Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Fighting Intolerance ("Ordinary People")
Message-ID: <6152@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 15:10:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.6152
Posted: Wed May 29 15:10:22 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 04:20:55 EDT
References: <2036@cornell.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 118
Xref: linus net.politics:8534 net.religion.jewish:1615

>Charley Wingate writes, in re his comparison of Nazi Germany and Israel:

This characterization of my article is unfair.  My point was that Israel was
NOT special, not that it was more like Nazi Germany than other countries.

>> Israel, by the very nature of its concentration upon nazism, is quite
>> suceptible [sic] to some sort of persecution of another group.  Just 
>> listen to Meir Kahane; what he says can easily be perverted into race
>> hatred.

>There is no excuse for racism, and Kahane is a racist.  Yet is it
>*symptomatic* of Israel?

>Every country has its Kahane, Willis Carto, Wyndon LaRouche or Don
>Black (the one from Alabama, KKK grand wizard).  Every majority has a
>tendency to reject minorities.  Yet Israel's record at integrating such
>groups and its system of laws, created so as to prevent those
>tendencies, make it one of the places least likely for it to occur.

>It is even more remarkable that in spite of the long state of war she
>has been in with her neighbours, the human rights violations are
>minimised (but not to be excused): they are more an exception than the
>rule, they are not a government policy but the makings of individuals
>who are subsequently punished by law.

I will have to take the anonymous author's word on this.  If it is true,
then it illustrates my original point: that the need is for self-examination
and self-control.

I don't claim that Kahane is symptomatic of Israel any more than (say) Don
Black is symptomatic of the USA.  But each is very much a product of his
environment.

>The poor record of the USA before, during and after WWII (remember
>General Paton's statement that the Jews are lower than animals? the
>internment of the Japanese americans?  The unfilled quotas for Jewish
>refugees?) is significant.  And today, in the US, such speech as
>racism, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-whatever is protected
>by Constitution.  This is not so in such countries as France, Germany
>or Canada.

Taking Patton as exemplary of the USA is at least as wrong as taking Kahane
as exmeplary of Israel.   Examination of court decisions indicates that the
protection of racist diatribe continues because of the consistent opposition
to any restrait of speech on the basis of content.

>Why is it that the above writer characterises Israel by Kahane?
>Is LaRouche characteristic of the US?  Why is it that he sees
>the pursuit of Nazi criminals who killed most of the Jewish people as
>the cause-to-effect relation with fringe extremism in Israel?  His
>argument sounds familiar: the revisionist theory propones that Israel's
>very existence is predicated on the so-called ``holocaust hoax.''

This whole argument is very dishonest.  I did not say that Kahane was
"characteristic" of Israel; but he is certainly a product of the pressures
upon Israel.  The fact that he has arisen and gained some support (however
minimal) illustrates my point: that Israel is not immune.  The author is
reading my argument much more strongly than I intended.  I vigorously object
to his groundless implication that I support the "holocaust hoax"; my point
was that the reality of the holocaust has blinded many Jews to the 
possibility that Israel could bring forth some act of terror itself.

>Racism is a process.  Pointing at one racist is too simplistic a way to
>find whether or not a culture is predisposed to it.  Consider how many
>followers he has, how many emulators.  And the general trends in the
>population, its history (not merely twenty years, two thousand, for
>instance), its ethos and religion.

Every culture is predisposed to it; the minute a people believes in their
own righteousness, they are sure to perpetrate some act of violence on
others.   Certainly there are other causes as well.  But denying that one is
capable of such acts is to take the first step down the same road.

>> It is precisely when a nation thinks itself to be most civilized that the
>> risk is greatest.
>
>``Civilisation'' or its perception has nothing to do with the issue.  Both
>so-called civilised and non-civilised countries have had a long history
>of being either persecuted or the persecutor, qv. Hitler's Germany and
>Idi Amin's Uganda.

I think you would find that Idi Amin thought of himself as the most
civilized of rulers.

>> Contemplation of the evils of Nazi Germany should lead one to
>> self-examination, and examination of one's own nation.

>Admirable principle.  Why don't you examine yourself and your own
>nation?  How do you rationalise slavery, racism, KKK etc... in spite
>of your nation's Constitution?  How do you justify the existence of
>such political parties as the ``Populist Party'' which is blatantly
>racist (see its platform), anti-black, anti-Semitic, anti-gay,
>anti-Third World, linked to violent (murders) extreme right groups?  Are the
>safeguards sufficient to prevent its achieving power?

I am well aware of these groups.  I am also very dubious of my direct
influence over them.  As I originally implied, I don't think they can be
prevented from existing, here or elsewhere.  The only way to control them is
to try to restrict their political power as much as possible.  At the same
time, one should be very careful not aggravate tensions.  Some minority
leaders in this country have caused themselves much grief because they took
every criticism of their actions as a racial atack, for instance.

>I could say that this is why I see a problem with you, Mr Wingate,
>directing your gaze at me rather at yourself, but I won't say it.  One
>way to eradicate evil--and that is one of my aims--is to attack it,
>wherever it raises its head.  Many *are* persecuted, even now; many
>have persecuted; I choose to fight neo-nazism because I and my people
>are its target.  (When this is done, I'll be able to think of the other
>evils, too.)

You did say it.  My self-examination is my own affair.  Your criticisms
essentially attack what you you think I'm thinking, rather than my words.
Pardon me, but who are you to know what I'm thinking?

[By the way, it's good manners to sign your articles]

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe