Since we’re talking about racism, I wonder how many of the respondents in this survey would allow a fellow Israeli Jew of Ethopian descent in their homes? Is the only form of racism that exists in Israel only between Jews and non-Jews?

It’s funny, but I can’t remember the last time Jews went on a rampage slaughtering French, or when Jew supported a concerted effort to SUICIDE bomb to eradicate the infidels of Arabia. Hmmm… I wonder if I’d be so happy to live next door to someone who identifies with such a group that has a history of murdering people with whom I identify with..

Worse than the French? The linked article was about French people who admit to being racist. The Haaretz article discussed a survey based on antagonism, not (necessarily) race. If the surveyors were interested in monitoring racism in Israel rather than taking cheap shots at Israel, they would have asked questions like “Would you be willing to live in the same building as an Arab, if you were reasonably certain that that particular Arab did not wish you and your children an agonizing and grisly death?”

You miss the point. There are many reasons for people to hate one another, some of them legitimate. Racism is one of the possibilities, and is not legitimate. The questions asked in the survey only show that Israelis prefer not to be around Arabs; they don’t show why. To assume that the reason is racism, especially when there are extremely obvious alternative explanations, is frankly dishonest and slanderous.

What would that prove? You would still need to show that the REASON for the hatred is racism.

I think you mean a peace agreement that actually yielded peace.

“The Palestinians aren’t motivated by feelings of genetic superiorty. ”
Mmm. Identify “apes and pigs”.

Not so fast, Stephen. The key here is the definition of “involved”. If we used your logic, even the Germans of 1938-1945 would come off OK. The real questions are what percentage support terrorism, not only physically but financially or morally. If a given Arab overheard terrorist plotters, would he call the authorities? When he hears of a suicide bombing, does he celebrate? When asked by another Arab of his opinions re terrorism, what does he say? So the reasoning behind the Israeli survey is not RACISM, but JUSTIFIED FEAR and JUSTIFIED DISGUST at people who WANT TO SEE THEM DEAD.
Arguments made by enemies of Israel to slander Israeli Jews with this perfectly understandable phenomenon: Worthless

Even if I conceded that Israeli treatment of Arabs is/was as bad as you say, which I don’t, the issue would be WHY you treated me that way. If the reason was because I and my people had mistreated you for 1500 years, then tried to do to you what the Arabs tried to do in 1948, then continuously tried to kill you since, no, I would not be justified in shepping nachas from your fucking up.
But thank you for justifying terrorism against people who are merely members of a group that may or may not be mistreating those who support the terrorism. If you didn’t have a double standard where Jews are involved, you’d realize that you’ve opened the door for the Baruch Goldstein worshippers. I’m sure Goldstein felt oppressed after treating the umpteenth Jewish victim of terror; why not shep some nachas from what he did? Because random killing of members of a group is wrong?
Why the double standard? Are you saying that we can’t expect much from Arabs, and that Jews are better? How so? Genetically? Culturally? Can’t wait to hear it.

So you agree Arab terror is not justified? Then what point are you trying to make in comment 16?

The Palestinians aren’t motivated by feelings of genetic superiorty.
No. They’re motivated by a basic denial of the existence of the Jewish people. I mean, of the Zionist Europeans who have unjustly stolen land in the foreign Middle East to create a religious state that has nothing to do with anybody’s history. (See also under: archeology.)
CAUSALITY AND JUSTIFICATION ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Er, no. Nor are milk and bicycle tires.
Nor are causality and correlation. Here, correlation (Jews wouldn’t want to live in the same building as an Arab) is not causation (it must be motivated by racist feelings against Arabs). See how that works?
When do we acknowledge that we have a problem?
Privately? We’ve long acknowledged it. There’s a problem. Many folks are working against it. (See under: affirmative action in Israeli civil service, etc.) Many more shouold. When are “we” going to acknowledge that some are working to solve the problem, and stop spending all our energy denigrating those who try?
Publicly? We acknowledge we have a problem when the rest of the world stops treating every problem we have as proof of the illegitimacy of our country’s existence.
which is to say, you are intellectually dishonest if you think the creation of the state of israel was non-colonial, non-imperialistic, entirely innocent and well-intentioned, and involved no mass-dispossesion and land expropriation.
Hell, you’re intellectually honest if you think the creation of any state was non-colonial, non-imperialistic, entirely innnocent and well-intentioned, and involved no mass dispossession or land expropriation. Sweden? Botswana? Peru? Travesties!
None of which is particularly a big deal, mind you…

Oy Moby. Give it up. J’s kinda beating you. Try being a little more dispassionate next time.
Also try to be a little more accurate in your posts, namely when you say Should we be surprised by the attempted lynching by Hareidim of two Arab cab drivers this Purim? Nowhere in the cited article did it say that the drunken hareidim attempted any kind of lynching. Re read it if you like, I can wait …
.
.
.
.
So will you issue a retraction now? Also, you ask Can we so easily brush off the US State Department’s findings of “institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens?” And to that I ask can we do the same of the United States’ and the Western World’s own well documented institutional discrimination? Can we have a little more nuance please?
You’re not totally wrong you know, just mostly wrong.

Mobius, sadly, you are wasting your time. People who see the world in black and white get muddled on middle grounds. Who knows, maybe because they can’t see shades, they have to see villains and heroes rather and humans. I suspect these are the people who as voters fall for ‘you are either with us or against us’ demagogy. No prizes for guessing who is the good cowboy in this Wild East – The valiant Jews just “come along and claim sovereignty over a piece of land’ – How noble of them – Terra Nulla of course. How come no one see the lovely settlers are simply pious pioneers?! Someone give J a turkey please.
Nevertheless – shmirat lashon and all that – CK is “not totally wrong you know, just mostly wrong” – loose your patience and you have lost the argument…
Which BTW, in my humble opinion, is missing the whole point (the argument). The dictionary would define racism as:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
It seems J rails at the fact the first definition is not applicable (though I am no convinced many in our midst do not subscribe to such views – not to mention the chosen people blurb), and you are pointing out we are afflicted with the second. The difficulty is of course Racial Profiling, which could be an argument for the second definition – only as in discrimination; never prejudice. That could be a base for the response in the survey. But I suspect you are right, and it is mostly prejudice. Why? – Because if you look around, we have indeed become an intolerant lot for ways which are different even amongst ourselves – e.g. what would be the results if the same questioner was circulated amongst religious people about chilonim, or vice versa for that matter? We trust little, and know it all. That is a shame of course, and being the one with the upper hand in the equation, we should be most shameful – we ARE neighbors, like it or not, and “we must learn to live like brothers, or we’ll perish together as fools” (ML King)

I step away for inessentials, like eating and sleeping, and look what I miss. But to respond to Mobius’ comments 25 and 26:
“what previous questions? you mean this one previous question? – When did I ask you for it?? –
“How then do you explain non-Palestinian Arab and Muslim hostility towards Israel?”
Go reread it. Comment 9 on the other thread. I wasn’t asking for reasons for hatred of Israel. I was arguing that mistreatment of Palestinians could not be the cause of the other Arabs’ hatred of Israel.
“Then the Jews – the lowly Jews! -come along and claim sovereignty over a piece of land in the heart of the Middle East, then beat the Arabs in a series of wars, and establish themselves as (relatively) ecomnomically successful, politically stable, and as a scientific and technological power.
and by that, of course, you mean colonialism, dispossesion and economic/cultural imperialism. ”
Here’s where your Leftist dogma really screws you over. You’re transposing the general West/ Third World argument (“the West derived its wealth from exploiting the Third World”) to the Jews and Palestinians. The argument doesn’t even make sense in its West/ Third World form (colonialism was, on average, a money loser for the colonists; non-Western countries that integrated their economies with the Western system grew richer and thus LESS susceptible to any kind of economic imperialism). In the case of Jews/Palestinians, it’s absurd. Are you implying that Israel gained its wealth through the undeveloped and parched pieces of land (that it didn’t buy, at inflated prices) that it took? If land equalled wealth, the Arabs would be doing fine. No, wealth comes from the use of modern technology and methods, a culture that promotes hard work among all classes, a political system that maintains stability and respects private property, willingness to innovate, and freedom, economic and political. Israel has most of these; the Arabs, hardly any. This is what accounts for the wealth disparity. Of course, to accept this, you would have to relinquish the dogma that all cultures are equal (except that the West is inferior). And if you did that, who knows? One day you could find yourself sitting next to me at a Republican Jewish Coalition event.
“which is to say, you are intellectually dishonest if you think the creation of the state of israel was non-colonial, non-imperialistic, entirely innocent and well-intentioned, and involved no mass-dispossesion and land expropriation. “we just walked into this barren land, built a beautiful successful country, and the arabs — they just resent it!” right. ”
I never said Israel was perfect. But relative to other countries (and echoing – or harmonixing with- Hum), Israel looks pretty good.
CK: I’m KINDA beating Mobius? Gee thanks. And Jewlicious is a kinda decent Jewish blog 🙂
Komai: Save your psychoanalysis of those who disagree with you for after you’ve made your arguments. But feel free to send me a turkey anytime. (also: did I “rail”? I think some other people here have railed a lot more).
As for your racism argument, note that your definition number two (“2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”) requires more discussion. Does it mean (a) discrimination or prejudice based on race derived from hostility toward that race, such hostility for no reason other than pure animus against that race”, or (b) discrimination or prejudice based on race, derived from bad experiences with members of that race? If the former, that’s simply racism. But the latter is more complicated. (I categorize it as “prejudice but not racism”.) You say we trust little, and know it all? I say that sometimes not trusting is the only prudent course. And as for knowing it all, the reality is just the opposite. We know very little, so in many situations, we are forced to guess. And that’s where prejudice-without-racism sometimes becomes necessary.

Mostly because in Jersey, he has a little bit of white privilege, but in Israel, he has a hell of a lot of Jewish privilege.
J: Your argument about why the Arabs hate Israel would be right if Bernard Lewis (from whom I assume you have taken your argument, since he makes pretty much the exact same one) was right, but he’s wrong and so are you. Palestinians are indeed angry because of a steady process of expropriation which began in the 1890’s and continues to this day. When they were Arab Ottoman subjects, they were mad about it as Arab Ottoman subjects; when they were emerging Arab nationalists, they were mad about it as emerging Arab nationalists; when they were Palestinian nationalists, they were mad about it as Palestinian nationalists; as Islamists, they are mad about it as Islamists. The material causes of the anger don’t change, and everyone who thinks that ideas, rather than material grievances, have motivated Palestinian animus towards Israel has failed to confront many aspects of the history of this conflict.

“Komai: Save your psychoanalysis of those who disagree with you for after you’ve made your arguments. But feel free to send me a turkey anytime.”
J – my argument is that IT is a waste of time to argue with you. Your reasoning affords us (Israelies) all the rights (as in privilege) for wrongdoing, and all the wrongs to the Left. So be it.
BTW, I agree with you about the complexity of the second definition – i.e. need to look at the source – hence mentioning the ‘racial profiling’ in my last comment. However, I think the usage of ‘bad experiences with members of that race” is dangerously loaded and that conceptually it is a minefield and therefore need to be strongly regulated (e.g. not all bearded men in airports should be frisked), but I can understand the notion – it is just the way the human mind works. The tell-tale sign of where your heart lies is your choice of “prejudice but not racism”. While discrimination can be loaded, it can also means discernment. Prejudice however, is a synonym with ‘bias’ and means “An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts”… Juxtaposed with your ever-going ridicule of the lack of facts in other people’s comments, I find this kind of amusing. (but not for long, and anyway, rest assured I concede I’m wrong, and that my ‘Leftist dogma really screws’ me over – hmmm, at least, while the Rightists are all righteous, we have all the fun).

J yakar,
I’d like to point out that forming an opinion beforehand is akin to not examining the facts – in this case, that an Arab family might be a bunch of decent human beings and perfectly good neighbors. And, that arguments are useful if there is a learning evolved. Nothing in all your comments, on this thread and others, have convinced me that you will ever consider Arabs as possibly human beings, and yourself (and Jews in general) as possibly the perpetrators of injustice which needs to be addressed. That is NOT to say that all Jews are such OR that Jews have not been victims of terrible assaults at times. But that in the way I read the map (!) in general, you and me by default of being Israelis, or pro-Israel, are party to an arrangement that is unfair and unbalanced.
That I have nothing to teach you is pretty obvious, for what do I know, I’m just a Leftist? And after trying to understand your logic, it seems there is not much I can learn from you. Your point is that as long as we are not as bad as them, we need to do nothing, and by default we can continue what we are doing now for at least 1,500 years (forget real history) before we’re even. That is moral superiority by entrenched victimhood. You want to live feeling holy by folly? Marchaba. The whole world is a narrow bridge – so be afraid, very afraid – the Arabs are coming!
So – waste of time, bla bla bla …rest assured I concede I’m wrong… etc.
to your health! 🙂

BH
so i live in a mixed white, black, carribean, south american neighborhood in soflo where my wife and I and our children are the only observant jews. there is also a large jordanian/palestinian christian family and extended family represented as well. everybody gets along politely, my son runs around with a rainbow contingent, tzit-tzit flapping about. the jordanian family across the street has a son who just got his driver’s license. 3 or so years ago, before he was a teenager with better things to do, he used to come over and play b-ball with our son (who at the time was 4 or so). the patriarch of their family invited me over for nargilah on the porch a few times (where he divulged a suspicion that the mossad is involved in everything, including 9/11–whereupon i took a deep breath, politely disagreed, and brought up soccer). al jazeera was always on the television. tea, coffee, and candy were always offered. all this was before we went BT. although the politeness continued, the relationship certainly changed, we couldn’t eat or drink, their son grew up, etc. still, there was never fear, even when i brought over my israeli friend and we sat across a backgammon board from a jerusalem born palestinian christian arab couple who didn’t mind talking politics (she didn’t want to be israeli or live under the pa; he hated the muslims and used some extreme language about them). we never had fear or felt superior or inferior. they were big supporters of king h and son abdullah… what’s my point? we’re far away where arabs, even muslims, and jews can share a neighborhood without fear of suicide bombers, midnight raids and arrests, shootouts, bombs in vans, stabbings, land disputes, walls/fences, or olive trees being stolen or chopped down. at least. not. yet.
does this happen in israel? can it? although i’ve visitied, i’ve neve lived there. i have a lot of israeli friends that live here now and they tell me it never happened or would’ve happened where they lived (all over). i have one friend who employed palestinians in a construction co. and believes to this day that each and every one of them he’d hired may have smiled and joked with him, but wanted him dead nonetheless. that was his ‘prejudice’ or ‘racism’.
i don’t know why some of you go back to the “who started it” argument. racism exists in every culture everywhere. i’m not convinced fear isn’t justified or a legit reason for some of the results. anyway, i understand this is a forum for some self criticism, so looking at the arabs/muslim willingness to live amongst jews is moot. but, this poll seems redundant. it’s no surprise. i’ve been a lefty since i’ve been conscious of politics (approx. since reagan), but i don’t think i’d feel any differently if i lived in israel an extended time. that yoda fear quote is pretty prescient.

J: You have a theory that attempts to account for a large number of historical events. That theory rests on the notion that you can read the inner workings of the minds of others. I have a similar theory, but my theory would work even without knowing the minds of others, on the basis of a rational analysis of how people respond to threats against their livelihood. On your account, had the Palestinians not had “wounded pride” they would have basically moved over and made room for the Zionists, which makes no sense when you compare Zionist settlement to any other settlement/native interaction that we know of in history. “Wounded pride” is an extremely vague and weak theory that is impossible to either prove or disprove, thus making it a convenient foil for your support of [fill in Israel-related policy you support here].
As for non-Palestinian Arab hatred of Israel, I would venture – shock! awe! – that each separate Arab regime had its own internal political reasons for participating in the invasion of the new state, which had nothing to do with “wounded pride” or even with the Jews at all, but rather with the leaders’ of these states having the idea that what looked like an easy war would shore up their power internally and give them the political capital to engage in various projects specific to each country. I find that people who have really drunk the Zionist-history Kool-Aid have often never thought of this idea before, because it impinges on their notion that Everything Is About the Jews. But there you have it, that’s my theory.
Now if you’re talking about the average dude on the street, he probably hates Israel because he cares about the Palestinians. And you know what, maybe there’s some “wounded pride” in there too. But it’s not a controlling historical force that overwhelms material forces. That’s just too wishy-washy to, well, wash.

Sam:
“You have a theory that attempts to account for a large number of historical events. That theory rests on the notion that you can read the inner workings of the minds of others. I have a similar theory, but my theory would work even without knowing the minds of others, on the basis of a rational analysis of how people respond to threats against their livelihood.”
Clearly each of us has a theory that attempts to account for a large number of historical events. But I don’t see your point regarding my theory being an exercise in mind-reading while yours is a rational analysis. To some extent, each of us can (and must) try to point to evidence such as writings and speeches. While such things are not completely conclusory (you can always argue that what was said is not what was meant), surely such evidence is worth something. And why, historically, does your economic argument prima facie make more sense than a wounded pride one? In general human behavior, we see both. (For example, do you really think the German depression of the 20’s is enough to explain Nazi Germany?)
“On your account, had the Palestinians not had “wounded pride” they would have basically moved over and made room for the Zionists, which makes no sense when you compare Zionist settlement to any other settlement/native interaction that we know of in history. ”
I wouldn’t go as far as to say the Palestinians would have simply “moved over”, but you’ve touched on one of the reasons I believe the wounded pride theory. We have numerous examples of settlement/native interaction in history, and in nearly all of these cases, the settlers were far more brutal and unjust toward the natives. Yet we rarely see such hatred and violence from the natives so long afterward. Black South Africans have far more to be angry about in every possible way – they were treated far worse; the whites had no claim on their land whatsoever; the whites had no prior grievance with them. Yet their behavior toward the whites is nothing like what we see from the Palestinians – and the Black South Africans have the power to destroy the whites if they wished.
“As for non-Palestinian Arab hatred of Israel, I would venture – shock! awe! – that each separate Arab regime had its own internal political reasons for participating in the invasion of the new state, which had nothing to do with “wounded pride” or even with the Jews at all, but rather with the leaders’ of these states having the idea that what looked like an easy war would shore up their power internally and give them the political capital to engage in various projects specific to each country. ”
I agree with that, but you’re missing something here. Why did the leadership believe thay would gain such benefits from fighting Israel? Because their populations hated Israel. (You focus on the governments, which as we know represent only a tiny fraction of the populations. The governments are, indeed, run on self-interest; but the populations genuinely hate Israel. Why?)
“And you know what, maybe there’s some “wounded pride” in there too. But it’s not a controlling historical force that overwhelms material forces. That’s just too wishy-washy to, well, wash. ”
We might disagree very broadly (far beyond the 20th century and present Middle East) about what makes people and countries tick. I think pride, wounded and otherwise, is a very important ingredient in human affairs (though, of course, so is economics). Have you read Fukuyama’s End of History? Whatever you think of its theme, it has a lot of material re pride.
“This is hilarious if you have ever been friends with a Palestinian who tried to go ANYWHERE. ”
I should have been clearer. I was thinking of Israeli Arabs.
I’d like to note here that Sam and I have gotten through a couple exchanges now without either of us throwing around insults. (And probably not by coincidence, Sam’s posts have arguments and substance, and certainly force me to think.) Even the broadest disagreements can be argued without shouting.

J:
“To some extent, each of us can (and must) try to point to evidence such as writings and speeches. While such things are not completely conclusory (you can always argue that what was said is not what was meant), surely such evidence is worth something.”
That’s true. However, I notice you don’t marshal any such evidence here to support your points. Perhaps this isn’t a good forum for such things; we’d both have to rummage through our respective libraries and come up with the best quotes, and no one else reading would be quite sure what we were leaving out or distorting. But if you wanna play the “let’s quote from Arab newspapers in the early 20th century” game, I think I can match you on that to support my theory of political/economic grievances as more important than your theory of wounded pride.
“And why, historically, does your economic argument prima facie make more sense than a wounded pride one? In general human behavior, we see both. (For example, do you really think the German depression of the 20’s is enough to explain Nazi Germany?)”
I’m arguing for a privileging of material historical factors over emotional ones. I’m not what they used to call a “vulgar Marxist,” in that I don’t think that the emotions of a period are necessarily determined by the economic conditions, let alone the forms or relations of production. And while I wouldn’t say that the depression in the 20’s is sufficient to explain Nazi Germany, it’s way more than just necessary. Emotions are important too, of course; fascist regimes were notorious for appealing powerfully to the emotions of their populations. However, it was political and economic factors that rendered the populations vulnerable to such appeals. I suppose we could play chicken-and-egg with this, but I think my approach retains the advantage of not requiring mind-reading.
“We have numerous examples of settlement/native interaction in history, and in nearly all of these cases, the settlers were far more brutal and unjust toward the natives. Yet we rarely see such hatred and violence from the natives so long afterward.”
Your example of black South Africans would only be appropriate if the Palestinians had already achieved a state and lived next to Israel for over 10 years. The more appropriate comparison would be to the black South African community during the period of its struggle, when violence certainly co-existed with virulent and vituperative rhetoric towards the white population. But, as you point out, they eventually *won*, and now you don’t see that kind of behavior on a wide scale. The Palestinians have yet to be “afterward,” as you put it.
“I agree with that, but you’re missing something here. Why did the leadership believe thay would gain such benefits from fighting Israel? Because their populations hated Israel.”
No doubt you are partially right, but the governments would gain similar benefits from military victories over any enemy. See Iraq’s forays against Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example.
“We might disagree very broadly (far beyond the 20th century and present Middle East) about what makes people and countries tick. I think pride, wounded and otherwise, is a very important ingredient in human affairs (though, of course, so is economics). Have you read Fukuyama’s End of History? Whatever you think of its theme, it has a lot of material re pride.”
I’ve read the essay, but not the book. Fukuyama is a little bit too neo-Hegelian for me. Anyway, I don’t mean to discount emotions completely as a motivating factor in human affairs. Far from it, in fact. As I said above, however, I think political and economic grievances exercise a strong pull on emotions, often setting the limits of what someone is likely to feel or think. (Of course, I also believe in the awesome power of sheer contingency to break the spell in infinite ways, in infinite cases; this is why I’m not a determinist. Thus, I can meet a Palestinian teenager who is a vegetarian and an anarchist, even though nothing in his upbringing or circumstances should have favored this, other than chance encounters with foreign activists that happened to impress him rather than turn him off.)
“It occurs to me also that the economic viewpoint is kind of a double-edged sword for you. After all, from an economic point of view, the smart and practical thing for the Palestinians to be doing now is to cease hostilities and try to integrate or ally with the Israeli economy. Yet it’s more important to them to continue to stoke economic grievances from decades ago. Does this make sense economically?”
Your point here is well taken, but I hope I’ve made it clear by now that I mean to privilege economic factors while not excluding emotional ones. After the Balfour Declaration, for example, the Palestinian Arab community was deeply upset that other Arab countries would be gaining their independence, while their own land was to be set aside for some kind of Jewish national home. Independence and sovereignty are clearly both political and emotional categories at once, relating to pride as well as to the basic conditions of life. The specific scenario you suggest, though, is certainly impossible, since no Israeli politician or government would ever offer “integration” with the Israeli economy if it meant extending the Palestinians political rights in Israel. As for “allying,” I imagine the eventual Palestinian state might ally with Israel economically after a few decades of, yes, emotional cooling-down. But that’s just speculation.

Sam: Looking forward to seeing it, but I won’t be able to respond till Monday (when the hangover passes). See y’all then…

it seems fair –
palestinians don’t want to recognize israel:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1139395680210
israelis don’t want to live next door to arabs.