Analysis from Israel

Reading certain papers (the New York Times and Haaretz come to mind), one could easily conclude that racism is spreading like a plague through Israeli society. So it’s worth listening to what an expert had to say on the subject this week–and according to Prof. Sammy Smooha, it’s all bunk. In fact, Smooha said, the opposite is true: Israeli Jews have grown more tolerant of Israeli Arabs even though the latter have become more extreme.

Smooha has published an annual Index of Arab-Jewish relations in Israel since 2003, in conjunction with the Israel Democracy Institute. The 2012 index came out last week, and here’s its conclusion: “In contrast to the marked toughening of Arab attitudes, there was no similar change in Jewish attitudes over the years [since 2003], but rather stability and even some moderation prevailed.” Smooha reiterated that conclusion at an IDI roundtable this week: “Whatever the media thinks, Jews have not become more extreme. The processes that have made Arabs more extreme have not affected Jewish opinions.”

Indeed, compared to 2003, the survey found that fewer Israeli Jews now object to Arab neighbors or to Arab students in Jewish schools (universities are integrated, but most Arabs prefer to send their children to Arabic-speaking primary and secondary schools). In addition, more are prepared to accept Arab parties in government coalitions, and most think Israeli Arabs should be allowed “to self-administer their religious, cultural, and educational institutions.”

Clearly, some racism still exists, as it does in every society. What the study demonstrates, however, is not just that the allegations of metastasizing racism are overblown, but that some of what outsiders deem “racism” is actually an understandable response to growing Arab extremism.

For instance, 59 percent of Arab respondents said Palestinians would be justified in launching another intifada if the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate continues, while 58 percent considered it “justified that Arab citizens in Israel begin an Intifada of their own if their situation does not improve significantly.” Lest anyone has forgotten, the last intifada was a bloody terrorist war that killed over 1,000 Israelis, most of them civilians. And while terrorist organizations perpetrated most of the attacks, sometimes, individual Arabs simply turned on the nearest Jew. Given this, one can understand why some Jews remain reluctant to have Arab neighbors or hire Arab employees: They don’t want to be convenient targets if an Israeli Arab intifada erupts.

Similarly, when 70 percent of Israeli Arabs think Israel has no right to maintain a Jewish majority, one can understand why almost half of Israeli Jews still oppose having Arab parties in the government: They don’t want a government comprised of parties that oppose fundamental elements of Zionism like the Law of Return, which has played a major role in maintaining Israel’s Jewish majority by enabling any Jew to immigrate. As Smooha noted, there’s “a deep divide over the very nature of the state.”

Thus the best way to moderate Israeli Jewish “racism” would be to moderate Israeli Arab extremism. But unfortunately, many well-meaning American Jews are doing the opposite: Via organizations like the New Israel Fund, they finance Israeli Arab groups that actively promote extremist views–like Adalah, which demands that Israel replace the Law of Return with a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel. And they are thereby distancing rather than promoting the more tolerant Israel they claim to want.

Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

Why Israel Needs a Better Political Class

Note: This piece is a response to an essay by Haviv Rettig Gur, which can be found here

Israel’s current political crisis exemplifies the maxim that hard cases make bad law. This case is desperate. Six months after the coronavirus erupted and nine months after the fiscal year began, Israel still lacks both a functioning contact-tracing system and an approved 2020 budget, mainly because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more worried about politics than the domestic problems that Israel now confronts. The government’s failure to perform these basic tasks obviously invites the conclusion that civil servants’ far-reaching powers must not only be preserved, but perhaps even increased.

This would be the wrong conclusion. Bureaucrats, especially when they have great power, are vulnerable to the same ills as elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they are completely unaccountable to the public.

That doesn’t mean Haviv Rettig Gur is wrong to deem them indispensable. They provide institutional memory, flesh out elected officials’ policies, and supply information the politicians may not know and options they may not have considered. Yet the current crisis shows in several ways why they neither can nor should substitute for elected politicians.

First, bureaucrats are no less prone to poor judgment than politicians. As evidence, consider Siegal Sadetzki, part of the Netanyahu-led triumvirate that ran Israel’s initial response to the coronavirus. It’s unsurprising that Gur never mentioned Sadetzki even as he lauded the triumvirate’s third member, former Health Ministry Director General Moshe Bar Siman-Tov; she and her fellow Health Ministry staffers are a major reason why Israel still lacks a functional test-and-trace system.

Sadetzki, an epidemiologist, was the ministry’s director of public-health services and the only member of the triumvirate with professional expertise in epidemics (Bar Siman-Tov is an economist). As such, her input was crucial. Yet she adamantly opposed expanding virus testing, even publicly asserting that “Too much testing will increase complacence.” She opposed letting organizations outside the public-health system do lab work for coronavirus tests, even though the system was overwhelmed. She opposed sewage monitoring to track the spread of the virus. And on, and on.

Moreover, even after acknowledging that test-and-trace was necessary, ministry bureaucrats insisted for months that their ministry do the tracing despite its glaringly inadequate manpower. Only in August was the job finally given to the army, which does have the requisite personnel. And the system still isn’t fully operational.

Read more
Archives