NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/politics/mideast/26203

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 8.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!L-Bueno
From: [e-mail] (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: zionism in crisis
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:05:14 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
References: <1993Jan22.1777.23086@channel1>
  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 167

[e-mail] (Chris Metcalfe) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>
>
>>    I have yet to find any of Wayne's text to be *as* fraught with
>>personal attack and slanderous stigmatism as some people have responded to
>>him with.  True, he does seem to be just a *tad* obsessed with asserting
>>his observations to followers of the Jewish Faith, but then  again, the
>>obsession is being justified!  Just look at the responses! :-) On the other
>>hand, I've only read this newsgroup for the last month or so, so perhaps
>>there's more to this than meets the eye.  Comments, anyone?
>
>>>Point out to me the passages in Leibowitz's works in which he
>>>praises Maimonides' gloating over the Jews murdering Christ,
>>>Maimonides' ranting about maintaining the purity of the Jewish
>>>race ("undefiled lineage"), and Maimonides' licking his chops
>>>over the prospect of King Messiah of Israel exterminating the
>>>enemies of the Jews.
>>>
>>> -- Wayne McGuire
>
>You'll agree that this is a *tad* obsessed?

    I'll agree that you've deleted text I've written above and below
and anywhere else you see fit to make your point. :-)

    But of course, I will agree that Wayne is a *tad* obsessed with
debating with you and those who express themselves as you do.  It can be
argued that I *too* am a *tad* obsessed in having to assert my stance
in front of a hostile force.  I can only hope that this reasoning does
not elude you.

>>    The point Wayne made is that there is a common Western viewpoint
>>that *any* criticism of *any* Jewish-founded philosophy, whether it be
>>fundamental or liberal has been attacked as smacking of anti-Semitism. In
>>other words, Muslim principles (or PLO charters, etc) can be discussed,
>>analyzed and excoriated while Jewish ones cannot be, especially by
>>non-Jews.  This is the latent impression.  Is this clearer now?
>
>Who else holds this view except you and Wayne?  Where did you see,
>from any poster on this net, that an argument was labeled "especially"
>illegitimate because it was posted by a "non-Jew?"  This attempt
>to delegitimize any argument against you as racist from square one is
>simply propagandistic.

    I have seen many articles posted here where arguments were
invalidated by the other party on the basis of "since you're not a Jew,
you can't possibly understand or even DARE to profess to say..."
If you claim that you haven't seen such, then it's manifest that you
are only reading what you wish to, and ignore what contradicts your
particular stand.

    And who else holds this view?  Do you only keep count of people
who don't hold your particular point of view?  If I were to use your
rationale, I would say that there are only a few right-wing supporters
of Israel, based on the ones whose viewpoints I've read on this newsgroup.
Yes, of course that's ridiculous... BOTH ways.

    Your opinion on what is propagandistic or not is merely that,
your opinion.  And no, I don't want to believe that I am being responded
to with racist stigmatism.  Sorry to let you down. :-)

>You have missed the jist of what has been happening here entirely.

    That much is true.  Since I now wish to involve myself in
these discussions, some free and open debate bereft of personal
attack or dissection is something I am more than desirous of.

>I have no problem discussing the philosophy of Maimonides, or
>that of al-Ghazali, or that of Thomas Aquinas; indeed I enjoy it.
>If you want to talk about the HAMAS covenent, we can do that.  I
>had a lengthy discussion with Ilyess and Mazen over what I perceived
>to be the incorrect usage of Hadith in the HAMAS covenenant.  And
>they never once accused me of being anti-Arab, though Mazen reproached
>me for trying to teach Muslims their own religion.
>
>Likewise, if you want to discuss the problems inherent in Jabotinsky
>and the Revisionist philosophy, we can do that.  I will not call
>you an anti-Semite.  I have problems with some of the Revisionist
>literature.  On the other hand, I support some of the actions of Lehi
>and Etzel during the War of Independance -- particularly the
>engagements surrounding Tel Aviv and Jaffa.
>
>But I will vehemently disagree with any attempt to hold up quotations
>from the Revisionist literature as indicative of general Israeli
>policy, or as indicative of Jewish sentiment generally.  That is
>called propaganda, because it takes the literature out of context.
>Ben-Gurion fought the Revisionists.  Begin was a member.  Begin signed
>the Peace with Egypt.  Like I said, we can discuss all this.

    Absolutely no problem with me.  Keeping things in a logical
and non-emotional context creates a suitable forum for discussion and
debate.

>>>Or take Chris Metcalfe and Mark Ira Kaufman: they resent non-Jews
>>>inspecting Judaism too closely, but they want to reserve the
>>>right of Jews to rummage through any belief system, including
>>>Christianity or Islam, to their hearts' content, and turn up and
>>>loudly broadcast whatever dirt they turn up.
>
>Classic *propaganda* techniques.  I challange anyone to provide
>a clip from a posting showing my disagreement with Wayne McGuire,
>or anyone else, to be based on the fact that they are a "non-Jew."
>Wayne is trying to inject an element of racism here where none
>exists, because that is his obsession: trying to find a racist
>element in Judaism.  It seems that Louis has followed Wayne's lead.

    I would actually meet your challenge, but now that I've read
this far, here comes "let's get stupid and personal" time.  You write
the following:

>Speaking of techniques in formulating our arguments.  Louis writes:
>
>>But back to the main topic of the Wayne's paragraph above, having
>>a non-offensive debate is certainly preferrable to an angry one,
>>wouldn't you agree?
>
>But elsewhere he writes in an extremely combative tone:
>
>>By this very statement, you yourself cannot pass judgements on
>>Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, or whoever fits the "non-Jewish"
>>category.  Yes, of course that's ridiculous.  So, like they say, you like
>>to dish it out, but not take it, eh? :-)

    If this is what you call an extremely combative tone, then I have
a bridge I can sell you... in Brooklyn :-)

    I was pointing out an inconsistency in the logic of the person
whose text you conveniently deleted.  Of course, this selective teasing
apart of the things I'm responding to could make me look like an
irritable barnacle if you so chose to.  At best, it's dishonest, and
does *very* little for carrying the topic at hand further along.  If
there's anything I woud agree with Wayne, it's this prickly and needless
invalidation of the person you are responding to (otherwise known as
flaming).  I would strongly suggest adhering to the core of this thread.
Unless, of course, evasiveness is your chief aim.

>You can't delegitimize my, or anyone else's, taking issue with this
>kind of vituperation as a type of paranoia about anti-Semitism, even if
>you magnify it to an axium of the Western experience: "a common Western
>viewpoint" as you have said above.

    Well, here's a real issue I'd like to discuss, if you can get
past the personal invalidations, etc.  Do you claim that there's no
"common Western viewpoint" on Israel?  If no, why?  If yes, how do you
see it?

>Neither can you dismiss my, or anyone else's, arguments by claiming
>defacto that the arguments have a bias against "non-Jews."

    I never wish to dismiss.  Indeed, the uphill battle is with those
who use selective dissection techniques to invalidate the other's stance.
Sticking to the issues... nah, too easy! :-)

>Well, you can... but you know what that makes you.   :-)

    Yes, an individual with my own point of view.  Shall we argue over
the evil of this? :-)

>-- Chris Metcalfe

Regards,

--Louis

P.S. Why did you try to personalize this thread with "/To Louis?"  I can
read a public post as well as the next guy :-)