Conference taveng::bagels

    "What assurance can we have ....." about anything.
    
    I find it very difficult to forget the agreement to stage 
    the platform battle (at the Democratic convention) on recognition
    of the "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."
    
    EVen though it was an agreement to just stage the battle, I can't
    help but believe that there are some powerful Arabist sympathizers
    in the Democratic party waiting for the opportunity to call 
    payment due.
    
    What do you think?

    Re: .0
    
    Two days ago on WEEI in Boston I heard a different story (Osgood
    File show):
                                                           
    Some of Nixon advisers told him that there were too many Jews in
    BLS.  Nixon asked that guy to investigate and got the infamous report.
    When recently this fact became known, Malek immediately resigned
    (he was not fired) since he realized that this story will be a good
    target for the Democrats who would turn it upside down.
    
    The above was in the morning of Sep. 14.
              
    As far as the Demjaniuk (sp?) story is concerned, I would respect
    any court lawyer defending anybody against any government.  Demjaniuk
    was convicted and he got what he deserved.  But it should not have
    anything to do with the lawyer.
                                     
    And on another issue raised in .0:  
    I am really suspicious of the guy who made unknown concessions to
    Jessy Jackson who embraced Yassir Arafat and Luis Farrakhan, who
    called New York "Himietown", etc.

    The story is seamier than .1 and .2 would imply, and goes beyond
    Malek himself.
    
    The RNC established a "heritage" group intended to get support from
    white ethnics.  The man in charge was Laszlo Pasztor, a leader of
    the pro-Nazi Arrow Cross in Hungary during WW II, who spent 1944-45
    in Berlin.  Pasztor was joined in this 60-ish member group by several
    other Nazi sympathizers, including a strong backer of Roumanian
    Iron Guard leader Valerian Trifa, who fought an extradition battle
    a few years ago. 
    
    At a "captive nations" Bush fund-raiser banquet recently, the name of
    the Nazi-hunting OSS (in the Justice Dept.) came up, and was booed
    loudly (Bush was there -- I'm not sure who said what.)  The "captive
    nations" movement has been a haven for Nazi sympathizers, who were
    brought to the US after the war because they were anti-communist.
    
    The Bush campaign is tush-deep in Nazi guano.
    
    And while there may be people who supported a (losing) contender for the
    Democratic nomination whose (losing) platform plank sounded too
    sympathetic to Palestinians for many Jews' taste, the DNC itself
    and the official party position, and the candidate's position, are
    all rather within the mainstream of what the Jewish community supports.
    (Of course, it's to the left of the Kach/Techiya faction.)  Farrakhan
    is not part of the Democratic campaign, and Jackson knows that his
    rather controversial statements are not the party line.
         fred

    In -.2 the author asks a question about Nazis.  In -.1 he talks
    about neo-Nazis policies and a book with lies in it.  Do these two
    postings add anything to the discussion?  Or just an implication
    or a vague suggestion is sufficient?
                                        
    Re -.3                              
                                        
    I'd like to get some more detailes about your posting, where can
    I get the sources about this "heritage group"?                  
                                                 
    Leo Simon                                    
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 

Hi Fred- 

What is the source for your information about the RNC going around
looking for support from neo-Nazis?  This is fascinating info and it's
the first thing I've heard of so far that might make me actually (gag)
vote for the Duke.  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, off hand.
How many votes would these white ethnic neo-Nazis represent, anyway?  Would the
RNC really be so stupid as to piss off the Jewish votes and support
that magically fell into their laps in 1980 for a such a low-return 
enterprise?  Who in the RNC?  

Also, what about similar shenanigans in the DNC?  It wouldn't surprise
me to learn that there are similar efforts under way to recruit non-voting
blacks who believe that their real enemy are Jews - you know, Jewish 
landlords, Jewish public school teachers, Jewish shopkeepers, Jews siphoning
money that should go for welfare into support for Israel, etc.  This
is a hypothetical question; if that were true of the DNC, would it keep
you from voting for Dukakis?

    .7> ...the RNC going around looking for support from neo-Nazis... How
    many votes would these white ethnic neo-Nazis represent, anyway?  

    	I think you've got it a little mixed up.  The RNC is looking for
    support from white ethnics in general.  They see a strong pitch to such
    groups to be to appeal to their anti-Communism.  Nobody is more
    anti-Communist than the neo-Nazis, and the RNC has never been careful
    about choosing its bedfellows (or else we wouldn't have this Malek
    affair in the first place), as long as they seem to be saying the right
    things.

    .7> Would the RNC really be so stupid...

    	Yes, but that's a topic for SOAPBOX, not BAGELS!

    .7> Also, what about similar shenanigans in the DNC?  It wouldn't surprise
    .7> me to learn that there are similar efforts under way to recruit
    .7> non-voting blacks who believe that their real enemy are Jews... This is
    .7> a hypothetical question; if that were true of the DNC, would it keep
    .7> you from voting for Dukakis?

    	Let's look at a possible parallel to the above.  The DNC is trying
    to drum up support among Blacks; that's obvious.  Now, say the DNC uses
    a parallel line to what I said above; say they see a strong pitch to
    such a group to be to appeal to their anti-Semitism.  Nobody is more
    anti-Semitic than the neo-Nazis, but the RNC has already recruited
    them.  OK, then next most anti-Semitic group is Farrakhan's gang, but
    they've been told to go take a hike.  (We haven't heard anything from
    them for years, have we?)  I can't really think of how to continue the
    parallel any further.

    	To answer your question, yes, if the DNC recruited anti-Semites to
    lead the appeal for Black votes, I would be revolted.  It's not true. 
    I hope you're not using the old (dating back to Watergate and before)
    Republican we-didn't-do-anything-wrong-we-just-got-caught defense.

    			David

.1>    I find it very difficult to forget the agreement to stage 
.1>    the platform battle (at the Democratic convention) on recognition
.1>    of the "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."

	Would you rather have the Republican platform, which blatantly
    panders for "the Jewish vote" by taking the Israel-can-do-no-wrong
    approach to the situation?  It is at least controversial (see 406.135
    and many following notes) whether Israel's current policies are
    productive or destructive.

.1>    EVen though it was an agreement to just stage the battle, I can't
.1>    help but believe that there are some powerful Arabist sympathizers
.1>    in the Democratic party waiting for the opportunity to call 
.1>    payment due.

    	Yes, there are sympathizers.  No, as Fred pointed out, they have no
    payment due.  See the last paragraph in my previous response.

    	In any case, how does this in the least absolve Bush's terrible
    judgement in the case of Mr. (I now know his name is Frederick) Malek?

    	I'd rather support a party and candidate which openly debate issues
    than a party and candidate which do nasty things on the sly and try to
    cover them up when confronted.

    			David

    re:.6 (Simon)
    Sources include the Boston Globe, the New York Times, National Public
    Radio and various other mainstream news media.  The Pasztor selection
    made the front page.

    RE: .10, the aformentioned publications are not known for their
    conservative leanings! All of them mentioned by name are quite liberal,
    and as such, have their impartiality questionable at best.
    
    Eric
    

    re. 9:
    
    If you read note .1 again I think that you will see that I 
    only questioned "assurances".  It is true that we have no assurance
    that in a Republican administration we have no assurance that 
    anti-semitiism will not (again) influence policy on one level or
    another.  It is also true that we have no assurance that those 
    who hooted down Israel's defenders at the Democratic convention
    will not, in a Democratic adminsistration, achieve positions in
    which they can influence U.S. policy towards Israel.
    
    Personally, if I had to make the choice, I would unquestionably
    vote for an administration that supports Israel, and pay for it
    with one that would pull the kind of nasty stunts that Nixon
    called for re. the Labor department.

    RE: .11
    
    Are you saying that the reports in these publications are not
    true?
    
    You appear to be questioning the messenger rather than the message.
    
    Interesting.................              
    
    I wonder why?
    
      Alan

    RE: .13, I'm saying that the slant of these publications are far
    from impartial. How one interpets the facts is an open subject,
    as does the amount of press one gives a story (1 column inch or
    10, on minute of news time or 10). Being politically conservative
    (and proud of it) and somewhat of a historian (try combining a minor
    in Modern American History with a major of BioMedical Engineering),
    leads me to conclude that the political leanings of the NY Times,
    Boston Globe, and most of the network news leaves much to be desired
    if I want to get all sides of a story FAIRLY presented (and I do
    read newspapers of all political persuasions to get both sides).
    Bush has made some poor choices as has the RNC, but compared to
    the alternative, the Republicans offer both the American people
    and Israel the far better choice.
                                     
    Eric

    re .-1
    
    >>the Republicans offer both the American people and Israel the 
    >>far better choice.

    As is demonstrated, no doubt, by the number of significant Arab-Israeli
    accords facililated during the last 8 years as compared to the Carter
    years.

.12>    If you read note .1 again I think that you will see that I 
.12>    only questioned "assurances".  It is true that we have no assurance
.12>    that in a Republican administration we have no assurance that 
.12>    anti-semitiism will not (again) influence policy on one level or
.12>    another.  It is also true that we have no assurance that those 
.12>    who hooted down Israel's defenders at the Democratic convention
.12>    will not, in a Democratic adminsistration, achieve positions in
.12>    which they can influence U.S. policy towards Israel.

	OK, I accept that much.  Of course, you make my point for me:  The
    Democrats you don't like, but at least they do their business openly
    and above-board.  The Republicans do slimy things and try to get away
    unnoticed.
        
.12>    Personally, if I had to make the choice, I would unquestionably
.12>    vote for an administration that supports Israel, and pay for it
.12>    with one that would pull the kind of nasty stunts that Nixon
.12>    called for re. the Labor department.

    	See .15; that says it in a nutshell.

    	I would far more trust an administration that was more likely to
    treat Jews fairly and openly, than one which makes pious statements
    about Israel and shows its true colors only under cover.  Nixon and
    Reagan have no true love for Israel; their "support" goes only as far
    as political expediency and the interests of the U.S.

    	Whenever I hear the "Nixon saved Israel in 1973" line, I have to
    wonder what the implication is.  That Dukakis (or McGovern) as
    President would have turned his back?  At best, that's idle conjecture;
    but at worst, it is a vile canard.

    	Just because your side supports Israel, doesn't mean the other side
    is against Israel.

    			David

    re .11 and .14

    	Aw, come on, the same reports were carried by the wire services,
    which are politically neutral, and by most major U.S. newspapers, the
    vast majority of which are politically conservative.  (Something like
    95% of all U.S. newspapers consistently endorse Republican candidates.)

    		David

    re. 16:
    
    I do hope that you're not asking us to wait for a U.S. administration
    or president that "truly loves" Israel.  I do believe the the best
    one can hope for is an administration whose attitudes and actions
    most closely approximate those expressed by the current Secretary
    of State.

    Again, re: 16, regarding your reference to .15.
    
    Carter brokered a deal between parties who were willing to negotiate.
    The current administration, unfortunately, did not happen upon such
    a situation.  I cannot see that your reference leads anywhere.
    
    It may be interesting to discuss the nature of the choice between
    "undercover" anti-semetic acts (such as those instigated by Nixon
    and most probably all past and future presidents) and open, above-
    board policy executions that result in the weakening, and ultimate
    liquidation of Israel.

re .7
    
>Also, what about similar shenanigans in the DNC?  It wouldn't surprise
>me to learn that there are similar efforts under way to recruit non-voting
>blacks who believe that their real enemy are Jews - you know, Jewish 
>landlords, Jewish public school teachers, Jewish shopkeepers, Jews siphoning
>money that should go for welfare into support for Israel, etc.  This
>is a hypothetical question; if that were true of the DNC, would it keep
>you from voting for Dukakis?

    Maybe I am reading too much into what you have said. However,
    non-voting Blacks are not more prone to believe that their real enemy
    is the Jew. You know, Blacks aren't the only ones who complain
    endlessly about the Jewish landlords, Jewish public school teachers,
    Jewish shopkeepers, Jews skimming off wealth to Israel which "should
    remain here." (BTW, I'm not condoning the complaints.) People complain.
    Please don't single Black people out in a manner that leaves the
    impression Blacks are anti-Semites. 
    
    But then again, maybe people will react violently if Dukakis and
    Democratic party caters to Blacks. But I'm pretty sure that the
    violent reaction will not be a consequence of Blacks being purely
    anti-Semites. 

    RE: .17, When one compares newspapers, one must note that the vast
    number of them are fairly small and local. The really large and
    influential ones (NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc.)
    are quite liberal, and their editorial policies show it. As far
    as television goes, all three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) are
    to the political left. Somehow the influence of a small local paper
    does not have as much impact as those mentioned above. 
    
    If one remembers back to the late 1960's, early 1970's, some of
    the worst anti-semitic rhetoric came from the far liberal left.
    Some was overt and some was not, but it was still there. Don't under-
    estimate Jackson's influence in the Duke's policies (he didn't give
    up the nomination fight for nothing)- and we know where Jesse stands.
    
    As I said before, Bush is far from the best, but compared to the
    Duke, he shines.
    
    Eric

    re .21
    
    No. You know where Jesse stands on whatever issue you have in mind.

    Somehow I find it flawed that one would think that Jackson is a
    worse threat to the Jewish preservation than Nazi-sympathizers.
    I don't believe that Jackson has denied that the holocaust happened,
    I don't believe that Jackson thought that Hitler was doing the right
    thing - "shucks he didn't finish the job."  But I do not doubt that
    many of those people on the Bush campaign who resigned was all
    for the holocaust, etc. 

    To counter argue that the same thing happens in the Democratic party
    "so which one is worse" is almost like closing your eyes to obvious
    wrong-doing purely for partisan politics. Even if it were true
    that the Democrats were pandering to the anti-Semites of the world,
    that won't make the Republicans look any better.  If I were a Jew,
    I won't look at this problem as a Republican vs Democratic thing.    

    RE: .22, I'm not being pure partisan politically, but I am viewing
    the upcoming election from a futures point of view. The policies
    that Dukakis would try to institute would do nothing but weaken
    this country, both economically and militarily. The Democrats are
    trying to pass off to the American people policies which haven't
    worked in the part and won't work in the future. I won't disagree
    that there are some factions within the Republican party whose views
    are as you described, but if one looks closely, there are probably
    that same type in the Democratic party, though the media chooses
    to ignore them. The best life for all peoples of this country occur
    when the economy is strong and the government doesn't take away
    much of what you earn. If the economy of the U.S. faulters badly
    or we are perceived as weak abroad, then the real trouble begins.
    World terrorism only respects strength, something the Duke would
    begin to dismantle. Our allys need a partner they can depend on,
    not one who flows on the whim of liberal rhetoric. I can not let
    one group of RNC hangers-on sway me from the more important larger
    picture. 
    
    As far as Jackson/Nazi-sympathizer question you posed, remember
    that that group in the Republican party are in a far fringe of the
    mainstream, while Jackson's beliefs are much closer to mainstream
    beliefs at the last convention, and that's why I find him a much
    greater threat!
    
    Eric
    
    

David (Ofsevit) - I'm sure you can stretch your imagination far enough
to consider that there are ways OUTSIDE of the explicit inclusion of
Louis Farrakhan to get a rhetoric of black anti-Semitism included in
the pitch that the DNC can make to a target segment.  An anlogy to the
scenario you outlined ('we know Farrakhan is persona non-grata to the
dems therefore there's no danger that anti-Semitic notions associated
with Farrakhan among others will be used') would be
that if the Grand High Gizmo of the Klan isn't running the white 'unmeltable'
ethnic outreach program for the RNC, then it doesn't really count. 
Also, my dear, is it necessary to condescend by assuming I must 
be confused?  And on erev Yom Kippur, yet!  

Mr? Wharton - (I don't have a first name for you) I mention non-voting
blacks since it is pretty much assumed that blacks who vote already vote
for Democratic candidates.   So if you were building a campaign plan in
search of additional votes, it would be the non-voting blacks you would
want to appeal to.  

Although it disturbs me greatly, it is nonetheless true that there is
a fairly public rhetoric of anti-Semitism that is quite visible in current
black-Democratic politics.  Recent public statements by well-connected
Democratic black leaders in Chicago come to mind.  

    The RNC didn't know that it was dealing with Nazi sympathizers when it
    let those people into its ranks -- come on, even Republicans aren't
    that stupid!  That it didn't know is not necessarily excusable, but
    neither political party makes a habit of checking the motives of its
    supporters ("You can't have this bumper sticker until we investigate
    you").

    George Bush has defended Malek, saying he's not a bigot.  This seems
    to parallel excusing those who cooperated with the Holocaust because
    they were following orders.  If Malek weren't a bigot, he would have
    (at least) told Nixon where to put his orders, and (better) gone to
    the media with the story.

    I wonder how those Jews who still think "Nixon was good for the Jews"
    are reacting to this story (Rabbi Baruch Korff comes to mind).  If
    anybody had any doubts, this whole sleazy affair proves that Nixon
    was good for just one person, and in the end he even failed himself.

>    to ignore them. The best life for all peoples of this country occur
>    when the economy is strong and the government doesn't take away
>    much of what you earn. If the economy of the U.S. faulters badly
>    or we are perceived as weak abroad, then the real trouble begins.

    The last I checked, the federal government increased their share
    of my income with the recent tax simplification which was endorsed
    by our current Republican adiminstration.  Not only that the
    administration has put the country in debt so deep we may never
    get out.  Can you say, "living beyond your means"?  I knew you could.
    The economy is going to have its problems, why not elect Bush so
    he can take the blame for the mess Reagan leaves him  8^{).

>    World terrorism only respects strength, something the Duke would
>    begin to dismantle.

    Last I knew Dukakis was advocating improvements in conventional
    forces (the part of our strength which has an effect on terrorism)
    and cuts in stuff the won't work like SDI.

>    Our allys need a partner they can depend on,
>    not one who flows on the whim of liberal rhetoric.

    Our allies need a partner they can depend on, not one who flows on the
    whim of PARTISAN rhetoric from either side.  I am sorry to say that
    neither of the candidates are particularly strong on this point.
    
>    As far as Jackson/Nazi-sympathizer question you posed, remember
>    that that group in the Republican party are in a far fringe of the
>    mainstream, while Jackson's beliefs are much closer to mainstream
>    beliefs at the last convention, and that's why I find him a much
>    greater threat!

    If the Jackson beliefs are mainstream in the Democratic party, then
    there is a good shot that they are mainstream of working class
    America.  If those beliefs frighten you, then maybe you should be
    even more frightened than you already are.

    And shall we talk about support for Israel.  How about Republicans
    selling arms to almost any arab country that asks for them.  Some
    of who are open and active supporters of the PLO (ie: Saudi Arabia).
    That's what I call support for your allies  (read heavy sarcasm here!).

    As for me, I can live with a party that poses constructive criticism
    of Israel and supports the values of concern for the poor and
    disenfranchised which are important Jewish values far more easily than
    I can with a party which mouths support for Israel while supporting its
    enemies and which claims that what is good for the wealthy is good for
    all.
    
    Gavriel

    re. 26
    
    It's the congress that decides to sell or not to sell arms to 
    foreign nations.  Last I heard, Saudia Arabia contracted with 
    the U.K. for several billions of dollars worth becaue they 
    couldn't easily get what they wanted from the U.S. congress.
    
    

    If it wasn't for Nixon's airlift to Israel after the Yom Kippur
    War started, Israel may very well have been wiped out.

    Isn't Kitty Dukakis Jewish?
    

>    It's the congress that decides to sell or not to sell arms to 
>    foreign nations.  Last I heard, Saudia Arabia contracted with 
>    the U.K. for several billions of dollars worth becaue they 
>    couldn't easily get what they wanted from the U.S. congress.

    The congress may make the final decision; but, the request for
    sale come through the executive branch.  So congress only sells
    what the President requests (or chooses to forbid sale  8^{).
    Admittedly this doesn't say much for congress either.

    Gavriel

    RE: .26, the Democratic platform and the party ideology in general
    is far from the beliefs of the working class or mainstream America,
    the last two Presidential elections proved that! Even the network 
    commentators noted after the convention that the Democratic party is 
    far more liberal than America as a whole. If you had a large amount
    of consumer debt or large amount of capital gains (an item not usually
    reserved for the blue collar worker), then tax reform hurt you (but
    it is debatable if gov't should subsidize credit card interest),
    but as a whole, I think that most people pay less taxes % wise that
    under Carter (also mortgages aren't at 16% and inflation at 12%!!!).
    Its also true that the take of Social Security went up, but isn't
    this the kind of spending that the Democrats want to see more of?
    If we took the FICA increases away, our tax bite would go down
    considerably, but then the Liberals who bemoan the increased Federal
    bite would look like hypocrites!  
    
    RE: .30, Yes, Kitty Dukakis is Jewish, but that doesn't seem to
    get much press. It that something the Duke doesn't want known to
    the rest of the country except Jewish organizations??? Kind of makes
    you wonder about his real intentions.
    
    Eric

    Sorry, the second paragraph relates to reply .29
    
    Eric

   I am curious, how much of what we sold the arabs have been used against
    Isreal? If I remember right ( I haven't read the paper in years)
    we mostly sold them F-16's and spare parts.If anyone knows of arms
    that we sold that have been used against Isreal (that could not
    have been bought elsewhere) I would like to know.

    
    Re: .29
    
    >    Isn't Kitty Dukakis Jewish?

    Yes she is. Her children however were not brought up Jewish.
    
    Interestingly enough, she attended RH & YK services at Temple Israel
    in Brookline. There were a gaggle of reporters there too, including
    a photographer from Time magazine. This is the first time anyone
    can remember seeing her at the Temple. I wonder if it has anything
    to do with her husband running for President? (read: heavy sarcasm)
    Sort of strange having the Secret Service running around the Temple
    on the High Holy days!
    
    -Joe
                                        

    RE .34
    
    	NOT TRUE!!! I have belonged to Temple Israel for a number of
    years and have seen her there several times. I wasn't looking for
    her so I can't tell you if she was there everytime I was there.
    She also has made several presentations of appeals for various local
    charitable efforts.
    
    		Norb Riegelhaupt

I must first of all say to all of you, that each and every one of you is 
entitled to his/her own opinion, and thank goodness we live in a country 
where this is a "given", however, I take issue with a lot of what's been 
going on in both the Republic and Democratic campaigns.  Let's face it, 
the fate of Israel is not the most important issue to most people, and I 
seriously doubt, regardless of who is elected, that the American Jewish 
lobby will allow "bad" things to happen - it's much too strong.

I am amazed at how neither party is speaking to the issues at hand.  Mr. 
Bush is more concerned with questioning the Duke's patriotism, and 
Bush's campaigners (i.e. past Secretary of Education), are labeling 
liberals as non-patriotic!  These are very serious allegations, but 
again, are not the real issues of this campaign.  I get very nervous 
when I'm labelled anything besides a white female, and the arch 
conservatists in this country are very vocal, and, even more, people 
listen to them and believe them! 

In another note, someone took issue that Kitty Dukakis really isn't a 
Jew because she doesn't observe, etc.  Isn't that labelling as well?

I'm rambling along...My brother teaches history and government, and hs 
always told me that the person who is elected President isn't as 
important as the people he surrounds himself with (Cabinet, etc.), and 
the types of appointments in his Presidency.  I think the upcoming 
president has three more Supreme Court appointments.  

So, let's not get into which is the lesser of two evils in this campaign 
and try and concentrate of the issues.  I know this is the Bagels 
notesfile, but if Israel is some of your major concerns, perhaps some of 
you live in the wrong country.

Let's hear from some of you on the issues of this campaign - homeless, 
health care, defense, etc., because those issues affect all of us, even 
more so than Israel.

I want to wish all of you and your families and happy, healthy New Year!

Shalom,
Joan

P.S. Moderators, please feel free to move this to another topic, if 
appropriate.

    RE: .36, I agree that the election has many issues, all of which
    are important however, the base note for this topic limits its scope
    to one major issue. There are other notesfiles that cover the election
    and its candidates in detail (::SOAPBOX for example, for those who
    dare to tread) on a variety of subjects. 
    
    Eric (who treads in many places, on many topics, and is never short
         of an opinion)

    re: 36
    
    What you say is true: "the fate of Israil is not the most important
    issue to most people."  Also, whether you know it or not, whebn
    you suggest that those who regard the survival of Israel as the
    most important item on the immediate political agenda perhaps 
    live in the wrong country, you are in agreement with many Israelis.
    
    But consider:  Is it wrong for a Jew in the U.S.A. to regard the
    survival of Israel as the most important item on the agenda?
    Especially if we feel that the weakening and ultimate liquidation
    of that state will affect us and our children and our children's
    children as Jews?  Especially if we feel that such an event would
    unleash a worldwide wave of anti-semitism that would jeopordize
    not only our lives but the life of Judiasm itself?  Is one not 
    allowed to be a Jew in the United States without abandoning 
    Israel?  If, as you say with so much assurance, "that the 
    American Jewish lobby will" not "allow 'bad ' things to happen"
    it might perhaps be a good idea for American Jews to hang in here.

    We do get the US TV 'Evening News' over here, though it's in the
    morning.
    
    I've heard Bush saying that he is for "anti-sectarism and
    anti-semitism".
    
    If that's not a Freudian slip, what is?
    
    Doubtingly yours,
    
    Chris 

1.  >    RE: .10, the aformentioned publications are not known for their
    >   conservative leanings! All of them mentioned by name are quite liberal,
    >   and as such, have their impartiality questionable at best.
    
        This argument is truly remarkable. The claim is, that the media
        sources quoted have a "liberal bias". What is the sign of a "liberal 
        bias"? Answer, printing news stories critical of the Reagan/Bush 
        administration. Thus, the argument holds that we do not need to pay 
        attention to news stories critical of the Reagan/Bush administration 
        if they come from media sources which print news stories critical of 
        the Reagan/Bush administration. Or, conversely, we only have to
        consider news stories critical of the Reagan/Bush administration if 
        they come from media sources which do not print news stories critical 
        of the Reagan/Bush administration.
        
        This fine jewel of human reason is too good for BAGELS; it should have
        been saved for SOAPBOX.        
        
2.        I notice that the entries in this note praising Richard Nixon for
        the airlift of supplies to Israel in 1973 do not mention his rescue
        of the Egyptian Third Army three weeks later. If Mr. Nixon had been
        acting from a fixed amity for the state of Israel this action would
        be inexplicable; we may therefore assume that he was not acting
        from a love of Israel but from a consideration of American interests,
        as was indeed proper for an American president. To quote John Foster
        Dulles, "The United States has no allies, only interests". To quote
        the Pirke Avoth, "Be not over friendly with the ruling powers, for
        they bring no man close to them save for their own interest".
        
3.        As for Bush, at best, we have the standard Bush dilemma: either
        he knew and was culpable or he did not know and was incompetent.
        [By the way, I saw Mr. Ryan - the ex-head of the Justice Departement's
        War Criminal section - interviewed on MacNeil/Leher. He was discussing
        Pasztor, one of the men forced to resign from the Bush campaign. He
        said that he was very suprised at the idea that someone in politics
        would not know of this man's neo-Nazi connections; he said it was like
        "not knowing that Ed Meese is a conservative".]
        
          Personally, I think that the situation is fairly simple. Bush is
        Vice President in an administration which used John Singlaub and the 
        World Anti-Communist League as a tool of foreign policy and which 
        entered into a military alliance in Central America with the military 
        government of Argentina. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas; why 
        be suprised when fascists turn up on his campaign staff? [Incidently, 
        respondents claiming that Dukakis has a similar relationship with 
        black anti-semites are asked to furnish a list of members of the 
        Dukakis campaign staff belonging to Louis Farrakhan's organisation.]

	RE: 549.23

>    RE: .22, I'm not being pure partisan...
    
    But coming pretty close :^)

>                                                        The policies
>    that Dukakis would try to institute would do nothing but weaken
>    this country, both economically and militarily.
    
    That, of course, depends on your point of view.  Many of us think
    that pouring trillions into "strategic" weaponry while cutting
    investment in education, health care, transportation infrastructure,
    and conventional armaments, seriously undercuts the strength of
    this country.

>    World terrorism only respects strength, something the Duke would
>    begin to dismantle.

    How, by exchanging armaments for hostages?

>                     Jackson's beliefs are much closer to mainstream
>   beliefs at the last convention
    
    Which beliefs?  There are a good many things that Jackson espouses
    that are very much in the mainstream of what the Democratic Party
    has stood for since the New Deal, and which the Republican Party
    finally came around to supporting.  The one area that is not is
    his Middle East Policy, and that was rejected pretty decisively.
    
	RE: 549.31

>                                                     Even the network 
>    commentators noted after the convention that the Democratic party is 
>    far more liberal than America as a whole.
    
    Political activists in general tend to be more partisan.  If you
    check polls of the Republican delegates you will find that they
    were significantly to right of the U.S. electorate.  This has been
    true ever since people have been studying political attitudes.

>                   I think that most people pay less taxes % wise that
>   under Carter
    
    Some recent studies show that this is true for the richest and the
    poorest, but not true for those in the middle.
    
>    (also mortgages aren't at 16% and inflation at 12%!!!).
    
    However, a number of economists have pointed out that the "true" rate
    (the interest rate - inflation rate) is higher.  This is important
    because the important thing is not the absolute amount in dollars,
    but what it represents as a percentage of one's income.  For people
    who had incomes that were able to stay reasonably abreast of inflation,
    interest rates are higher now.

    When I compare what the Great Society did for the country (even
    in spite of the war) with what the Star Wars society has been doing
    to the country for the last eight years, I'll opt for the former
    any day.
    
    					Aaron

    One point that has not been discussed IS THE Supreme Court.
    
    The next President will most likely replace at least 2 and maybe
    as many as justices.  While the court has moved to the right it
    has remained overall a balanced court.  If Bush is elected he will
    swing the court to the right, while Dukakis will replace liberal
    justices with those of a similar ilk.  
    
    To date despite such decisions as the Creche (sp?) case the court
    has taken a protectionist view towards such issues as Prayer in
    school and the seperation of Church and State.  With the appointment
    of right-wing justices can we be sure that this tradition will
    continue.  As one who was "forced" to recite prayers in school that
    were against my faith I am worried that a right of ceneter court
    will allow the religious-right's agenda to be realized.
    
    Warren 

    
    		This administration's motives may also be attributed
    
    	in addition to or instead of antisemitism to good old profit
    
        motivation. Both George Schultz and Casper Weinberger were 
    
        senior officers of the Bechtel Corporation. In addition, a
    
        number of other high officials in the various government secre-
    
    	tariats were important members of the Bechtel Corporation.
    
    
    		The Bechtel Corporation is, by far, the dominant Construc-
    
    	tion Company in the mideast. Since they do no work in Israel,
    
    	guess where their interests lie.
                                        

The thing that has bothered me about the Bush appointments is the
(cynical, paranoid) fantasy that "someone" in the Bush campaign
made the cold calculation that there are more anti-semites than
semites, and by hiring, then firing under pressure, a couple of
people with anti-communist (and anti-semitic) backgrounds, the
Bush campaign could send several messages at the same time:

-- anti-semites who are anti-communists are "our" friends.

-- "Gosh, golly gee, I can't have anti-semites in my campaign."
   (guess who that message's for)

-- "they" forced me to kick anti-communists out of my campaign.

Of course, I have no evidence that this is an accurate mirror of
reality.

Martin.

Re: .39

George Bush:

    "I hope I stand for anti-bigotry, anti-semitism, anti-racism.  This
    is what drives me." 

    (Bush on the resignation of Fred Malek and 7 others for anti-semitic
    views or actions.) 

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that vice-president Bush has
a habit of malapropisms (and has started to poke fun at himself when
he makes one of these verbal slips).  Nobody has suggested that he
is himself a bigot, or a friend of anti-semitism.  On the other hand, the
appointments do suggest that he is willing to turn a blind eye toward
the full history of his friends.

In a commentary to the anti-semitic appointment/resignation issue last
week, NPR correspondant Daniel Schorr noted (this is from memory) that,
in the 1950's, the Republican party became the home of the refugees from
the Baltic countries (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) that were swallowed
by Russia after World War II (as well as the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian
empire that are now Soviet client states).  While these people were virulently
anti-communist, many also had, shall we say, close ties to the Nazis.  In
accepting the support of the anti-communists, the Republicans did not do a
good job of separating their anti-communism from their anti-semitism.

Bush's acceptance of the "good German" Malek worries me more than the
"Ethnic committee" rabble, as Malek might have been (might be?) in line
for a political appointment in a future Bush administration.  Malek's
history is hardly a secret: it was described in Woodward and Bernstein's
"The Final Days" over 10 years ago.

Martin.

    There is a discussion in Blacknotes (OPHION::Blacknotes) on "Are Blacks
    Anti-Semitic?" It is topic 376.* As a member of Bagels and Blacknots, I
    would greatly appreciate your input. 
    
    Thanks.
    
    Karen 

    I only read German and French translations of Quayle's statements
    re. "The Holocaust didn't happen in this century."
    
    Anyone got details?
    
    This man is as lost in a statesman role as I am in Heidegger's
    pilosophy, i.e. hopelessly.
    
    First Bush, now his vice: Freud is well and alive and drinking beer
    in the Berggasse, thank you.
    
    Astonished,
    
    Chris

    RE: Quayle

    I don't have the exact quote, but he started out by saying that the
    Holocaust was a shameful chapter in the history of our country, and
    then when he realized what he had said, he made some fumble along
    the lines of what you quoted.  The ironic thing is that it *was*
    a shameful chapter in the history of the US, since the government
    knew what was going on but didn't do anything to publicize it or
    disrupt it.

Re:                   -< Quayle was more correct than he knows >-

First Quayle said [all paraphrasing!]
	"The Holocaust was a shameful chapter in our ccountry's history.."
Then he realised that that statement [rightly or wrongly] implied that the
US was responsible for the Holocaust. So he said:
	"It didn't happen here ofcourse and not this century..."
Then he realised that it did happen in this century; but before he was born. So
he said:
	"Ofcourse I wasn't born in this century.."

Fortunately, he decided to stop [or someone asked him to shut up!]!!!!

-parthi

    re .-2:
    
    For that matter, read David (?) Wyman's book "The abandonment of
    the Jews".
    
    Wyman was/is(?) a historian teaching at Harvard, if I remember it
    correctly.
    
    re .-1:
    
    Thanks, Parthi. Must have been real fun to watch this. I will continue
    to support my theory that the best jokes are real.
    
    Still laughing,
    
    Chris

    re: Quayle                  
                           
    We can laugh all we want at Quayle, but this jerk might be the
    vice-president of the U.S.  But then again, we've just gone through
    eight years of another fool.
    
    David 

    As I stated in another notesfile: statistically, if Bush should get
    elected, you have a chance higher than 50% that Quayle is going to be
    the next president of the US.
    
    Just count how many Pres's, after WWII, have been VP's before that.

    Statistically yours,
    
    Chris    

    However, unless Bush were to die in office, Quayle would have to
    be ELECTED. VP assending to the office of President has occurred 
    twice during the WWII and later period (Roosevelt/Truman, and  
    Kennedy/Johnson), which is much less than 50% (even if you include 
    Nixon/Ford) that became president other than being elected to the office.
    
    Eric

    I simply can't understand how some people are thinking.  I've had
    this conversation with quite a few:
    
        me:   So, did'ya watch the debate last night?
        them: yup.
        me:   So, what'd'ya think of Bush and Quayle now?
        them: oh, well, yeah, Quayle was pathetic.
        me:   really?
        them: oh, yes, quite scary.
        me:   oh, good, so you're gonna vote for Dukakis then?
        them: oh, of course NOT, I'm voting for Bush.
    
    I can't understand it.  If nothing else, this proves Bush's inability
    to make an intelligent decision.  I STRONGLY suspect that Bush picked
    Quayle so that when all the dirt is out about the Iranian Hostage
    situation in 1980 and how Bush, Casey, North, et al. pulled such
    a dirty move, they won't impeach President Bush because you'll end
    up with President Quayle.  The whole thing makes me want to puke.
    
                                                  .steve.

	Regarding the worry about Quayle becoming President:

	Does anybody out there really think that Quayle or even
	Bush could possibly do worse than Reagan. 

	Theories Why Bush chose Quayle:

	a) Quayle is a shrimp so Bush looks distinquished

	b) Avoid M-peechment (re: 55)	

	c) A Quayle in the hand is worth two Bush

	d) Bush thinks Quayle is cute and will 
	   attract the male vote

	e) Bush thinks Quayle is God

	f) Quayle is God and made him do it

	g) Bush was drugged

	h) Dole and Quayle drew straws and Quayle won

	Darryl

    
    To start, I'll say I don't indulge in BAGELS very often. But
    I do enjoy this conference when I access it.
    
    I merely wish to insert a pointer here to the topic in
    notesfile SOAPBOX where Mr. Fred Malek, and other recent
    resignees from the Bush campaign, are discussed.
    
    RAHAB::SOAPBOX  topic 397.*    "Fred Malek"
    
    regards,	John McAllen
    
    

    
    I encountered a recently published book, BLOWBACK, which
    gives detailed information about one of the Bush
    campaign resignees, Laslo Pasztor. The book also
    tells quite a bit about the Republican Heritage Council
    of Nationalities and its liason with the Reagan (and by
    extension Bush) election campaigns.
    
    The book is primarily about the history of recruitment,
    in the years shortly after World War II, of former
    German SS, Abwehr, SD, Army and Vlasov brigade personnel,
    into the USA CIC (counterintelligence), OPC (OSS/CIA Office
    of Policy Coordination) and SFG (special forces group i.e.
    Green Beret ) organizations.
    
    If you are also interested in the Post WWII, US-sponsored,
    West-German clandstine organization called the "Gehlen ORG",
    or about it's subsidiary group, the Young Deutscher's Bund,
    which operated illegally in West Germany in the 1950's,
    it is full with information.
              
    It also gives a sickening description of the German
    WWII "einsatzgruppen" or mobile liquidation commandos,
    and the later incorporation of some eisatzgruppen into
    USA covert organizations.
    
    The emphasis of the book is NOT on German WWII atrocities,
    but rather specifically on how (and by whom) they were
    managed and overseen, and more importantly, the implications
    of the later induction, by OPC's Frank Wisner, of these
    people in USA War (and later, Defense) Dept. (and other) programs.
                   
    I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information. I'll
    try to provide author name soon.
       
    		-John
    
    

    
    I rather strongly believe that Bush himself was unaware of
    the records of some of the nationalities committee chairmen's
    pasts... the emigree Eastern European are mostly anti-communist
    and thus are natural supporters (esp financial) of the GOP.
    
    Quayle's slipup illustrates the fixiation on a white Christian
    norm in this country.