In Defense of Intolerance
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
According to a study of the Israel Democracy Institute, 62% of Israeli Jews would like to see the government actively encourage Arabs to leave Israel. Professor Arian Asher of the IDI said that this statistic indicates a “general lack of tolerance of Israeli Jews toward Israeli Arabs.” He concludes that “Israeli democracy has not developed a strong sense of egalitarianism and community” (Jerusalem Post, May 10).
The IDI findings were deplored even by Avigdor Lieberman’s reputedly right-wing Israel Beiteinu party—a party that advocated revoking the citizenship of Israelis who do not pledge allegiance to the state. MK Yisrael Hassan said his party does not endorse encouraging the immigration of Israeli Arabs. Ignoring the hostility of these Arabs, as well as Jewish attachment to the land of Israel, Hassan offers Lieberman’s panacea of “separating the two population groups by defining a border between them.”
The present writer wonders how those who want the government to encourage Arabs to leave Israel would characterize Messrs. Asher and Hassan? I assume that some of these Jews may be as well educated as Professor Asher, a political scientist. Perhaps some would accuse him of being disingenuous? Perhaps others would attribute his tolerant attitude toward Israel’s anything but loyal Arab citizens to moral indifference?
After all, it has been reported that most Israeli Arabs identify themselves as “Palestinians,” that is, with Israel’s enemies. In fact, no less than 62% supported Saddam Hussein despite his threat to incinerate half of Israel. Would it be sane or sensible for Jews to fondly regard these Arabs as part of their “community”?
It has also been reported that most of the suicide bombing attacks in Israel have been assisted by Israel¡Çs Arab citizens; that many of these Arabs have themselves committed terrorist acts, hence, have murdered Jewish men, women, and children. Have Arab Knesset members ever condemned such politically motivated crimes—crimes against the state which pays their salaries? To the contrary: they have encouraged these crimes!
Nothing has changed since April 16, 2002, when Jerusalem Post journalist Evelyn Gordon cited incendiary and seditious statements by various Arab Knesset members. Mentioned were Taleb a-Sana, who praised a suicide bomber and called for more of the same; Abdul Malik Dahamshe, who called Israeli Arabs convicted of murdering Jews “prisoners of conscience”; Azmi Bishara, who praised Hizbullah as the model for Israeli Arab resistance against Israel; Mohammad Barakei, who urged Israeli Arabs to participate in Palestinian violence against Israel.
Ms. Gordon concluded: “If the statements by Arab MKs indeed reflect the opinions of their voters, the inescapable conclusion is that the overwhelming majority of Israeli Arabs actively or tacitly support violence against Israeli Jews.” Is it mere intolerance that prompts Jews to want the government to encourage Arabs to leave Israel?
Clearly, the findings of the IDI survey indicate that these Jews are well-informed and have sound moral values, which seem to be lacking among political scientists tainted by moral relativism or egalitarianism.
Most remarkable is that despite their left-wing educators and the left’s control of the media on the one hand, and despite the timidity of reputedly right-wing politicians on the other—all fear the canard of racism—there remains a solid majority of Jews who are not afraid to express what can only be described as a healthy Jewish attitude toward Israel’s Arab citizens—intolerance!
This salubrious and morally defensible intolerance was even more evident in a study of 800 Jewish youth, ages 16 to 18, reported by Yediot Ahranot on July 23, 1997—this was three years before the outbreak of the Terror War against Israel. The respondents were asked if they agree with the following of statements:
Arab representation in the Knesset endangers Israeli security. 73.5% agree. (Note: Imagine what the percentage would have been had these young adults heard the seditious statements of the Arab MKs mentioned above!)
If Professor Asher and the Israel Democracy Institute were to say that these statistics indicate a ¡Ègeneral lack of tolerance of Israeli Jews toward Israeli Arabs,¡É to this I can only reply: “Here’s to more of such intolerance!”
Prof. Eidelberg’s silence as to what Israel the Israel Democracy Institute says 62% of Israeli Jews would like to see the government actively encourage Arabs to leave Israel, I gather means was not canvassed by the Institute.
That is unfortunate, for we are left to wonder what these 62% think about Olmert’s unilateral disengagement plan.
According the the Israeli MSM, Olmert’s disengagement plan had the support of the majority of Israelis. That it was low voter turnout that got Olmert elected, it is uncertain whether that low turnout represented a broad spectrum of Israelis or constituted a skewed picture of pro Olmert political activists who turned out while the apathetic anti-Olmert electorate chose to stay home.
It would seem that if the poll done by the Israel Democracy Institute was an accurate picture of the Israeli majority view, it would seem that such intolerance would have extended to inducing Palestinians out of the West bank and perhaps even Gaza.
This is just one more unknown in the perplexing ethos of Israeli politics.
It is also puzzling as to why such an uproar would have been caused by the suggestion that each and every Israeli citizen take an oath of allegiance to Israel.
For a nation at war, it seems to make eminently good sense to require each Israeli citizen to take such oath with the forewarned consequence that any subsequent act of sedition and treason or the aiding and abetting thereof will result in their citizenship being stripped and that they will be deported.
More questions than answers seem to be the norm when it comes to Israeli politics and societal attitudes.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— May 10, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
Bill, I don’t think it is apathy that caused the low voter turnout. I think it can be attributed more to a sense of helplessness. There is an attitude here that it doens’t matter who you vote for, there’s just going to be more of the same. To wit, Sharon was elected on a platform of aggressive security and defending Netzarim as if it were Tel Aviv, yet we were expelled from Gush Katif. There is no democracy here, plain and simple, and voting is just an exercise in futility. I share that view. I voted, but I didn’t expect it to matter.
In addition, there is a large segment of the population (probably a plurality of Kadima voters) that are still security minded. I can’t tell you how many I’ve talked to you that believed that Sharon had some sort of secret plan to take care of the problem once and for all after “the world has been shown that peace is not possible.” In their minds we are giving a country to the Arabs so that afterwards when they attack us, we can finally, legitimately make war on them. I argue with them that we can legitimately make war on them now, but they believe that if we were to do so that we would “lose American and world support”. Nevermind that we don’t have it in the first place. These people pretty much think we have to do whatever the US tells us to do, and that once world opinion has been swayed, we can finally let loose - Olmert is apparently just carrying on with Sharon’s (the war hero) secret plan.
I think this is all just a testament to desperation. None of it makes any sense. It’s not based in rational thought. I think that 62%, plus some, would answer in the affirmative if asked “if it were possible to make total war on the Arabs and have US and world backing, would you be in favor of such a move?” It ultimately comes down to the fact there there is a huge section of people here that place world opinion above all else. They just want to be accepted. They just haven’t made the connection that Israel has greater esteem among the nations when we are strong. The irony is that when we stop giving a damn about esteem among the nations and just start doing what needs to be done, then that esteem won’t be so elusive. The pursuit of esteem just puts it out of our grasp.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— May 11, 2006 @ 12:57 am
Peretz,
Thanks for your insight which only adds to the murkiness of the gloom and the prospects for doom no matter which way Israelis turn.
Perhaps the majority opted for Olmert because at least with his plan it appears that Israel is seeking to take charge of its own destiny, though all the signs say that whatever destiny Olmert might pursue will not get Israel there since the Arab/Palestinian world will not accept any attempt to impose a new status quo on them by Israel. The rest of the world has already made clear they will not stand for it either.
Neither the positions on the right nor the left offer much real opportunity for Israelis to regain a sense of control over their own destiny.
It is looking like the path to some kind of peace will be achieved at the end of the war road. If Israel were to launch an all out attack on Gaza and West Bank areas given up, they would put the situation back to where it was, but at least they might be able to start again to negotiate from ground 0 and this time do a better job of it having the benefit of the lessons from the past.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— May 11, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Number one lesson from the past: don’t settle for a cease fire when complete victory is within your grasp. Israel has won many battles, but it has never won a war. All of its wars have ended in an armistice instead of an unconditional surrender of the enemy. Why does it do this? Same reason then as now - seeking the approval of the “world”. Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe that this lesson has been learned.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— May 11, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Update on Middle East…
…
Trackback by The Anti-Jihad Pundit
— May 12, 2006 @ 10:31 am