemies' relative rightness
or wrongness... from the comfort of their La-Z-boys.

>    If, on the other hand, the PLO or the Israelis were to react as you
>    have outlined, I wouldn't feel cheated or threatened, as I sense you 
>    feel cheated or threatened by my opinion (do you?).

World opinion is a very real part of your beloved realpolitik. Slanderous
lies that dilute the real issues in the eyes of the population are perhaps
a greater threat than the murderous acts themselves. To wit: the deniers
of the Holocaust do worse than add insult to injury; if successful they
will make it impossible for others to learn from history, thus setting the
stage for its repetition (which I believe is their ultimate goal). Is 
revisionism of current history threatening? Damn straight.

>    I've heard of the St. Louis, and the Law of Return, and the claim based
>    on the covenant, etc, etc.  The first is a tragedy but not a proof of
>    any land claim

Hitler deliberately sent the St. Louis afloat to prove this point: noone
could care less about the Jews. And prove it he did... with flying colors.
This is not the basis for the land claim, it is an example of why there
exists a "Law of Return". There is one place from which no Jew will ever
be turned away again... as long as it is under Jewish control. Is this
based on paranoia? Perhaps. But noone who has not experienced millenia
of persecution has a right to make that judgement. As to the land claim
itself, you've indicated that historical and world legal pronouncements
themselves are irrelevant to your thinking, so as I've said, I see no 
purpose or benefit in arguing the point with one who chooses ignorance. 

> and 
>    that that belief is thus a useful asset and worth defending from people
>    who argue the way I do.  It's not only motivating, it's comforting,
>    and I understand why you are reacting with such heat.

You're too kind. Actually, Dmitry may not be that far from the mark, and
I suspect that you may just be getting some jollies trying to generate
just such heat. But your arguments have been, and continue to be used
to dangerous ends, by those with less congenial goals than yourself, and
cannot go unchallenged.

> If you think that
>    making the obvious pun on my name does anything other than make you look
>    silly, you are hopeless.

Bad pun aside, you have parroted the same kind of drivel Tutu and others
of his ilk spew forth daily. Don't expect these things to be taken lightly by 
those directly affected on a daily basis.

Jem

    Re. .56 by GAON::jem
    
    brilliant, just like your name
    
    with gratitude
    Bernice

Re: .56
    
    I'm getting tired of dealing politely with tirades, and will try
    to deal with that at the end of this note (it's the title question,
    so on-lookers may skip this).
    
    Responses to questions (boring to most, I fear) first:

    > Then why do you take it upon yourself to lecture to those who are not
    > only emotionally, but practically involved, through their own blood
    > and sweat? Get a pair of used Israeli shoes before you judge.
    
    You may not believe this, but because I think I am involved,
    and because I want Israel to survive.  Further, if a friend who
    is less invovlved emotionally can't comment, who can?  When I am
    emotionally involved, it's useful to have an outsider's opinion.
    I think my comments are both pertinent and justified.  You clearly
    disagree.  Shall we stop at that?

    > "Knowing your enemy" stands in direct conflict with such musty
    > smokescreens as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."
    > The prerequisite to knowledge of one's enemy is the ability to call
    > a spade a spade, and not to tap-dance around reality. 
    
    I am not "tap-dancing around reality".  I do not say that killing
    is not killing, and that bombs are not bombs.  I do not say that
    spades are not spades.  Show me where I do, please.
    
    I _am_ failing to agree with you that you are "Right" and your enemy
    "Wrong".  Please note, however, that I am also failing to say the
    opposite!
    
    > If you don't beieve you have a right to it, you'd be hard-pressed to
    > explain to your children why they should sacrifice their lives defending 
    > it.
    
    On the contrary--I think all I'd have to say is "This is your house,
    too".  What else would they need?  As to defending any thing or place
    to the death, well, that depends on how much other people's having that
    thing or place matters to you.  I would defend my child's life with my
    own, but I would not defend his access to my TV or my house at the cost
    of my life.
    
    I understand that you believe that only with a Jewish Israel will the
    Jews survive.  I disagree, but that's a side issue;  even if I agreed,
    this would not mean that I believed the Jews had a right to Israel.
    It would just means they wanted it very much.
    
    > ...from the comfort of their La-Z-boys.
    
    Don't have one.  Sorry.

    > World opinion is a very real part of your beloved realpolitik. 
    
    Yeah?  Like the world opinion that the Chinese were wrong to crush
    the students in Tienamin Square?  Like the world opinion that Pol
    Pot was a bad guy?  Like the world opinion that the Soviets were
    wrong to crush the Prague Spring in 1968?  I believe world opinion
    is worth what it inspires people to do, but nothing more.  As far
    as I can tell, the best world opinion has done is to inspire people
    to boycott Nestle and save the whales, and nothing more.  The cash
    value of world opinion is close to zero.
    
    Saving (or destroying) Israel is way beyond the capabilites of world
    opinion, so why worry about it?
    
    > To wit: the deniers of the Holocaust do worse than add insult to
    > injury...
    
    I have never denied the Holocaust.  Please do not insult me.
    
    > As to the land claim itself, you've indicated that historical and
    > world legal pronouncements themselves are irrelevant to your thinking, 
    > so as I've said, I see no purpose or benefit in arguing the point 
    > with one who chooses ignorance. 
    
    I don't choose to be ignorant, I just say they don't matter.  Quite
    different things.  Show me they matter, if you disagree.

    > I suspect that you may just be getting some jollies trying to generate
    > just such heat.
    
    No, I'm not finding this all that fun.  I try to educate someone who
    was not thinking straight (and doing so partly on my tax money) and 
    I got yelled at.  Now I'm defending myself against mis-statements of
    my position from an angry man, in front of an audience which is probably
    friendly to him.  I knew this was possible, and made the initial comment
    anyway,  but I can't say it's fun.  If this is how Israelis treat their
    friends, it's no wonder they have so many enemies!
    
    > But your arguments have been, and continue to be used
    > to dangerous ends, by those with less congenial goals than yourself, 
    > and cannot go unchallenged.

    So stop using _ad_hominem_ attacks on me and challange the argument!
    Just prove any one of these points, please:
    
    1.	There is a real standard of Right and Wrong.
    1a.	It is Wrong to injure civilians of the enemy during a war.
    
    2.	The State of Israel has the right to the land.
    
    3.	There is a real standard of Justice.
    
    > Bad pun aside, you have parroted the same kind of drivel Tutu and others
    > of his ilk spew forth daily. Don't expect these things to be taken
    > lightly by those directly affected on a daily basis.
    
    I am not saying what Bishop Tutu says unless I very much misunderstand
    what Bishop Tutu says.  He believes in rights and wrongs, in good and 
    evil, in sin and redemption.  I don't.  He supports the PLO, I don't.  He
    is a socialist, I am not.
    
    Now the bottom line here: I have been polite, and you have not.
    I have been calm, and you have not.  Do you really believe that 
    I and my arguments pose a real threat to your life?  Is my failure
    to say Israel is Good and Beautiful and Right really a danger to
    Israel?  Really?
    
    			-John Bishop

    John,
    
>    So stop using _ad_hominem_ attacks on me and challange the argument!
>    Just prove any one of these points, please:
    
>    1.	There is a real standard of Right and Wrong.
>    1a.	It is Wrong to injure civilians of the enemy during a war.
    
    As Jews we learn from the bible that it is Wrong to attack civilians 
    and the weak when fighting a war. We are told that were the tactics of 
    Amalek. 
    
    Jews cannot claim that this as universal value unless all other nations 
    choose to read the same story and draw the same lessons. Of course, other
    nations have their own standards derived from their own folklore. If
    these are not in contradiction with the standards that Jews hold 
    then it is possible that a 'real standard' exists.
    
    To your question, "Prove that it is Wrong to injure civilians of the
    enemy during  a war." The proof is that my enemy would call it wrong 
    were it done to him! I am sure that  he could find a very good
    justification according to the Koran  (or his relevant belief system)
    were he put in this situation. 
    
    Regarding your point that it is good to know your enemy, I have the 
    following observation:
    
    On many occasions, both in Israel and outside, terrorist acts have been 
    committed. These have been deliberate, and planned against civilians.
    The only common connection between the civilians is that they are all
    Jews. 
    
    From this I understand something that if very frightning about 
    my enemy. 
    
    What sort of relationship should I seek with him? 
    
    Malcolm

Re: Note 944.58 MINAR::BISHOP                 Condemnation of terror
>    I _am_ failing to agree with you that you are "Right" and your enemy
>    "Wrong".  Please note, however, that I am also failing to say the
>    opposite!

". . . *One must never fail to pronounce a moral judgement.*

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as
thoroughly as does the precept of *moral agnosticism*, the idea that one must
never pass moral judgement on others, that one must be morally tolerant of
anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or
equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising
men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude
declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything
from you -- whom do you betray and whom do you encourage? "
    
    [I will eventually post the name of the author. In the mean time, those
    unfamiliar with the quote will not be burdened with a possibility of
    pre-judging the above statement.]
    
    Alex
    
    [unrelated] PS: John, I disagree that this discussion contains ad hominem 
    attacks on you. Except for Jem's "Bishop" pun, everybody who replied to at
    length (including Jem) did so by reasoning their case. I disagree that heat
    prevailed over light in such replies. You chose to to characterize these as
    "tirades", "flaming" and "impolite". Fine. You also complained that people
    did not carefully read what you wrote. OK. On the other hand, you've
    defended yourself from straw tigers of your own construction on a couple of
    occasions (I can back it up), so you must have read some of the replies
    without sufficient care as well.

    I'm wondering anout the idea that you can't attack civilians and weak
    members of an attacking society. How do you know who is civilian or 
    soldier among the Palestinians? Aren't civilians becoming involved in
    rock throwing battles?  If some civilian came around and threw a rock in
    my house and killed someone in my family, I'd want him dead. 

Re: .57

Thank you, Bernice for the kind words, but "Gaon" is my node name,
not mine. So impressed was I with my DS3100 when I received it, 
that I conferred this flattering name upon it. Alas, its owner
would probably better merit a name such as "Tembel".

Re: .58

>    I'm getting tired of dealing politely with tirades, and will try
>    to deal with that at the end of this note (it's the title question,
>    so on-lookers may skip this).

I'm sorry you feel so threatened when your thoughtless and baseless
arguments are challenged. It is not my intention to attack you personally.

>    You may not believe this, but because I think I am involved,
>    and because I want Israel to survive. 

I cannot see how teaching someone to accept the death of his sun-bathing
friends and relatives as "justified" promotes the survival of Israel.
Please demonstrate said support.

> Shall we stop at that?

If you'd like to stop at that, please do. But understand that your comments
have been extremely offensive to those who know the facts, not to mention 
those who have suffered first hand.

>    I am not "tap-dancing around reality".  I do not say that killing
>    is not killing, and that bombs are not bombs.  I do not say that
>    spades are not spades.  Show me where I do, please.

Again, I suggest you re-read your own replies. This exchange began when
you quoted "terrorists", implying that the term is questionably applied 
to Palestinians.

>> ...from the comfort of their La-Z-boys.
    
>    Don't have one.  Sorry.

Please get one, forthwith, if you'd like to fit the stereotype. :)

> The cash
>    value of world opinion is close to zero.

Those cases you mentioned are barbaric nations which have have effectively
removed themselves from the world community, thus not being subject to 
world opinion. The players in this case, the PLO and Israel, go to great
lengths to convince people such as yourself of the justification of their
goals, because they are at the mercy of such opinion.

>    I have never denied the Holocaust.  Please do not insult me.

I never said you did. Merely that the opinions you do express consist
of the same logic, and lead to similar *kinds* of conclusions.

> I try to educate someone who
>    was not thinking straight (and doing so partly on my tax money) and 
>    I got yelled at. 

Until this point you've been somewhat conciliatory, but this type of statement,
and those that follow, belie (in my mind) your purported pro-Israel posture.
Please continue...

>  If this is how Israelis treat their
>    friends, it's no wonder they have so many enemies!

I wonder how strong that "friendship" must have been if it's suddenly
turned to enmity because of the rantings of an "angry man".

>    Just prove any one of these points, please:
>    
>    1.	There is a real standard of Right and Wrong.
>    1a.	It is Wrong to injure civilians of the enemy during a war.
>    
>    2.	The State of Israel has the right to the land.
>    
>    3.	There is a real standard of Justice.

This is a game. I say this because of your reponse to my statement:

>> I see no purpose or benefit in arguing the point 
>> with one who chooses ignorance. 
    
>    I don't choose to be ignorant, I just say they don't matter.

So what exactly are you looking for? The 1937 Report of the Palestine
Royal Commission, on the almost non-existent Arab population of the
Maritime Plain in 1913? Or its documentation of the huge Arab immigration
between the two World Wars, drawn by Jewish economic development?
Would you be impressed by a memorandum sent by the Arab National 
Committe in Haifa to the Arab League governments in 1948, detailing 
how the local Arabs refused to sign a truce with the Jewish population,
and asking instead that their transfer (no, that word was not invented
by Kahane) be facilitated by the by the member nations? Perhaps you'd
be interested in the conference of the Mandate for Palestine upon
Great Britain, in 1922, which expressly stipulated that "The administration
of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency...
close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands
not acquired for public purposes." Would you be convinced by the _Survey_
of_Palestine_, commissioned by the British Mandate in 1946, detailing the 
miniscule percentage of land owned by Arab farmers at that time? Would
perchance the JNF records of property sales from Arabs to Jews (*at premium
prices*, mind you) be of some help? Or are you primarily interested in
the U.N. proceedings of 1947?

I suspect that you could care less about any of this, which is why I've
avoided needlessly punishing my fingers and keyboard until now. Neither
does it interest too many Arabs, who espouse the same "terroristic 
relativism" as you, without claiming to be pro-Israel.

>    Now the bottom line here: I have been polite, and you have not.
>    I have been calm, and you have not.  Do you really believe that 
>    I and my arguments pose a real threat to your life?  Is my failure
>    to say Israel is Good and Beautiful and Right really a danger to
>    Israel?  Really?

Please re-read the story of the St. Louis. "Impartiality" didn't help
them much.

Jem

    Re. .57
    
    Taking poetic license, isn't a jem (gem) brilliant?
    
    L'hitraot,
    B

    Overview:

    I'd like to live in a world where moral argument makes sense, where
    one could say that one nation had the right to independance, and
    another to a certain territory; where one could say that murder and torture
    were wrong; where "good" and "evil" were more than opinions, where
    the implicit value-judgment in "terrorist" or "freedom-fighter" was
    a meaningful reference to reality rather than a quick statement of
    the speaker's emotional preference or political alliance.

    I would like the world to share a consistent philosophy which lead to
    judgments of Right and Wrong.  I would like to be able to say "killing
    civilians is Wrong", and have universal agreement.  I would like to have
    peace on Earth, etc. etc.

    This desire has lead me to study philosophy and ethics, but I have so
    far not found convincing reasons to believe that I live in such a world.
    I just don't see a way from what I know is true to what I desire.  Until
    I do, I won't assume that what I want to be true must be true.

    I have also studied history.  I know that human action often is impelled
    and shaped by human beliefs, whether or not those beliefs are true, and
    thus a false belief can have real consequences.  A good non-controversial
    example is the old belief that tomatoes were poisonous: as a result of that
    belief, people would not eat tomatoes.  But note that if a person did eat
    a tomato unawares, the belief that it was poisonous would not kill; while
    if a person believed he or she had eaten a tomato, he or she might well
    get sick (even if no tomato had been eaten,after all).

    One of the things I find attractive about Judaism is the Law itself,
    as a clear example of the careful working out of "how to live" from
    a set of axioms.  I don't accept the axioms, but I respect the effort.

    I am, by now, somewhat tired of this back-and-forth.  I'll answer the
    last few notes, but I don't promise to continue to reply and re-reply.
    I think I've made my postion clear to most readers, if not to those
    who are most upset.

    Responses:

    re .59, "What sort of relationship should I seek with [ my enemy ]?"

    A very good question, and purely pragmatic.  I would answer, seek to
    prevent the combination of your enemies, as separated they are weaker;
    cultivate alliances with neutral nations; stomp'em when they are down;
    make separate peaces, etc.  I could be wrong here, and don't claim
    to be a geo-political genius.

    Israel has done a very good job of this so far, though I would have
    advised the expulsion of Arabs from the new territories gathered by
    each victorious war to prevent the long-term demographic problem.

    re .60, quote.
    
    I'm almost sure the quote is from Ayn Rand.  I'm not sure what 
    you gain with this quote if that's the case (or if it's not):

    First, I'm not an Objectivist, though I have read her works.
    While I am happy to debate philosophical issues in the appropriate
    forum (not here, please!), she is not an absolute moral authority
    for me.

    Second, I don't believe the statement "one must never fail to 
    pronouce a judgement" is true.  Consider the matter of the shape
    of clouds--why should I have to make a moral judgement on each
    shape?  This example could be multiplied.

    Third, I don't believe the statement is proven by the argument given:
    Moral agnosticism is always failing to judge; if one sometimes fails
    and sometimes does not fail, then one is not a moral agnostic.

    Alex, you keep asking for my judgements, and I keep giving them to
    you, but you don't notice.  Note .38 has a lot of judgments, for example.

    Re "unrelated" topics of .60:
    
    I have been called a thief in this set of notes, told that I "parrot
    drivel" and write "slanderous lies", had it hinted that I deny the
    existence of the Holocaust, and more. If these are not personal attacks,
    what is?  I think your restriction to "long" notes specious: a short
    insult is still an insult.  

    I can understand why any one author may feel my response to be
    overstated: more than one person is responding to me, so while I
    receive the total of the anger, any one author is only delivering
    a fraction.
    
    I call some of the responses "tirades" because they read like
    tirades: repetition of points which don't address the issue, emotional
    language, and what (to me) is a clear desire to shut me up coupled
    with an apparent lack of interest in having a calm discussion.
    I'll agree that "flame" is overstating the case, as there are also
    notes with some concentration on the arguments--it's not pure fury,
    as a true flame would be.

    As for "straw tiger/man" arguments: If I have mis-read anyone's line
    of thought, please educate me.  I am not perfect, and have made
    mistakes.  Since I suspect the other readers of Bagels would rather
    not have notes from other conference re-posted and re-digested here,
    why don't you either send me your list of my "straw man" attacks, or
    or re-open any discussion you felt I used a "straw man" in?
    
    re .62, various:

    > I'm sorry you feel so threatened when your thoughtless and baseless
    > arguments are challenged. It is not my intention to attack you personally.

    Given the amount of discussion, I believe I am cleared of the
    "thoughtless" charge.  I don't believe my argument is baseless,
    either.
    
    > I cannot see how teaching someone to accept the death of his sun-bathing
    > friends and relatives as "justified" promotes the survival of Israel.
    > Please demonstrate said support.

    I never asked anyone to consider the death justified (so don't quote me
    as saying that!).  I told someone that his enemies considered the deaths
    justified.  I have never recommended that Israel "accept" any attack.
    It seems to me you hear "Israel is not RIGHT" and translate it immediately
    into "Israel is WRONG".  That translation is in your head, not in my 
    words.  Since I'm not supporting what you thought, I don't have to
    demonstrate anything.

    What I've said about the usefulness of understanding the thought processes
    of one's enemy is still true.  That statement does not need support from
    me--it is validated by the existence of departments of military
    intelligence.

    > If you'd like to stop at that, please do. But understand that your 
    > comments have been extremely offensive to those who know the facts,
    > not to mention those who have suffered first hand.

    I do not blindly wish to cause offense, and do feel for those who have
    suffered.

    I believe I know the facts.  What we disagree about is whether
    "killing civilians is bad" is a fact or not--I say "no", you say "yes".
    The burden of proof is not on me.

    > Again, I suggest you re-read your own replies. This exchange began when
    > you quoted "terrorists", implying that the term is questionably applied
    > to Palestinians.

    I explained why I quoted it: "terrorist" has an implicit "Bad" in it,
    and I went on to point out that that connotation was a matter of opinion.
    I stand by that quotation.  I did go back and re-read my notes, and 
    found them clear and un-heated, unlike the comments from others.

    > Please get one[ a La-Z-Boy ], forthwith, if you'd like to fit the
    > stereotype. :)

    Thanks for this bit of humor!

    > Those cases you mentioned are barbaric nations which have have effectively
    > removed themselves from the world community, thus not being subject to 
    > world opinion. The players in this case, the PLO and Israel, go to great
    > lengths to convince people such as yourself of the justification of their
    > goals, because they are at the mercy of such opinion.

    True--as long as some people who count geo-politically believe in morality,
    then any player will create a moral argument in his favor.  I ask it
    again--do you truely believe that my notes here constitute a threat to
    Israel, or its claim on world opinion?

    > I wonder how strong that "friendship" must have been if it's suddenly
    > turned to enmity because of the rantings of an "angry man".

    How long would you remain positively disposed to people who were
    angry at you?  There has to be some benefit in the long run for
    both sides of a friendship, you know.  And I am still pro-Israel,
    so nothing sudden has happened.

    > So what exactly are you looking for? [ followed by a list of
    > reports and memorandums, etc. constituting a base for a claim
    > on the territory of Israel ]

    What I'm looking for is a clear sequence of reasoning about what
    constitutes a real claim to land, starting with self-evident axioms.
    Once you have such a theory, then the historical facts become useful;
    before, they are only facts, with no moral import.

    > Neither does it interest too many Arabs, who espouse the same
    > "terroristic relativism" as you, without claiming to be pro-Israel.

    I suspect that what the Arabs espouse is not relativism at all.
    What you mean by "terroristic relativism" is unclear to me, but
    if it means supporting killing because every thing is relative,
    I know I don't espouse it.

    > Please re-read the story of the St. Louis. "Impartiality" didn't help
    > them much.

    So?  What does that prove?  I can support letting in refugees whether
    or not I think Israel is Good and Right, and do.  You didn't answer my
    question.

		-John Bishop

    Nelson Mandela, a freedom fighter to abolish apartheid, is championing
    another cause in the process.  Yesterday's Boston Herald quoted him ...
    Ghadafi, Arafat, and Castro are his heroes.  
    
    G-d help us all
    Bernice

I might be stating the obvious, but I believe we have come to the basis of the
argument between Mr. Jem and Mr. Bishop:

from .68

>    One of the things I find attractive about Judaism is the Law itself,
>    as a clear example of the careful working out of "how to live" from
>    a set of axioms.  I don't accept the axioms, but I respect the effort.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John is operating from his own moral and value system (I am NOT making any 
judgements here).  He has his own beliefs, but they do not include any 
universal sense of right and wrong.  Each man must decide for himself, and 
must also respect (or at least understand) the decisions of others who 
disagree. (sounds Kantian, doesn't it?)

John is not saying that you must love terrosists; he is saying that OUR saying
that they are wrong is meaningless.  According to us, they ARE wrong; but 
according to them, they are right.

John is not saying that we should surrender to terrorists; he is saying that
the one's own moral considerations of right and wrong should drive one's own
actions (including self-defense), but one should not expect others, with 
different moral systems, to agree.

John's position leads him to his taste for geo-political hardball, which, when
boiled down, is just another form of national self-defense.

Jem, on the other hand, is coming from a different value system altogether; 
there is a universal right and wrong, and therefore we should expect everybody
to behave accordingly.  Those who don't should be punished.  (this is a GROSS
oversimplification, i know).

Jem's values can be summed up from a verse in D'varim (Deuteronomy) (I dont 
remember exactly where):

    "Re-eh natati le'fanecha et ha-chaim v'et ha-tov, et ha-mavet v'et harah,
     u-vacharta ba-chaim"

    "Behold, I (Moses, speaking about the Torah) have given before you life and
     goodness, and death and evil.  You shall choose life..."

A person has the choice to do good or evil; the definition of good and evil, 
however, is not up to him.

The funny thing is, even coming from these different views, I think that Jem 
and John agree on about 90%, if not more, of whats been yelled back and forth 
in this topic (they might not admit it though... :-)

				Lihitraot and Shalom al Yisrael
				Louuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

    Yes, that's it.  Thanks, Lou, for stating it so clearly.
    
    		-John Bishop

    In this long argument of relativism and morality, how about a real
    definition of terrorism?
    
    Civilians do get killed in wars but understanding the terrorists is
    relativism. Judging their actions is morality. We have to have some
    values to live and die by.
    
    Attacking a killing unarmed civilians who are not immediately engaged
    in any warlike actions *is* terrorism...like the Isreali athletes and
    yes like the bathers on the beach. That's dirty warfare and doing
    the dirty work of Amelak who attacked the defenseless.  The Holocaust
    was worse than terrorism. According to Jewish morality this is wrong.
    Neither side has any moral basis.
    
    Civilians getting killed in the crossfire is bad news and unfortunate.
    A totally different category.    Most wars are fought in civilians'
    back yards. Not justified either except by the logistics of war which
    shouldn't be used to discount the mourning and loss that accompanies
    these casualities.  This is can't be used either to justify terrorism.
    This crossfire killings are the accidents of war and we can't be
    mean-spirited about these incidents on either side.
    
    The grey areas.....armed civilians attacking Isreali soldiers policing
    such riots.  What would you do if a dozen children came at you with
    stones?  What would any of us do if our lives were so imprisoned and
    hopeless as these children? These are the frontiers of the real
    guerilla war and these are the arenas that have enflamed the middle
    east.  That's where a referee is needed before things get even more
    enflamed.  With United States withdrawing its peace-keeping efforts,
    the situation has become really dangerous.
    
    Terrorism is wrong and both sides have to disown it. It only entrenches
    both sides and guarantees a fight to the death.
    
    RR
    

    I thank John Bishop for persevering in this discussion with style (despite
    my complete disagreement with his "axiom-less logic").
    
    I may return and respond to John's long reply later (no time now). In
    the mean time, here's my main point:
    
    John, here is how your position appears to me. You are saying that on
    the surface, killing sunbathers might look wrong. However we need to
    look deeper into the freedom-fighters' motivation and goals, and not
    dismiss them as the universally recognized terrorists.
    
    It seems that you struggle to justify something that already is viewed
    as "evil" by the overwhelming majority of Earth's inhabitants and question
    the innocence of those that appear "good". You claim that you have your 
    own moral principles, yet you are reluctant to judge. This forces me to 
    question the validity and the very existence of your moral principles.
    
    Now, I am not an objectivist either, and I do not view Rand as the
    ultimate authority on morality, but another quote is applicable:
    
    "Moral values are the motive power of a man's actions. By pronouncing
    moral judgement, one protects the clarity of one's own perception and
    the rationality of the course one chooses to pursue. It makes a
    difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors of
    knowledge or with human evil.
    
    Observe how many people evade, rationalize adn drive their minds into
    a state of blind stupor, in dread of discovering that those they deal
    with [. . .] are not merely mistaken, but *evil*. Observe that the
    dread leads them to sanction, to help and to spread the very evil whose
    exitence they fear to acknowledge."
    
    No more quotes, I promiss! :-)
    Alex
    
    PS John, you know we are not discussing the morality of clouds here.
       So please, no more cheap shots, OK? :-)

You've probably all forgotten the base note, but ...

Last week I read a newspaper article about the man who killed the 7 Arab
workers in Rishon Lezion.  The article stated that the man has been found fit
to stand trial, and has been indicted for 7 counts of murder and 10 of
attempted murder.  He faces a maximum penalty of 7 life sentences in prison.

Sorry for the delay. I was away for a while.

Re: .64

>    I have been called a thief in this set of notes, told that I "parrot
>    drivel" and write "slanderous lies", had it hinted that I deny the
>    existence of the Holocaust, and more. If these are not personal attacks,
>    what is? 

Rather strange. On the one hand, you have no compunctions about labeling
the victims of terrorism as "whiners". Those who would have, but for the grace
of G-d, been blown to pieces (not to mention those who *have* been, R"L),
are nothing but cry-babies (BTW, it's interesting that no 
objection was raised when the base note condemned the "terrorism" against
the Arabs). Yet you take umbrage at criticisms of your positions and define 
*them* as personal attacks. Perhaps you should stop whining about "ad hominem",
when clearly there is a large body of readers who would disagree with your
subjective classification of honest disagreement as personal attack. (BTW,
your credibility would be enhanced if you would refrain from quoting out-
of-context and inferring non-existent intentions.)

>    I never asked anyone to consider the death justified (so don't quote me
>    as saying that!). 
...
> What we disagree about is whether
>    "killing civilians is bad" is a fact or not--I say "no", you say "yes".
>    The burden of proof is not on me.

Forgive me, but I see precious little practical difference between refusing
to say, "killing civilians is bad", and actually saying, "killing civilians
is OK." While we're splitting hairs, the butchers are out devising ways of
splitting skulls.

>    How long would you remain positively disposed to people who were
>    angry at you?

A rather loaded question. To paraphrase a recent pronouncement of Rabbi Avi 
Weiss of N.Y., "we will continue to support the anti-Apartheid struggle
*despite* the obnoxiousness of Mandela." One who believes in a cause certainly 
does not allow a perceived personal "insult" to threaten his commitment to that
cause.

>    What I'm looking for is a clear sequence of reasoning about what
>    constitutes a real claim to land, starting with self-evident axioms.

Moot, useless and irrelevant. This discussion is about TERROR against
civlians. You claim that it needn't be condemned - an affront to every
civilized human being, irrespective of his political views.

>    So?  What does that prove?  I can support letting in refugees whether
>    or not I think Israel is Good and Right, and do.  You didn't answer my
>    question.

Again, the question about Israel's "rightness" is not the subject of this note.
The vociferous objection you sense is in response to the acceptance of civilian
murder as a moral alternative. It makes little difference whether the inaction
on behalf of the doomed Jews of Europe was due to an *acceptance* of the Nazis'
conception of "morality", or simply an *inability* or refusal to pass judgment
on the relative merits of the Nazi arguments. The Jews' fate was sealed just 
the same.

Re: .66

>John is not saying that you must love terrosists; he is saying that OUR saying
>that they are wrong is meaningless.  According to us, they ARE wrong; but 
>according to them, they are right.

We have heard his arguments, and remain duly unimpressed by their amorality.
Those who refuse to condemn deliberate violence against unarmed civilians,
no matter the alleged "cause", in effect condone it. Those who seek to
rewrite the definition of "terrorism", bear perhaps a greater guilt than
the predators themselves, as discussed previously. Equivocation on the
relative morality of blowing babies' heads to bits is hardly better than
the pulling of the trigger itself. No quotes from the Bible are necessary 
here, neither does one need to be "religious" to recognize moral depravity
when it stares one in the face.

Jem

    re .71:
    
    I disagree on just about every point (no surprise).  I also believe
    nothing more is to be gained in this conversation: I'm clearly not
    going to convince you, and you aren't going to convince me.
    
    			-John Bishop

    re .71
    
    Well said.
    
    Alex
    
    NB And you thought we disagree on just about everything! :-)