Leftists made racism an R-word, but should it be such? A girl who wants a specifically Jewish husband – is she a racist in any meaningful sense? How about a girl who doesn’t want to marry an Arab, however nice and educated he is? But no mainstream newspaper would accept an announcement, “Looking for a husband. Arabs need not apply.” Similarly, if one is entitled to give charity to Jewish causes, why cannot he refuse charity to Arab causes? If one can legitimately dislike Arabs and avoid inviting Arab neighbors to his house, what precludes a restaurant owner from refusing Arab in? If racial (or ethnic, or religious) consciousness is acceptable in private sector, what makes it unacceptable state policy? Governments are supposed to represent sum of private interests.
There's a fringe case of monopoly. If racism is allowed to private sector only, some restaurants would exclude the Arabs, while other welcome them. An Arab in Israel would always be able to find a restaurant. A government-level ban on Arabs in restaurants would be unacceptably absolute, precluding even those restaurant owners who want Arab customers from welcoming them, and unreasonably excluding the Arabs from significant sphere of lifestyle activity. Such policy would be wrong in normal societies, but in Israel it has a sense of retaliation and correcting other wrongs: in practice, Jews cannot enter Arab neighborhoods or buy land in Arab-controlled territories. There is nothing wrong in the retaliatory exclusion of Arabs from Jewish society. Banishing Arabs from Israel won't result in an unusual hardship for them, although will end the stream of benefits paid at the Jews' expense. Israeli Arabs only have to be moved thirty miles – less than the distance traversed by Americans evicted from their houses through eminent domain doctrine.
Many accuse me of racism and remind that Jews are not better than others. That’s only true from outsiders’ perspective. For Jews, too, French are no different from the British in terms of rights and we would condemn either one infringing on another. Nations, however, often pursue their interests at the cost of harming others. US had to bomb Afghans to destroy Taliban, and Spaniards establish their sovereignty over the land at Basques’ expense. Russians pursue imperial policies but tell us that Jews and Arabs should co-exist on equal terms. That’s an aberration, observer’s error. People divide the world into “us” and “them.” For Jews, it is us and Arabs; for Gentiles, it is them and “Jews and Arabs” where Jews and Arabs are similar. Come, step in our shoes. Imagine your ancestors persecuted throughout the history. Imagine your parents fighting the Arabs for independence. Imagine Arab rockets showering you in Sderot. Then, in your newly distorted vision, Arab rights won’t equal Jewish rights.
You are missing the point! You or I can decide on a personal level whether we want or do not want to marry an Arab, and Ethiopian or an American - that's called personal preference.
When you have a restaurant that is open to the public and you refuse entry to Russians (for example), or when you have a discotheque in North TA and refuse entry to people from Shchunat Hatikva - that is different. You are open to the public and discrimination by sex, race or religion is still illegal in this country. You are right that the Government is supposed to represent the sum of private interests - of Ethiopians, Moroccan but also of Arab citizens.
The blacks in SA could always find a seat on the bus and they could always find a restaurant as well - that is beside the point.
Who said Jews cannot enter Arab neighborhoods? I know of plenty of Jews who shop in Um el Fachem and visit friends there without any problem. I also know of many who will not venture into Mea Shearim for fear of being stoned. I know of Jews who own property in Arab villages - not that there are many who want this but if you wanted to, who would stop you?
I can also accept that there is nothing wrong on banishing those Arabs who are hostile to the Jewish State - but with regard to those who accept the fact of a Jewish Israel and wish to remain citizens (I emphasize - "remain" and not "become") banishing is definitely racism.
You say Israeli Arabs have only to be moved 30 miles - you want to move them to another country. What gives you the right to decide for this other country that they have to accept your banished citizens and/or the right to dictate to them where to settle them.
I am reminded of a similar situation where a people were considered outsiders. They were banished (at first) or pushed into leaving, there was no place for them as they "spoilt" the purity of the idea of a pure nation, they were a menace to society and they caused irreparable damage because of their very nature and their ideas.
Remember (or perhaps for you the words "never again" only apply to one part of that tragic and monstrous part of our history?
Yes - Germany for the Aryans.
Want some more examples? The Taliban, The Saudi Arabians. The Spanish Inquisition. All proponents of ideologies similar to that you propose.
Chag Sameach
"Jews who have friends in Umm al Fahm", uh? That must be a very special kind of Jews.
If you want to buy property in Arab villages, the Supreme Court bans that.
Oh no. Arabs don't accept the fact of Jewish Israel. They accept the temporary fact of Israel and work to breed our her Jewishness.
Aryans, er… Or you can read the Torah. Something about Amalek. And I would have no problem with Germans resettling their Jews to Switzerland.
1. No special Jews - just the normal Jewish mentality of looking for a good deal when shopping! The special ones send their children to a joint Jewish Arab school in Ara.
2. The Supreme Court bans you from buying a house in and Arab municipality in Judah and Samaria. You can very easily buy a house in Um el Faham.
3. Many (maybe most) Arabs do not accept the fact of a Jewish Israel - I referred to those that do and they number more than a few thousand. A small percentage, yes, but must they suffer for the sins of their brethren or is it enough to find one Tsadik in Sdom?
4. The Germans might want to resettle their Jews in Switzerland but they would need the Swiss to agree.
Find a 'tsadik in Soddom'. I love that. I don't recall Soddom actually waging war against god, or Moses lifting the 'good egyptians' from Pharos' charioteers up to the sky when the red sea closed on them.
I also don't recall the part in history where Arabs attacked Jews, then spared 'the good Jews', except of course for the famous bus bombing in which the Terrorist used a smart charge, which only killed evil nationalist Jews, but left others - with no national ambitions whatsoever, unharmed.
Yes! We must treat them by the same kind standard that they have treated us. We owe them that, and should repay the favor - tenfold. To do any less would be … racism.
"Racism" is now merely a pejorative Leftists hurl at conservatives. Leftists' use of racialist themes to marshal support for their campaigns and programs is all the confirmation a rational man should need.
You convinced me! Let's just become like them - we do not have any reason to be different.
Daniel Benjamin — You were making such good points about freedom of association and freedom of assembly, et cetera, and then you sound just like the Bush haters saying "Its just like the Nazis!" I do not know of any Jewish movement in Germany, past or present, to run the Germans into the sea. And, just from my personal experience, the Swiss have some bad problems with "non-Swiss". And not to avoid controversy, I'll just throw it out for discussion, subject for debate among good liberals — "If the Brits had allowed the Jews to return to the Palestinian Mandate, the Holocaust would have been averted."
"Freedom of assembly"? Was I? Didn't notice! You must be mixing me up with someone else! I am definitely not a Bush hater and I agree with your statements about the Germans, the Swiss and the Brits. Exactly the reason why, as Jews, we have to learn from their failures so that we can be a light unto other nations and not imitate them!
A light shines very dimly once crushed under the heels of enemy war machines.
The truly enlightened realizes perhaps that to commit suicide in the name of being better, is a bad way to propagate one's philosophy throughout the nations.
And since history will be quickly rewritten by the victorious, your legacy will be nothing more than that of a dead villain.
That's just rhetoric and demagoguery. Where did I propose committing suicide or letting someone trample over us? You seem to be equating racism with strength and democracy with weakness. The strongest countries in the world today are democracies.
Israel's survival as the Jewish Nation depends on our moral as well as our military strength. One does not come at the expense of the other as you would have us believe. The opposite is true.
You're using rhetoric and demagoguery just the same, so spare me your childish name calling.
'You would have us believe' that democracies should show consideration to hostile factions, and that this is strength, but Democratic Israel is weak; Democratic Europe does not stand against the firm, believing, non-democratic muslims, or Russia, and the United States are also becoming weaker gradually thanks to the internal fructuring of its social fabric.
Yet, this debate is a non-issue, because democracy is not about tolerating enemies. It is about allowing cultural diversity of loyal subjects of the state. The Greeks did not tolerate the Persian invaders, and likewise, Jewish Moral should concern only Jews and the friends of Israel, not its enemies. It is not morality that makes one adhere to his enemies' wishes - it is fear, clumsily disguised as advanced views. Only leftists with a skewed world view, believing that Israel is invincible, actually believe their own lies.
The muslims, having more common sense than most Israelis, have easily picked up on that scent, and are taking advantage of it for decades. I really can't blame them for being cunning.
Now you can have your silly morality, and tell yourself that you are a better person than others, if indeed your self-esteem is that fragile.
I, on the other hand, already know my worth, and would rather see Israel survive as a Jewish state.
You use rhetoric and demagoguery just the same, so spare me your childish name calling.
'You would have us believe' that the issue is democracy vs totalitarianism, but such is not the case, even though democratic Israel is weak, the democratic Europe fear standing up to firm, believing, non-democratic Muslims, and even the United States grows increasingly weaker due to the internal pressures that endanger its social fabric.
Democracy was never about tolerating enemies, from inside or from outside. The Greeks did not tolerate the Persians, the Americans did not tolerate communists, and the Palestinians can't tolerate each other.
Only leftists with skewed view of the world believe that leniency and acceptance of the enemy shows strength. Muslims, having more common sense than many Israelis, read it correctly as cowardice. They have picked up on that scent, and are taking advantage of it for decades. I really can't blame them - It's the right thing to do.
So you can keep your false morals, and tell yourself that they make you a better person, if indeed your self-esteem is so fragile.
I, on the other hand, am aware of my worth, and value more the survival of Israel as a Jewish state.
Your animosity is misplaced! I want a Jewish Israel just as much as you do. I do not propose showing leniency in the face of Muslim terror or tolerating enemies. I agree with almost everything you wrote above. You are so used to arguing with the left that you automatically spout your arguments without really reading what I wrote. I will repeat it here in order to be absolutely clear. A STRONG Jewish state of Israel must be based equally on military as well as moral superiority. Moral superiority cannot be based on values and/or practices that have been the cause of so much JEWISH suffering throughout the centuries.
I do not do anything 'automatically', but your arguments seemed quite familiar to me. If I was wrong in interpreting your intentions, than I am glad. Just keep in mind that in the internet, when we are limited to text only, it is easy to misinterpret.
I am glad to see that you indeed want a Jewish state, and I do hope that, as you say, we agree more than disagree. The future Jewish state will need as many strong believers in it, as it can.
Just to sum up my beliefs: Morality should be practiced with those who share some common cultural traits with you - your 'neighbor', as is being put here repeatedly.
Human nature is treacherous, and more often than not, they do not repay kindness in return. The Muslim enemy showed time and again, that they in fact are treacherous in that respect.
A cruel, strong Israel, will be much more respected among the nations than a weak, supposedly moral one (For nobody stands someone who claims he is better than the rest, but cannot back it up with force).
It doesn't take much to see that the 'moral' way the last Lebanon war was managed earned Israel absolutely zero respect from the world, while at the same time reduced national morale.
Israelis and Jewish should first practice morality amongst themselves (Something that Israelis, at least, do very poorly), then they will have something that the gentiles might want to copy.
And a last note - Jewish people in foreign states did not try to bring down these states from the inside (With the exception of Socialist, who were not traditional Jews, nor did they want these states for their own people). I do not support any policy of treating a peaceful population harshly for the sake of creating a cultural hegemony - only rebellious and hostile ones. For example, the ill treatment of foreign workers in Israel is a terrible moral crime in my opinion.
If you agree on those points, then indeed we have no quarrel.
To Daniel:
1.Would you please elaborate on the proposed "moral superiority"? And what makes it specifically Jewish?
(As Rav Kahane used to put it, a Gentile bride can be perfectly ethical.)
2. Do you think Jews suffered persecution throughout the centuries because of our practices? I met many people in Siberia who have never encountered a Jew yet thought of us as monsters. Back in the Russian Empire, Jews lived in isolated ghettos and Russians didn't see our customs, yet hated us.
3. If a group abandons its historically distinctive trait, does it continue existing as a group or does it perhaps become a new group of "morally superior Left"?
1. Jewish universality recognizes the significance of nations and the value of their cultures as a manifestation of the natural order of creation. It forbids the assignment of humans as judges of nations, and rejects any forcible coercion of faith and morals on other nations. This is specifically a manifestation of Torah and Am Yisrael
2. Yes & No (Mainly no).
3. No. In order to remain distinctive a group needs to keep certain historically distinctive traits, although these may be adapted to meet life in a continuously changing environment.
1."Jewish universality" is an oxymoron. Where've you got it from? Any group has to be distinct from others, or it ceases as a separate entity. Jews place great emphasis on havdala, isolation, and despise "universality."
What value does Judaism ascribe to the Ancient Greek culture? Or to the Polynesian aboriginal culture? To Arab culture?
2.But you have just asserted that in your previous comment.
3.But you have just called to abandon the practices which defined Jewishness throughout the history.
You will need to learn to accept coexistence with Arabs. Its not a matter of if, it's when. Denying rights for certain individuals based on racial background, religious affiliation, etc. is against the principles of any democratic government, which is by and for the people. If the people happen to be Arabs, then the government needs to be representative of the populace. What you remind me of are the Southern whites in the United States during the civil war era who wanted to count Blacks as 2/3's of a person in order to diminish their rights and representation, and similarly the actions of Germany when they wanted to diminish the control and influence of Jews and other ethnicities who weren't Aryan by putting in place various restrictions similar to those that you are suggesting be placed upon Arabs. I'm not sure what and where in the Torah it says that this kind of behavior is acceptable. You cannot use the same rationale that caused your people great suffering as a means to justify the continued subjugation of a people which had you neither any quarrel with or claim prior to the holocaust and its aftermath. The projection of Jewish anger from those who perpetuated those crimes to Arabs is absolutely ridiculous.
Eventually, hardliner Israelis such as yourself will have to come to a realization that they can't exterminate Arabs like the Nazis did to Jews. We are a people who deserve the right to live free and prosper as well. I am finding that many Israelis are waking up to this reality, and that in fact they are warm/kind people who wouldn't mind negotiating with the "Arabs" for a comprehensive peace deal.
"You will need…" Cut down on arrogance.
Judaism is not a democracy or liberalism.
I hate repeating this the ten thousandth time. Try thinking a bit before sprouting nonsense. Germans (not some vague Nazis, but the Germans most of whom were not Nazis) murdered Jews who sought no harm to Germany. Israel will be expelling her mortal enemies, the Arabs.
Response to your post from Sept. 27th. (Have been busy I guess!!)
1. I believe I explained Jewish Universality very precisely, without inferring that this universality precludes existence as a separate identity. Please re-read my post on this - and, if necessary, I can try and explain again.
2. When I wrote: "Moral superiority cannot be based on values and/or practices that have been
the cause of so much JEWISH suffering throughout the centuries." I was referring to values and practices of those who persecuted Jews. I did not mean that it was Jewish values and/or practices that were the cause of persecution. I was voicing a fear that some of us are adopting the same values and practices of our persecutors throughout the ages.
3. I did not call to abandon the practices which defined Jewishness, I wrote "In order to remain distinctive a group needs to keep certain historically distinctive traits, although these may be adapted to meet life in a continuously changing environment."
Response to your post from April 28th:
(BTW, I did not see the word "liberalism" anywhere in the previous post so I do not know why you used the word unless you needed to label something or stereotype someone).
1. You wrote that Judaism is not a democracy. True, but Israel is a Jewish democracy. Now some people may not like this but it is (as far as I know) a fact. There are many religious democracies in the world (Denmark, Argentina, etc) - nothing new or impossible there. However, a Jewish Dane is not a second class citizen. Unfortunately, since we are at war, the Arab citizens of Israel need to be treated with care and suspicion - until we cease to be at war. There is a difference between this and expelling them or revoking all their rights. I tend to agree with you regarding the necessity to be cruel to anyone who shows himself to be an enemy. That does not mean collective punishment of Arab Israelis.
2. I submit that "German" is a much vaguer term than "Nazi". "Arabs" is a vaguer term than "Israeli Arabs". When you want to be cruel - you cannot be vague otherwi. You have to be precise, you have to make every action count and you need to set an example.
Just out of curiosity, do you consider Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan as Arab countries?
Sorry for the typos in the last few sentences.
Would appreciate correction:
… cannot be vague. You have….
Danny: You may have to repeat that for the millionth time too, but it's a good thing.
It will have no effect on the people who will continue to argue with you, but it might help those poor innocents who are brainwashed since childhood to see any act of self-defense as monstrous genocide 'just like the Nazis did'.
They need to hear these words.
We have been "mortal enemies" for the 60 years your people occupied our land. Is this the definition of a "mortal enemy"?
Please detail your comprehensive plan to expel us Arabs from the remaining land left to us. Does it involve murder? Are you going to come in and arrest us all? Are you going to dump us into the sea? What is your "final solution"?
Dean: Since you've been occupying our land for the last 60 years, you've been treated far better than you deserve.
All of the solutions you suggested are pretty good. I hope god will heed your words and will make the Israeli government do as you suggested.
Perhaps you should consider going back to your own lands - you know, the big sandy deserts with the ever so expensive oil in them.
Hey Danny the Admin! Why didn't you publish my answers to your questions?