Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!columbia!topaz!steinber From: steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish,net.politics Subject: Re: Terrorism Inc. Message-ID: <4104@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 17:48:41 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.4104 Posted: Mon Oct 21 17:48:41 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 08:25:24 EDT References: <488@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <12165@rochester.UUCP> <491@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <449@mhuxm.UUCP> <495@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 62 Xref: linus net.religion.jewish:2156 net.politics:10957 >From: aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri @ ITT-ATC, Shelton Ct.) > > Oh Boy!!! I apparently touched a raw nerve! I never thought > that reading or referencing to an article in a respected french > newspaper would bring out all this hilarious and vociferous pro- > israeli propaganda from you!!! There are two schools of thought on the proper response to this kind of message. One says that responding to it merely dignifies it, and rewards the sender (who apparently enjoys making Jews angry). After all, it should be apparent to anyone reading these messages that the vociferous response was not for referencing the article (let alone reading it!) but for the statements surrounding it that were calculated to damage Israel. Furthermore, Aouriri clearly has no rational defense since he is reduced to name calling. Aouriri appears foolish enough by himself, why respond? The other school of thought says that, unfortunately, history has proven that if we do not respond to such things an atmosphere is established in which it is legitimate to say the most outrageous things, and they do damage, even when not totally believed, because of the attitude on the hearers' part that "where there's smoke there must be fire", i.e. that if all these things are being said at least some of them must be true. In this case, I might not have responded were it not necessary to point out and refute another implicit claim: > Talking with a jewish leader in my community, he suggested non- > jokingly for the US to transplant Israel in desertic parts of > the western states [...] and of course, > this would solve the Middle East problem by returning the israeli > territories to the palestinians, would be palestininans and the > like. Everybody would be happy!! No real Jewish leader would say this seriously. In fact, no one who knows anything about the Middle East should say this seriously, since it makes the implicit claim that removing Israel from the Middle East would solve "the Middle East problem". In fact Israel is far from the only Middle East problem, as witness the splintered factions in Lebanon, the problems between Libya and its neighbors, the problems between Syria and Jordan and between Iran and Iraq, etc., etc. Implying that Israel is "the" Middle East problem means that all the United States has to do is throw Israel to the wolves, and we would magically be freed of all our problems with the Middle East. This is an attractive thought to some, but it is wishful thinking. Even without Israel the Middle East would be a major trouble spot and policy dilemma for the US. The other implicit claim here is that for Jews the land of Israel is simply so much acreage and is replacable by any other land of similar climate. In fact, there is a deep cultural attachment to this specific land, even for the non-religious. Note, for instance, that for places like Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) the Hebrew name is *older* than the Arabic one. This attachment is based on historical facts, not just the theological claims (although for those who believe the theology, it is of course the primary claim). It would make more sense to propose moving the palestinian homeland to some other arid land in the Arab world, since there at least the culture and language would be the same. Perhaps this "Jewish leader" was trying to educate you by making an obviously obsurd suggestion in the hope that by thinking about why it was obsurd you would learn something?