On the Anti-Racist Madness Spreading Among Us

Article Contents

The ‘key’ charm of the new month of Iyyar (according to which one should bake a challah in the shape of a key on the new month of Iyyar as a charm for livelihood—tried and tested), and much more besides. By the same token, I have harsh criticism of the ultra-Orthodox outlook and conduct. In my opinion it is primitive, and parts of it are downright foolish. Does that make me a racist? Even if someone thinks I am wrong about this, does that mean my remarks are illegitimate criticism? The obvious claim here is that, by the same token, atheists can criticize me, as a believer, for being an irrational idol worshipper who converses with imaginary friends. Incidentally, they really do this (cf. the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ or Vonnegut’s Bokonon). As far as I am concerned, they are completely mistaken, since belief in God is patently rational (in my opinion atheism is a plainly irrational delusion), but from there to claiming that this is racist criticism is a very long way. They have the right to criticize me, and they also have the right to be wrong. Not every criticism, and not even every mistaken criticism, is racism. Later I found that Garbuz himself had already said all this. In an interview with Sagi Ben Nun (Walla, 8.3.2015), he responded to the hysterical attacks that were poured upon him: ‘They distorted a sentence I said; there was not a single racist word in it; not every criticism is condescension.’ He then added: ‘Within Judaism as a religion there are different streams, and many of them oppose this thing. They are right-wing people, religious people, and they cannot stand what they call idol worship. I cannot use that expression because I am a nonreligious person, so I do not have that distinction between God and idols. They call it idol worship. What do they want people to think? That I meant Jews of Middle Eastern origin? Nothing of the sort. Those who prostrate themselves on graves are not a race. In Chabad there is a great deal of cultic worship, from the Rebbe who did not die but is buried, through many matters involving graves, and Chabad is not exactly an Eastern movement. They say there is condescension here and there is racism here. Racism against whom? Not every phenomenon you oppose belongs to a certain race, and not every criticism is condescension. This is completely clear; otherwise one cannot speak.’ Needless to say, these clarifications did not help him. Who, in the fervor of anti-racist madness, listens at all or uses his head? This is a state of witch-hunting, and there is no place in it for discretion. According to the conception of the critics (that is, the whole world), whoever criticizes those who enjoy eating all day or watching cooking programs on television every day is a racist. And whoever criticizes some piece of literature or art is also a racist. In fact, all criticism is racism (not to mention condescension). I claim that whether these criticisms are correct or not, they have no connection whatsoever to racism. Again I clarify that I am not dealing with semantics. Such criticisms are not non-racist because they have no connection to race. My claim is that such criticisms are not objectionable at all even if they were race-dependent. Even if ultra-Orthodoxy were a characteristic of people of Polish descent, and I were to say that Polish conduct and thinking are foolish or primitive, there would be no racism in that. So too Garbuz’s claims not only do not fall under the heading of racism; they are not flawed at all, even if we do not agree with them. Cynicism or madness? I have already remarked that since such criticism is directed at both political sides, this indicates that it is probably not merely a matter of advancing a political agenda. The conclusion is that this is a kind of madness, which I shall call here anti-racist madness. It is important to understand that this madness is not merely a charming and harmless bit of foolishness, but that its damage is vast and its casualties are many. First, it poisons the discourse. In addition, it prevents intelligent discussion of the claims themselves (is it good to kiss amulets or to urge voters to reach the polling station in one way or another?). When we have no substantive arguments against someone, it is enough for us to accuse him of racism. And above all, as I have already remarked, ‘The Arabs are flocking to the polling stations’—the point of departure for the discussion is two of the formative moments that remained with us after the most recent elections. The first formative moment was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks, when on election day he issued an impassioned call to his voters to get to the polling station because ‘the Arabs are flocking to the polling stations in droves.’ As is well known, the Pavlovian conditioning customary in our parts led to his being accused of racism. Even a denunciation from the United States, the homeland of political correctness, was not long in coming. This storm did not die down and continued to be mentioned in the media for weeks after the election. There appears to be wall-to-wall consensus that his remarks were a racist deviation from politically correct speech. Even the prime minister himself saw fit to apologize for his remarks after the election. Oops—actually, to express regret and not to apologize. I found myself wondering what was racist about these remarks of Netanyahu’s. Did he say anything bad about Arabs? He said they were flocking to the polling stations, and that was indeed the case. Already in the morning hours of that day it was reported that Arab turnout at the corresponding hour was about 10%, as against 3% in the previous elections. In addition, does anyone dispute that among Arab voters there are almost no supporters of Netanyahu, nor of Zionist parties in general? So what is wrong with Netanyahu’s being troubled by the rush of his anti-Zionist opponents to the polling station and encouraging his supporters to come and vote for him? Even if his claim had not been factually correct, would that mean it was racism? At most one could say that this is election propaganda, within which a white lie of this sort is utterly banal. I must clarify that my subject here is not semantic. I am not engaged in clarifying the meaning of the concept of racism, nor am I saying that we ought to have accused Netanyahu under some other heading instead of racism. My claim is substantive: this time, unlike other times, there is nothing whatever of which to accuse him. There is nothing at all wrong with these remarks of his, not something deserving the name racism and not any other defect either. It will be argued against me that Arabs were offended by his remarks and therefore he should have apologized. In my opinion, even such surrender to anti-racist populism would not have been appropriate. If someone is offended when there is absolutely no basis for it, there are two possible interpretations: 1. He is a fool. 2. He is a professional offense-taker, that is, he uses offense cynically to advance his interests and harm his rivals. Since I am not a racist, I prefer to assume that among the offended there are both kinds. But the more interesting question is not the offended but how we are to understand the condemners; it seems that they too divide into those same two groups, namely cynics and fools. ‘Those who prostrate themselves on graves and kiss amulets.’ But I do have evidence against the cynical interpretation. Such an interpretation assumes that this criticism is part of the left-wing media’s persecution of the people of the right for political gain. I think there is some truth in that, but there is no doubt that this is not the whole truth, and Garbuz proves it. In another formative moment, the painter Yair Garbuz spoke at the left’s rally in Rabin Square and asked: ‘How do the amulet-kissers, idol worshippers, and those who prostrate themselves on the graves of saints rule the State of Israel?’ And immediately, as the Pavlovian politically correct reflex so familiar to us would have it, and with rare intellectual honesty, he too was battered from wall to wall, to the point that some pinned the left’s electoral defeat on Garbuz’s remarks (utter nonsense, of course. But in hysteria and apologetics, do not look for logic). Politicians from right and left, and even the media from the left and the left, enlisted in the chorus of shock and disavowal. Here too, a wall-to-wall consensus was created, until Garbuz himself in some sense expressed regret over his remarks (he expressed regret, though not precisely apologized). When I heard Garbuz’s remarks, I asked myself what was untrue here. After all, I too, as a believer, completely identify with these remarks of his. Am I too a racist? More generally, I wondered, is every criticism of actions or views necessarily racist? Even if we mistakenly assume that these actions characterize only Mizrahim, as Garbuz’s critics for some reason assumed (that is, the whole world), this would still be legitimate criticism containing not the slightest trace of racism. But clearly this is not factually correct either, since these actions (prostrating oneself on graves and kissing amulets) characterize quite a few Ashkenazim as well. Is it not customary throughout the religious public, and not only there, to prostrate oneself on graves and use various bizarre amulets? At this very moment I am trying to recover from an intensive mobilization campaign by email and radio on behalf of the key charm. On the anti-racist madness spreading among us, I shall try here to make my contribution to the struggle against racism by diagnosing an anti-racist madness that envelops us from every side. This madness, whose purpose is to fight racism, in fact greatly obstructs that struggle, and this is the opportunity to address it. Michael Abraham. Rabbi Michael Abraham holds a PhD in physics and works in general philosophy, Jewish philosophy, and logic. Photo: Government Press Office. The prime minister with the soldier Damas Pakada, who was attacked by police officers. When I heard Garbuz’s remarks, I asked myself what was untrue here. After all, I too, as a believer, completely identify with these remarks of his. Am I too a racist? Psifas, Sivan 5775, May 2015 Psifas, Sivan 5775, May 32

The new west of Kiryat HaSharon. Illustration for demonstration purposes only. Rothstein’s Shirat HaSharon in Netanya. Exemplary residences on a hill 2 minutes from the Coastal Highway, overlooking open views and spacious surroundings. ◆ 3 exposures ◆ indulgent premium specifications ◆ adjoining private park ◆ stunning penthouses with ◆ open views and spacious surroundings ◆ access to major traffic arteries ◆ green construction according to the standard! 30 sq. m. balcony. Last 4 mini-penthouses. You have reached the penthouse. Dream penthouses with an open view all the way to the sea, starting at 2,450,000. At the beginning of my remarks, the treatment of every criticism as racism causes us not to see clearly phenomena that truly do deserve the title of racism and against which one really should fight. The cheapening and debasing of the concept of racism arouses antibodies in every sensible person, to the point that we may reach a situation in which racism will no longer seem to us a disgraceful and loathsome word. To illustrate this, I shall mention another of the high points surrounding the most recent election—the Amir Hatzroni affair. Hatzroni’s remarks, which really were morally flawed and probably also racist, likewise stirred up a storm in our parts. Yaniv Kubovich (the Haaretz website, 23.3.2015) described it admirably: ‘At the end of the week, Hatzroni published a Facebook post in which he accuses the Mizrahim of responsibility for the election results. He was invited to the morning show on Channel 2, where he clashed with Buzaglo, who called him in response a fascist, a racist, and a pathetic person. Hatzroni replied and said: Nothing terrible would have happened if your parents had remained in Morocco and rotted there, and that does not make me a racist or a fascist. Later Buzaglo even told him that as far as she was concerned there was no difference between Hatzroni and Hitler, and she asked contemptuously: Who gave you permission to teach in academia at all? Hatzroni answered her: At least I did not study, like you, at a seventh-rate college.’ It seems to me that this wonderfully exhaustive description contains all the relevant facts of the affair and also all the arguments with any intellectual dimension that arose in the discussion around them. Incidentally, I really do not think that the discourse surrounding the remarks of Netanyahu or Garbuz was conducted at any higher level, even if it was a bit more polite and restrained. This demonstrates that anti-racist madness does not permit any other kind of discourse and in fact prevents substantive criticism even when the matter does involve things that really are morally flawed and/or racist. A preliminary diagnosis: on professional offense-takers and postmodernism. On the philosophical plane, it seems that at the base of this madness stands the bizarre phenomenon called postmodernism. In the postmodern world there are no standards, no right and wrong, no just and unjust, good and evil, beautiful and ugly. Therefore in this world there are no weak people (for determinations about weakness and strength require some standard) but only people who have been weakened. In such a world every criticism is racist condescension. If you say that so-and-so is less good than someone else, or that his thought or behavior is deficient in some way, or that he is mistaken, Heaven forfend—you are simply racist and condescending. After all, there is not really anything more or less good or just, and therefore anyone who claims this is necessarily just being condescending. Not for nothing did Garbuz argue in the remarks cited above that his critics are in effect assuming that every criticism is racism (yes indeed, including their criticism of him). Anti-racist madness is the result of the postmodern project whose purpose is the silencing of critical discourse (under the cloak of ‘critical approaches,’ of course). But this pseudo-philosophical phenomenon is only the conceptual platform. Upon it stand groups of professional offense-takers who lead the phenomenon of anti-racist madness on the practical plane. These are people whose craft is to be offended in the name of one group or another, and thereby exempt themselves from substantive discussion or from genuinely dealing with any problem whatsoever, and certainly from clarifying whether there really is a problem. Around us there are various and diverse groups of such professional offense-takers, and the most prominent among them are our Palestinian cousins. Instead of doing something for themselves, they prefer to wail all over the world about the post-colonialists who rob and murder them. It is no surprise that their representatives in our Knesset are constantly protesting against… racism, of course. Another example is the group of Mizrahi intellectuals(?) that calls itself the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow. This group too belongs to the professional offense-takers, and it too only muddies the discussion and the discourse and does not allow us to examine what problems exist and how they should be treated. This group and others like it hang every phenomenon on earth on racism. Every numerical disparity between Mizrahim and Ashkenazim in any field, even if it has an innocent and reasonable explanation, is interpreted by them as a plot of hegemonic forces. They still have not noticed that in Ashkenazi-rite synagogues there is a clear Ashkenazi majority; otherwise that too would have been a phenomenon of exclusion. In the most recent elections, the approach of tendentious offense led this band of eccentrics to join and support a political movement that stands at exactly the opposite end of the scale in every respect—Shas, of course. Thus there arose a fascinating and unholy coalition between a group of educated, secular left-wing men and women, and members of the radical left, who advocate equality among ethnic communities (Mizrahim and Ashkenazim), peoples (Jewish and Palestinian), sectors and genders (women and men), and who hold postmodern and critical conceptions, and an ultra-Orthodox party that runs primitive propaganda (that, in fact, is shared by both groups), includes only men and excludes women, is run by a corrupt man convicted of criminal offenses, and leads its people toward lack of education and earning capacity, thereby perpetuating gaps and ignorance, and traditionally aligns itself only with right-wing parties. In addition, in the name of sacred criticality and equality, this group opposes every criticism and every encounter with something different, and to top it all off also reviles and curses everyone who differs from it (‘house of gentiles,’ ‘those who have intercourse with menstruants,’ ‘Amalek,’ etc.). There is nothing shared by these two groups except the anti-racist victimhood that is the rock of their existence. In closing, I would only draw attention to the fact that these are exactly the two groups that were ‘hurt’ in the two examples brought above. Netanyahu ‘hurt’ the Arabs, and Garbuz the Mizrahim. Summary We saw that the combination of professional victimhood with pseudo-philosophy (postmodern conceptions) creates the syndrome of anti-racist madness. This madness is marked by superficiality and is very harmful to the just war against racism, but despite that it sometimes seems to win social cooperation almost from wall to wall. To complete the picture, I would have had to propose here a definition of the concept of racism, explain what is wrong with it, and finally also show why all the criticisms described here are not examples of it. This subject requires separate treatment, and because of lack of space I shall leave it for another time. Big mouth. Garbuz. In such a world every criticism is racist condescension. If you say that so-and-so is less good than someone else, or that he is mistaken, you are simply racist and condescending. 2015 Psifas, Sivan 5775, May 34