Salah, This Is the Land of Israel: A Different Look at the Failings of Immigration from North Africa (Column 103)
With God's help
A few weeks ago I saw the film by David Deri (from Yeruham; his family is very well known to us from there), Salah, This Is the Land of Israel. The film tells the story of the establishment of the development towns in the 1950s, and it contains a sharp bill of indictment against Israeli society and government in the 1950s. In a carefully planned scheme, and in a spirit of paternalism, they took innocent immigrants and brought them to remote areas (like Yeruham), without giving them the option of choosing where to live or work, and even harassed those who dared to resist and rebel. In this way they effectively determined and fixed their fate, and that of their children, for years and generations to come. All this stood in contrast to Ashkenazi immigrants who arrived at the same time (such as a group of immigrants from Poland), who were in fact given the option of choosing housing and employment in the center of the country as they wished.
The film is accompanied by an ongoing interview with the geographer Elisha Efrat, who stood at the center of the new plans for ‘population dispersal’ and the establishment of the development towns. This is a fascinating figure who played a central role in the processes under discussion. He candidly admits, in so many words and before the camera, and apparently without any shame or apology whatsoever, that this was done precisely to weaker populations that could not resist. The Poles had other options, he says. They could emigrate to other countries. They knew what they were facing, and they had connections. Had they not been received attractively enough, they would not be here. This was unlike the immigrants from Morocco, who had no other option, were unaware of the possibilities, and lacked connections in the right places. These are cynical and infuriating things to say, and the viewer does not really understand how Efrat is not embarrassed to declare this publicly, without batting an eye. At times it nevertheless seems that he means to confess guilt, but my overall impression is that he absolutely does not.
From the protocols, most of which are classified of course (for reasons of state security? Yeah, right), there emerges a troubling picture of racism, of stereotypes regarding immigrants from North Africa, their education, their culture, their potential, and more. It is an infuriating paternalistic conduct that makes cardinal decisions for them in their stead. This impression is reinforced by additional interviews with academics who accompany the film (for example, the historian Dr. Avi Picard, a friend of mine who is himself a resident of Yeruham). They speak quite bluntly about the mindset of the Israeli government at the time and the cynical use it made of the immigrants.
So here is the twist: I must say that despite the difficult feelings, and despite the facts, I was not persuaded. The director assumes, of course, that if he simply lays the facts before us as they were, they will speak for themselves. And indeed, I had the impression that most viewers came away shocked to their very core (you will not be surprised that this is also how it struck the critic of the newspaper Haaretz). But already while watching the film, and even more so afterward, I found myself thinking that the picture is really not simple and not unequivocal. There are several different points involved, and I will briefly discuss them one by one here.
The historical context
Elisha Efrat recounts in the film the rationale behind the establishment of the development towns. He says that the government came to the conclusion that the population had to be dispersed throughout the country. It could not be that the entire population of the country would be concentrated in three large cities while all the rest of the territory remained empty of residents.
Now put yourselves in the shoes—big shoes—of Ben-Gurion and his gang. It was as clear as day to them that the state could not have survived if all its population had been concentrated in three cities. People would have had no livelihood, they had no suitable education and no money for housing in those cities, and so they would have become a burden on welfare and the welfare ministry. We would have gotten, on the outskirts of the large cities, giant slums of shacks and tents with poor sanitation and subhuman living conditions. Think of the enormous slums full of filth and swamps in India, the favelas of Rio in Brazil, the shantytowns on the outskirts of China’s large cities, and so on. No wonder Ben-Gurion did not want all this in his own backyard.
Beyond all this, one must remember that we had only just finished a war of survival (the War of Independence), and the security threats were still hanging over our heads like a sword. Large uninhabited areas necessarily create serious security problems. It is very difficult to exercise control and sovereignty over such areas, and we should remember that the state was then in its infancy. Its sovereignty was challenged every day and every hour, and was by no means self-evident. A government in such a situation had to think of ways to disperse the population and bring about settlement throughout all parts of the country. It is now entirely clear why Ben-Gurion decided to disperse the population.
When he went about doing this, he first turned to the general population and called upon them to come to the Negev. His voice still echoes to this day: the desolate expanses of the Negev are calling to you and waiting for you. As is well known—and as the film itself recounts—Ben-Gurion said this day after day and hour after hour, and even did so himself when he settled in Sde Boker (as the song has it: ‘And the Negev will yet bloom, and the old man too will rejoice’). But our dear and pioneering Jewish people, including the Jewish and divine spark in their hearts, did not really rise to the challenge. People preferred to remain in the center of the country, in the place of the Divine Presence, under their vine and fig tree (under their vine and fig tree), and in a democratic state you cannot force anyone to move to a place he does not want to live.
So what does one do? The state is fighting for its life against many enemies around it, suffering from no simple economic distress, and the Ashkenazim want only ‘Arlozorova at the corner of lofty Dizengova’ (as the Gashashim put it). What could be more natural than taking a population that is in any case under your control and in your hands and moving it to the Negev and the development towns? This is a population for which you are the one who has to find solutions. A population that, naturally enough, would not create overly serious problems, that had no resources with which to live in the center of the country, and had no education that would allow employment there. The government is the one providing them with housing and employment, and it decides to do so in the Negev. Think: what would you have done in such a situation, had the decision been yours and the responsibility rested on you? Left the whole country empty and created favelas in Tel Aviv and Haifa?
And lo and behold, the descendants of those who did not rise to Ben-Gurion’s challenge now sit in the Tel Aviv Cinematheque and cluck their tongues at the racist horrors wrought by their government. None of us, or our parents, was willing to move even a handbreadth southward. We, of course, will do nothing at all to improve the situation and lighten the burden on the government. But it is so easy and convenient to accuse the racist and negligent government—the one guilty of everything—of having moved populations around and perpetuated their problems. Far easier than doing something ourselves.
What did we expect? That the government, which was in any case investing enormous sums it did not have in order to settle and support these immigrants who arrived with nothing, would buy them apartments or houses in central Tel Aviv? If they wanted to buy homes there for themselves, certainly one could not prevent them. As we have already said, this is a democratic state. But that was not the situation. The government is the one buying them the homes and settling them. Should it do so in Tel Aviv when there is an existential need to disperse the population? Should the government invest capital it does not have in order, with its own hands, to create an insoluble problem that threatens the very existence of the state? Such demands can come only from people who bear no responsibility. All the armchair critics of every kind.
You may ask: what about the Poles? Why did the government not do the same to them? The claim was that they would manage with their relatives, friends, and connections, would make use of their professional education, and would get by in the central cities. And even if not, there is logic in investing money in them, since the alternative is that they will not come here at all. The new state desperately needed manpower and residents and could not allow itself to forgo large numbers of immigrants. No wonder they were not shipped off to the development towns. That may not be pretty or pleasant, but is it really such an evil consideration? Can one not understand it when one takes into account the constraints and the government’s responsibility for what would happen in the newly established state? Would not any one of us, bearing the responsibility and holding the authority, have done the same?
From that perspective, the processes of population dispersal suddenly look very necessary and very sensible. I assume it could have been done more gently, and one could have tried to be more egalitarian. One could have refrained from deceiving them and treating them cruelly. One could have explained more and helped more. But then one must take into account that perhaps none of it would have happened. One could also have tried to overcome the stereotypes. After all, there were also Poles without education or potential, and of course there were Moroccans with education and with potential. Moreover, if we admit the truth, the Poles too did not really have anywhere to go after the Holocaust other than Israel. All of this is true. But mistakes and failings, and even a bit of wickedness and injustice, are always with us. All these are human things that are difficult, and perhaps impossible, to avoid. Whoever does nothing is always perfect and never makes mistakes. Looking at the matter from a bird’s-eye view, it seems to me that population dispersal was a necessary and sensible policy in that situation. In fact, it seems there was no other choice.
Selection
The film recounts that the institutions carried out selection among the immigrants. The policy was to bring them over without the sick, the elderly, and the uneducated. The government wanted only those who would contribute to the new state and would not become a burden upon it. Sounds very bad, does it not? This too is a common criticism, but in my opinion it is also unjustified. Even if it is true, what would we have done in their place? There was a state in existential danger that did not know whether it could survive. It could barely carry itself. Should it have loaded yet another burden onto its meager shoulders in such a situation? Would we have done so? How many of our parents and grandparents, at that time, took upon themselves a family of immigrants from North Africa in order to help them integrate and cope? But as I said, it is easier to cast blame on the establishment, even if it acted as it did because we did not help it.
It is interesting to note that the film recounts that after troubles and persecutions of the Jews in Morocco began, the government decided to bring everyone to the country. It canceled the selection and did so in a far from simple operation despite all the difficulties and constraints mentioned above. The selection was practiced before those persecutions began, and in my opinion one can certainly understand why. The government did not want to add more difficulties to its shoulders if there was no vital need for it. And the fact is that when the need arose, they did not hesitate, accepted the responsibility, and brought everyone up.
Natural racism
There is no denying that there was quite a bit of racism there and quite a few stereotypes. It still exists in our time as well, though happily it is weakening. The view was that the immigrants from North Africa were human dust, a burden and nothing more, from whom nothing could be expected. But it is important to understand that beyond the fact that there was a certain truth to it, this was the natural way of looking at things at the time. Even if it was not justified, that is what people really thought then. The founders of the state were a collection of good Poles and Russians who had no idea what a Moroccan Jew was. They had never met such a person, and at least by their criteria this really was a person with less education and an inferior culture. A kind of Arab (there is another stereotype). Naturally, they were fed by stereotypes and acted accordingly. One may criticize those stereotypes, but it is not right to criticize those who acted on their basis. They did the best they could according to what they genuinely thought. Even if they were mistaken, we must not judge them anachronistically.
Were they really mistaken? It seems to me that, as a rule, the immigrants from North Africa were indeed less educated. They had less ability to manage in the Western world into which they had arrived. If I may add, there were fewer writers and creators among them than among immigrants from the West. One cannot deny that there is something in almost every stereotype. That is how it comes into being. The problem with stereotypes is when one assumes their correctness in a sweeping way and without examination, and when one thinks this is something that cannot be corrected. When one does not give people the opportunity to refute them and rise above them. But the distinctions themselves can certainly be correct, at least statistically.
Is there improvement?
Are we better today? In certain respects, yes, because today we understand that this is a cultural difference. We have grown accustomed to the fact that there are advantages in every culture (the flourishing of Mizrahi music, which in the past was considered an inferior genre, testifies to this), and we have understood that most things are not fixed and not genetic, but rather capable of improvement and change. The human being is a dynamic creature, and he has the potential to improve and change. All this we understand better than our forefathers and better than Ben-Gurion’s generation. One cannot deny that part of the difference is nothing more than political correctness. Even if we do not really think this way, we are forced to speak this way. At times there are real differences, hard problems that require a solution, but we cover them over with egalitarian and liberal discourse that suppresses and denies them. When there is a problem in the development towns, we do not attribute it to the immigrants from North Africa themselves, although I have no doubt that they bear significant contributory responsibility for what happened to them. It is easier for us to blame Ben-Gurion than to blame them themselves, and certainly easier than blaming ourselves and our parents (who did not respond to Ben-Gurion’s calls to populate the development towns themselves).
The conclusion is that this was a problematic way of seeing things, at least certain aspects of which require correction. But the judgment we pass on it should not, and cannot, impose guilt and responsibility on Ben-Gurion and his generation. This is truly what they thought (perhaps mistakenly), and this is how they acted. Beyond the constraints I described above, they honestly believed that these were the populations under their responsibility, and so they made decisions in accordance with their understanding. In my opinion there are no deliberate conspiracies here whose purpose was to gain power at the expense of the Mizrahim. That view is a postmodern folly that attributes everything to conspiracies. It is a view that prefers to speak of the ‘weakened’ rather than the weak (that is, as though someone caused their weakness, usually intentionally. Never they themselves, of course).
The purpose of such judgment can only be forward-looking: to teach us not to repeat those mistakes. As stated, today we are more clear-eyed (and also a bit more politically correct), and so today we should draw conclusions. Today there is no longer any justification for mistakes of this kind. But it is not right to judge the past in this way. That is anachronism.
On whining and solutions
But the film dealt with judging that generation, not with drawing conclusions for our own day. Its conclusion was that an injustice was done here and that the blame rests on the Ashkenazi establishment. Of course, from this it follows that the duty to repair it also rests on them. I do not accept that. The Ashkenazim who founded this state and bore the burden and the responsibility acted, and also made mistakes. They lived and acted according to their best judgment, mistaken though it sometimes was, and therefore in principle no guilt should be placed upon them (except in cases of deliberate wickedness, which would not have been right even by their own lights).
Beyond that, the immigrants from North Africa themselves also bore contributory responsibility. They should not have waited for others to solve their problems for them, but should have taken the initiative and done so themselves. The Romanians, who were also sent to Yeruham (not only Moroccans), took the initiative and abandoned it as soon as they could. I am sure there were also quite a few immigrants from Morocco who could have done the same, but they preferred to remain passive and wait for others to solve their problems for them. It is much easier to cast blame on others and expect them to solve all our problems for us. This is a continuation of the same passivity that brought them to their present condition. The passive person places all his problems on the shoulders of the activist and the initiator and expects him to solve them on his behalf. Ashkenazi culture and mentality were probably more enterprising and active, and it is no accident that the initiative and activism involved in establishing the state were purely Ashkenazi (with all due respect to the Biton Committee), whereas Mizrahi passivity, which left them on the sidelines of that process, had a part in creating the problem and now also has a part in its not being solved.
As long as politically correct discourse continues to speak of the ‘weakened’ instead of the weak, and of conspiracies instead of mistakes, it will perpetuate the problems and contribute nothing to their solution. As long as the Mizrahim continue to wail and do not take the initiative into their own hands, and do not understand that they too have a share in the problem and in its failure to be solved, the problems will not be solved. In our cruel world, problems are not solved if we ourselves do not make efforts so that they will be. I think the Palestinians suffer from the same flawed way of thinking, which attributes all their problems to Western and Jewish dominance and therefore also expects that dominance to solve the problems for them. The Palestinians engage in whining instead of acting. They complain about colonialist Western Orientalism as the root of all problems (and of course it is also what enables them to whine and listens to them, since it invented democracy, liberalism, and self-recrimination) without acknowledging their own considerable share. They pile difficulties and obstacles onto every proposed solution, all in the hope that someone will do all the work for them without their having to pay a price for their own mistakes.
I must say that during our years of living in Yeruham, we saw firsthand how much this whining stands in our way when we come to solve problems. When people do not understand that the blame for the existing situation and for the problems that were created also lies at their own doorstep, and that the responsibility for solving them rests on them as well, it will not happen. If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if not now, when? (If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if not now, when?). People are unwilling to invest anything at all in advancing their children. They prefer to invest in various consumer goods or in food, and then they cry about their bleak condition and the lack of prospects for their children. Immigrants from Russia who also arrived in Yeruham (despite their Ashkenaziness) were in the same economic condition, if not worse, yet many of them are today on a secure path toward advancement and solving their problems. The reason is that they were active and invested in the advancement of their children and in their own advancement. Many of the immigrants from North Africa perpetuate the problems that began because of passivity through that same failed passivity. Again, it is not everyone and not always, but this is a generalization that contains a good deal of truth. Whoever denies this phenomenon out of fear of political correctness does not thereby help the problems disappear. Quite the opposite.
As an anecdote, it is worth noting that Yeruham’s veteran residents are immigrants from Morocco (the Romanians are no longer there, as noted). After some time, immigrants from India arrived. It was fascinating to see the Moroccans’ attitude toward the Indians. They did, and still do to this day, exactly what they complained the Ashkenazim did to them. The same racism, the same discrimination, the same humiliating and condescending attitude, the same disdain. But here is the point: here they are in the position of power. They are the veteran absorbers, and the Indians are the new and weak immigrants (the ‘weakened’?). So it is convenient to wail about what was done to me, but equally convenient to do the same thing to others.
The power of the visual: the connection between the eye and the heart
And one final remark, on an entirely different plane. There is something powerful about the cinematic medium. Even a documentary film has incomparably greater power than a radio broadcast or a newspaper article. You see documents and people speaking condescendingly before your eyes, and it is very easy to be impressed and to form an opinion. Documents and numbers are presented before your eyes, and it is difficult not to be convinced. But one must beware of this power, because quite often it is particularly misleading. Precisely the feeling that I see things with my own eyes, firsthand, can make me certain of my position and my judgments. The wickedness and the racism are present before my eyes, so it is obvious to me that Ben-Gurion and his friends were racists and acted wickedly and out of self-interest. The visual medium causes us to be taken captive by appearances and not to think one more time before forming an opinion, and it is very important to beware of this.
I am reminded of the first Gulf War, when Iraq and Kuwait were in flames, and we all focused on the grim fate of the cormorants (water birds, a kind of pelican). Television reports described those miserable birds, unable to escape from the sea covered in massive layers of oil, choking and drowning. What one sees is powerful, and it was very easy to forget that at that same time there were human beings suffering and dying not far from there. Why? Because that was what was filmed, and it touched the heart. Our eyes are connected directly to the heart, and in this way they recruit its emotional power in order to take over the mind and cause it to form shallow and unfounded positions. One must be very careful about this, in the sense of and do not stray after your hearts and after your eyes (‘do not follow after your hearts and your eyes’). As the Sages say, The eye and the heart—these are the two agents of sin (the eye and the heart are two agents of sin). Both draw us toward superficiality and bypass the intellect. They prevent us from thinking one more time before forming an opinion. I prefer the ear to the eye (‘the auditory logic’ of Rabbi HaNazir), and the cold intellect to the heart and the emotions.
To conclude, I highly recommend seeing the film. It is powerful and thought-provoking. I think that if one watches it after thinking through these points, and brings the mind and the ear into play and not only the eye and the heart, one comes away with an impression different from the one its creators intended to arouse in us. The lessons for us are very important and very correct (although, as noted, the film did not deal with them); the judgment of the past (which is the film’s focus), somewhat less so.
Discussion
I disagree.
The problematic attitude toward immigrants from North Africa was not like a doctor's attitude toward a patient whose leg must be amputated, but like a scientist's attitude toward a human being on whom experiments are being conducted. That is to say – there were too many deviations beyond the necessary bad treatment that was required (child kidnappings, discriminatory treatment even after the wars, etc.). Too many *31^2-1.
Said the Romanian-Hungarian-Pole.
I'll say even more than that. People talk about Ashkenazi culture versus Mizrahi culture (Sephardi, in foreign parlance). But this is really European culture (a mixture of Eastern European and Western European) versus Arab culture. Everyone understands (the Arabs too, even if they only keep it inside) that even if in particulars Arab culture sometimes has certain advantages, in general European culture is more developed than Arab culture. Even in matters of music, to a Western ear an Eastern singer will still sound shallow. Like children's songs, say (which, even if they have a certain beauty, are still songs that, both in terms of lyrics and melody – are childish). The passivity of Mizrahi immigrants (which is also expressed in the Mizrahi Haredi Torah world as compared to the Ashkenazi one, and also in Religious Zionism) stems in general from the place of passivity in Arab culture (kul min Allah [everything is from God]) which causes the Arab countries to look as they do compared to the Western ones, and no one is to blame for this (contrary to the rabbi's words), rather this is reality – some human beings developed more than others, and there is no pressure that everyone develop to the same degree at any given time. Tensions arise when there is an encounter between two cultures, and the more developed side must take that fact into account and on the one hand respect the pace of development of the others and not despise them for it, and on the other hand recognize their relative place vis-à-vis them. Like the relationship of an adult to a child. On the one hand respect for him, but on the other hand knowing that he cannot be the child's friend. And if he does so, the child (with no ability to choose on his part) will despise him. As in Rabbi Shach's famous words, it is not presently conceivable that people of this culture (not necessarily of this race) should lead people from a European culture. As we see today in the Left's reaction (and also of large parts of the Right, secretly in their hearts) to the antics of Bitan and Amsalem, Bibi's boys.
By the way, if we are dealing with wickedness and morality, there is no reason to pity the Mizrahim. There seems to be a law of nature that the more primitive a culture is, the more it looks down (and with an extra degree of lack of awareness that is somehow worse than malice) on cultures more primitive than itself. I am willing to bet that Mizrahim (in general) look down on Yemenites even more than Ashkenazim look down on Mizrahim themselves (and also more than Ashkenazim themselves look down on Yemenites). And here I am already entering theory, but I am willing to guess that above all of them are the Yemenites themselves, who look down on Ethiopians even more than anyone before them in the food chain. And the Ethiopians too would look down if there were someone with more melanin in his skin here in the country. In Africa there is. And one can presumably examine their attitude toward the black inhabitants of Central Africa (Congo, Gabon, on toward South Africa), whose skin is black as coal and who still worship idols, and in the past there were even cannibals among them.
So according to the rule that morality is irrelevant toward one who is not himself moral (the law of the jungle), the only sin here was a sin against God and not against human beings. It was indeed a sin, but there is no need to apologize to the Mizrahim if they themselves would have behaved even worse, only they had no one toward whom to do so. One should feel regret before God, and even that only over lack of awareness (which, as stated, is worse than malice, but on the other hand itself stems from the lesser development of the European world of that time relative to that of today, and one should regret it less than malice. Again, without guilt) and not over malice. The Mizrahim themselves also did not trouble to come up to the state before its establishment, and only because of fear of the Arabs' reaction to the establishment of the state did they come up here. From their point of view it was better to go on living there forever. (Although the Ashkenazim too began to immigrate under the pressure of pogroms.)
The story here in the country is simply a microcosm of what is taking place in the whole world. Rabbi Kook has an essay I have not read about the relationship between Ashkenazim and Sephardim (the two houses of the house of Israel). I say that there seems to be a relation between them like that of a man to a woman (right and left. The woman is the Eastern culture, or the Sephardim) or of the nine upper sefirot versus the sefirah of Malkhut. And here there is a paradox. On the side of the man (European culture or the Ashkenazim) there is an aspiration for equality between the sexes. According to the woman (the Arab, or Asian, or Latin, or African culture), she is the one who must receive the leadership of the man (be submissive to him). We shall wait for the third line to decide between them.
Correction in the second paragraph, third line: "There seems to be a law of nature that the more primitive a culture is, the more it looks down (and with a greater lack of awareness that is somehow worse than malice) on cultures more primitive than itself."
Thank you for the article.
There is one thing I didn't really understand. At first you defend, in a way that in my opinion is very convincing, the policy of the government at that time.
And then you claim that you assume there was racism there and that they may have been mistaken.
You also claim that today we have improved and we no longer think that change is impossible, etc.
It seems to me that both claims lack sufficient basis.
A. The word racism has long since become merely a term of abuse and contains a moral judgment that we attach to those who believe in certain stereotypes. As you yourself write, the stereotypes are also true to some extent (although like almost any generalization they are valid only for most of those generalized) and also useful to a large extent (mainly because they are true). So where is the mistake? Why must we insist that they were not okay?
B. As for the claim that today we are better (I assume you mean morally better), it seems to me that this is only an appearance. We are better at reciting slogans against racism – that is true. But have we discovered the fact that people can change despite their genes and culture? – I doubt it. I would even dare to argue that in the past they understood this no less well – except that in addition they also understood the genetic contribution and the cultural baggage, things about which it is almost forbidden to speak in public today.
What is true is that today claiming that one culture is better than another is no longer fashionable, but is that a moral improvement? Personally it seems to me to be a deterioration.
Hello Phil.
There were clearly racist statements there, beyond the policy itself. You need to see the film to become acquainted with them.
A. I explicitly explained in the post what is wrong with a stereotype even if it is correct. I had columns (5 and 10) on racism, and there I expanded more.
B. We have a disagreement. I think that today we definitely understand better that many things that seem obvious are in fact changeable. This is not only politically correct discourse. The exaggeration of this understanding and its implications is political correctness (such as the claim that cultures cannot be ranked), but there is something here that really has changed. This itself is a change our culture has undergone (its attitude toward the possibility of change).
Interesting that Jews from North Africa who did not arrive in Israel but “dropped out” along the way suffered from none of the “passivity” described, and all of them as a cross-section were educated, active (and wealthy). In addition, to say that the immigration from North Africa was less educated than the people from Eastern Europe, most of whom came from villages and towns that were much more backward, is funny; Europe is not one single bloc of progress.
Hello Yaniv.
I know that the stronger population (educationally and economically) reached France and the Western countries. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of passivity. One way or another, the population that came here was, and still is, passive. Beyond that, the strong went to the West and did not establish a state and did not participate in establishing it. That is passivity. Among the Ashkenazim, the strong took initiative and established a state. Of course these are all generalizations, but in my opinion they are correct.
Europe is not a bloc of progress, and still there were considerable educational differences. It may be funny, but it is true.
Hello Rabbi Michi,
I must note that this was a particularly disappointing column. You chose to go with the accepted explanation about cultural gaps, and that's that. The well-known failure is to go back to the 1950s, claim it was hard for everyone, and leave it there.
If one researches in depth, one discovers that there was indeed systematic discrimination in education and employment that lasted far beyond the 1950s.
Zalman Aran and Pinhas Sapir, for example, decided in the 1970s that there was no need for Mizrahim to acquire an academic education. What excuses were there then, other than the desire to turn them into hewers of wood and drawers of water? (You can look at the research of Zvi Zameret, who is considered a moderate figure.)
The newspaper Haaretz, for its part, incited against immigration from North Africa (you can see this in Avi Picard).
Since Begin's political upset and the accelerated privatization processes, lo and behold, Mizrahim significantly improved their economic condition. How did this happen? Very simply. The stranglehold of Mapai was removed.
The discussions about discrimination border on naivete and lack of honesty, after all until '77 Mizrahim did not exist at all from the point of view of the government.
On a personal note, I studied in a yeshiva high school in the 1990s, and the contempt and condescension toward Mizrahim were the norm. Tell me, what excuses were there then besides outright racism?
Mapai created the original sin: Ashkenazi = quality, Mizrahi = folkish.
By the way, in your article you made a mistaken comparison, which is hard to believe coming from you. True, Moroccans treated other ethnic groups with contempt, but again there is a difference between racism that rises from the street and institutional, systematic racism.
Even today I know many mixed couples in Religious Zionism where the Ashkenazi side
made a face and was displeased.
I admit that from you I expected more honesty; there are studies on this subject from every angle.
Hello Ma'oz.
I wrote that there was racism and there was discrimination, but I explained what the problem is and what is less problematic in my view. I should preface that it was not for nothing that I focused my remarks on the question of population dispersal, which is what the film dealt with. Other remarks in my post were brought only in passing.
As for your claims:
Of course there was discrimination, and there still is. What I argued is that it had some basis (which you of course choose to ignore), and that this is how they honestly saw it then (that really is what they thought). I also wrote that one who does nothing makes no mistakes.
The decision not to provide academic education is also based on that very point. An assessment that in many cases it would not succeed, and that society also needs people with vocational education, and it is most natural to choose for that those who are weaker and natural candidates for it. It sounds bad, and sometimes it really is bad. But still, it can be understood.
Beyond that, as I noted in my post, advanced academic education, even when offered, is not very attractive to many Mizrahi families, and in my opinion this is a distinctly Mizrahi characteristic (of course there are many exceptions, but as a generalization it is entirely correct, as I mentioned having seen in Yeruham and elsewhere). Clearly one gives academic education first of all to those who demand it more insistently. That is only natural. Again, this is not necessarily a substantive justification, but it does lead to understanding why it happened and that this is not wickedness but a (partly mistaken) understanding of reality.
Also regarding the racism you described in the yeshiva high schools: I know it, and I disagree with your diagnosis that this was pure racism. Not true. It had a real basis. The problem was not in the perception itself but in the conception that this was something essential, perhaps genetic, and not subject to change. That is not true. But differences certainly did exist, and one who ignores them denies reality.
I did not notice Mizrahi yeshivas being established and providing excellent education that Ashkenazim wanted to be admitted to. Why were there none? Here too, is that only discrimination? Or perhaps it is that same well-known passivity and expectation that someone else will do the work for me?
The mistaken comparison I made, which you found hard to believe, is of course entirely correct. Is municipal government allowed to discriminate while national government is not? And racism and discrimination coming from the street are okay? The Moroccans simply were not in power, so you did not see it from the government but only from the street. Are you claiming that if there had been a government under Moroccan control, the situation would have been different?
Would they have been supportive of the “weakened” Ashkenazim? Permit me to doubt it. This is exactly the Kuzari's argument (= you say you are more moral, but this was never tested in reality because you did not have sovereign rule), to which the Haver says: “You have put me to shame, O King of the Khazars.”
When it suits you, you choose such marginal distinctions and cling to them, in order to allow yourself to keep complaining. So I am not playing that game, and if you were disappointed – I am sorry for that. Perhaps you expect politically correct discourse, but if I were dragged into it then I would be disappointed in myself. As far as I am concerned, that is worse than when others are disappointed in me.
Do you not happen to know mixed couples where the Mizrahim wrinkled their noses? Do you not know Moroccans who did not want a Yemenite or Indian spouse? Because I know quite a few such people (for whom even a strong inferiority complex did not help them refrain from being angry about bringing an Ashkenazi spouse).
I assume it is hard for you to read this response of mine, but it is still important for me to write it, and to write it sharply. For I systematically and consistently see in your words that same denial I spoke about in the post. You pin the problem on everyone and his wife, while ignoring the not insignificant share of the Moroccans in the matter. You choose to draw irrelevant distinctions and remain in crying and moaning and lamentations over the situation, instead of understanding that these things have a real root, and that usually there are no wicked and righteous people here, but rather human nature with its flaws and mistakes. You insist on ignoring the fact that even if mistakes were made, they were made by those who did something. One who does nothing makes no mistakes either (did the Moroccans contribute anything to rescuing the Jews of Europe from the Holocaust? Where were the Mizrahi leaders of the Agency and the Haganah? Ah, sorry, there simply were none). I am sorry to write with such sharpness, but it pains me that you are entrenching yourself in this unnecessary victimhood. Even if there is some truth in it, it certainly does not help solve the problem.
For anyone who thinks this was a harsh column: from what I know, most people who have not fallen captive to the delusional postmodernist discourse understand that the rabbi used mercy and understatement to describe the extortion, victimhood, parasitism, and chutzpah of the “weakened.” Those who are weakened are the working and productive people whom the government milks and uses their money for populist benefits to people who, instead of kissing their feet, insult them.
Have a good week, Rabbi Michael,
Thank you for the detailed response.
According to your approach, a generic Mizrahi-Moroccan equals a generic Moroccan-Yeruham. The range is much broader; you surely know that.
I too see racism as something natural, and most likely if I were Ashkenazi in the 1950s I too would have looked at Mizrahim as something strange and puzzling.
But then came wise men and sophisticates in Hebrew and in the yeshivot and gave ideological justification to their racism, and thus the ethnic tension continued far beyond what was necessary. Until the 1970s one could explain away the racism. Fine – absorption difficulties, the birth pangs of a state on the way, okay, I accept that. But what about afterward… the contemptuous attitude continues to this day in advertising and in the media (this was discussed at the last media conference in Eilat; Haim Yavin of course denied it). By the way, Prof. Dahan researched and showed that the percentage of Mizrahim in the top income decile matches their percentage in the population. For some reason, in academia, the media, and the courts it is not like that. The State of Israel has existed for 70 years and the percentage of lecturers in academia stands at 7% – it is not even double digits. Okay, the Moroccans of Yeruham are whiners, but are the Iraqis not educated enough? Many Mizrahim turned to the free market and succeeded because there they had no gatekeepers blocking the way.
I do not believe in victimhood even if it stems from justified reasons, since it does not advance the solution to the problem, but what amazes me is that many Ashkenazim are not even willing to acknowledge their contemptuous attitude toward Mizrahim.
The solution, in my opinion, is quite clear: a free market, privatization, and free initiative.
On a personal note, although I do not like talking about it, the atmosphere in yeshiva high schools was beneath all criticism toward Mizrahim, and even toward Ashkenazim (whom the rabbis would occasionally remind that they were “Mizrahniks,” God forbid they should forget it).
Today, when I work in education, I simply do not understand the conduct back then.
I work with immigrants from Russia and Ethiopia; I do not live in a sterile and homogeneous world.
And allow me to joke with you regarding my victimhood: people who read your books cannot be victims. Your books are very demanding.
What can you do? Ashkenazim need to hear unpleasant things and know how to accept them, just as Mizrahim need to internalize that their attitude toward immigrants from Russia and Ethiopia was not amazing, to say the least.
By the way, for some reason people always like to attack the one who discusses the problem because he perpetuates it. Maybe it would be wiser to attack the racist people, although that is harder.
A good and blessed week.
I completely agree with what you say here (or almost completely). I would only note that there is a difference between discussing the problem in order to criticize and judge the past, and discussing it in order to draw conclusions for the future. I addressed that in my post. Negative victimhood is discussion of the first kind, which ends in an expectation that others will act on my behalf.
To Ma'oz.
There is no connection between the top income decile and education.
Usually it is involvement in real estate, construction, renovations, or commerce.
Getting rich does not necessarily require higher education but rather other traits. See, for example, Rami Levy, Yitzhak Tshuva, and others.
Therefore the comparison between academia and the top income decile is not relevant.
I also lived in Yeruham and today in Ma'alot, and I completely agree with Rabbi Michael (who in my opinion went easy on you in his last response) regarding the more passive or more Arab character of the Mizrahim, and also regarding the other things.
I did not go easy. I really do agree. I think there is significant change also in academia that shows that the differences are cultural and not essential (that is, they are subject to change). It is true that the differences in the number of academics do not necessarily indicate discrimination, but perhaps also different goals and targets that these populations set for themselves.
As stated, my doctrine has not budged: 1. The differences exist. 2. They are not essential (apparently there is no different genetics here, nor stupid and smart people). 3. There is change over time. 4. The differences were not created only because of “being weakened” but also because of “weakness” (that is, the Mizrahim bear some contributory blame). 5. It is not really correct, and not at all just or useful, to wail. 6. It is better to do something yourself.
About two years ago there was an investigative report on television about the current gap between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi teenagers. The prominent agenda of the report was: “Wow, look at this, even today there is still such a huge gap! How shocking on our part!” During the report, what was etched in my memory was the contempt with which Mizrahi teenagers spoke about the nerdy Ashkenazim who invest in studying and homework instead of enjoying life. They really could not understand how those others were willing to go to after-school activities instead of football, and they boasted about their cool parents who let them do whatever they want, as opposed to the Ashkenazi parents who force their children to invest in studies and be miserable in boring music and science activities, for example. There is no doubt that at high-school age it is much cooler to play basketball than to play music. They spoke innocently about the joy and coolness of Mizrahi families as opposed to the cold, ambitious Ashkenazi parents. The difference in consciousness between the two groups of children cried out to heaven, and to my mind it is completely clear why it also leads to different results… This confirms what Rabbi Michi wrote about different goals that a population sets for itself culturally.
A second issue that came up in the report was the necessity for young Mizrahi people to support themselves, as opposed to Ashkenazim whose parents mobilize to help them at any cost, as long as they complete their studies. Among young Mizrahim, support from parents at an older age is perceived as shameful, whereas among young Ashkenazim the parents practically force them to complete academic studies and are willing to finance the studies and living expenses. A Mizrahi young man who married an Ashkenazi woman spoke there about being exposed to this phenomenon and said that his mother-in-law worked overtime and denied herself much in order to help the young couple complete their studies, and she would not hear of her son-in-law working in order to support themselves, because in her view what matters in the long run is that he have a higher education. He said that in his extended family (the Mizrahi one) such a phenomenon does not exist, and on the contrary is perceived as outrageous.
It is clear that both examples above are particular cases and one must not generalize, but they certainly also teach something beyond the automatic claim of discrimination.
Absolutely true. It fits my experience perfectly.
With all due respect, you wrote so much nonsense that I don't know where to begin…
Let's start with the fact that the Poles had no more places to go than the Moroccans did; in both groups the strong (the wealthy and educated) could emigrate to the West (and did so), and the rest came to the Land [of Israel] (along with a few fanatical Zionists who could have emigrated and nevertheless immigrated). So the channeling of the Moroccans (most of whom, by the way – about 80% – came from large and relatively modern cities under French rule) into development towns and remote agricultural settlements stemmed almost entirely from the racist stereotype of “human dust” that should be placed on the border as a human shield against the Arab enemy.
In addition, the immigrants who were suddenly dropped into a place where the whole attitude toward them was patronizing at best and their culture was entirely silenced (the enemy's music…) could not, in their condition then, far from every geographic, social, or governmental center, influence their fate very much, so that this passivity is to no small extent also a product of the discrimination of that time, which preferred Eastern European wagon-drivers over North African merchants (by the way, the term “Mizrahim” as a label for all the “Sephardim” originates in Eastern European condescension, after the latter themselves suffered from the Yekkish-Western European condescension toward them as “Ostjuden”; the North Africans, by the way, called themselves “Maghrebis,” that is, Westerners, which is also the correct term geographically).
If Your Honor will permit me to continue piling up a few more bits of nonsense, then Your Exalted Honor is mistaken and misleading. The things are explained in the post, but I will note them anyway.
First, at the very least it would be worthwhile for His Honor to read the nonsense that the glory of my own exalted person wrote before responding to my words. It is not obligatory, admittedly, but recommended. I did not write that there was a difference between the Poles and the Moroccans regarding where to go. I wrote the opposite (contrary to the geographer's words, who indeed said that), which does not in the least prevent Your Exalted Honor from quoting it in my name. By the way, I do not entirely reject Efrat's words, because to the best of my knowledge the Poles reached quite a number of countries in the West, whereas the Moroccans mainly reached France, but as stated this is not important for our issue.
Beyond that, how does Your Honor explain that the hegemonic regime here was Ashkenazi and thus was able to “silence” Mizrahi music? How did that happen? Why did the Mizrahim, with all their drive, initiative, and extensive education, not establish the state, but the Ashkenazim did? Or perhaps here too they are oppressing and hiding information from us, and in fact the state was established and conceived in Casablanca or Ouarzazate? By the way, if they had done so, I assume they would have silenced the Ashkenazim exactly as was done to them, if not more so (as the Sephardim did in the old yishuv in Jerusalem). Does all this not indicate a difference? How did leadership and initiative come only from the Ashkenazim, while only the wails of deprivation (some of which are justified) come from the Sephardim?
Are you really claiming there was no educational and cultural difference between the populations that came to the country? Then you are simply babbling. Unlike the Sephardim, among whom the educated generally did not come here, among the Ashkenazim that was not the case. Among them there were educated people who came and educated people who did not. By the way, education is not expressed only in years of schooling but in mentality (what importance one assigns to education, even if one is not educated oneself), and there too there is a difference between the populations.
As for the terms “Easterners” and “Westerners,” here you have really outdone yourself. Are you claiming that the Orient (forgive the crude and politically incorrect expression) is in the West and Europe in the East? This is an exciting geographic and terminological innovation (perhaps a product of the extensive education you are talking about). “Maghrebis” is a term for the western countries of North Africa. It is like saying that Sinai, which is in northern Egypt, is no less north than Israel because in Egypt they call them northerners. One need not have a long school day or a university degree to understand that spatial descriptions are relative, but what won't people do in order to wail about deprivation and claim narrative hegemony, contempt, and so on. Resorting to terminology in this way is usually foolish, and so it is here as well, and in most cases it comes to cover up a lack of arguments behind the wailing, and so too in your words here.
By the way, the term “Mizrahim,” to the best of my knowledge, is an invention of the whiny political correctness exemplified by your words here, and not of Ashkenazi condescension. Instead of “Sephardim,” they forced us all to speak of “Mizrahim” (that is Israeli Afro-Americanism). But apparently you want them to be called “Westerners,” because then it would be clear and define them well. Henceforth say: if you want to define a Moroccan, say Westerner, and then everyone will understand your meaning. They will simply look westward, see Morocco, and immediately understand everything.
Of course, the fact that more educated Ashkenazim came here also stems from the two reasons above, their being favored by the government and their being connected to it already from the Zionist movements in Europe, as well as the very fact that they were indeed more Zionist (mainly under the influence of the winds of European nationalism that were fashionable then), which also explains the very establishment of the state mainly by Ashkenazim, since the national and Zionist fervor began in Europe, while among the Sephardim it apparently burned less strongly and only afterward they were swept along by it. Of course, in the next generation there was already channeling that sent the young Sephardim to help support the family, while the Ashkenazim could acquire more lucrative and prestigious professions or integrate into the traditional Mapai-run industries (Histadrut clerical work, media, and the like…).
The claim that there were fewer scientists, etc., among the Sephardim is true to the same extent as the claim that there were fewer scientists in Ukraine than in Germany; in those centuries civilization was centered in the West. But the preference in Israel was not for educated people (by the way, most immigrants from North Africa aged 40 and under were graduates of Alliance schools), but for people from Europe (even if they were graduates of Reb Zalman's heder). By the way, in the field of poetry there was actually no numerical inferiority among the Sephardim (simply because it was a relatively developed field among the general population in the Arab countries). The fact that you have never heard (just as the banknotes committee never heard…) of Asher Mizrahi (if I am not mistaken, a lyricist no less prolific than Shmer) or Rabbi David Bardugo (a poet of the highest order) is part of the one-sided melting-pot culture and not proof of its correctness…
By the way, regarding the nitpicking over the term “Mizrahim,” it is worth recalling that those who determine the rules of PC are not the ignorant Sephardim from Yeruham but the Ashkenazi academics from Tel Aviv, in whose eyes all Middle Eastern / Mediterranean culture is one black mass without distinction between Andalusian music and Farid al-Atrash… I prefer “Sephardim” (or “Sephardim and members of the Eastern communities,” if we are already nitpicking); I hope you allow me that…
Ah, so after all, more educated Ashkenazim did come here? Now there are only excuses as to why that happened.
Well, I think we have exhausted the matter.
You mention Alliance as though it were a place where education was acquired, instead of explaining to us that it was a place where the Ashkenazim had already begun channeling the Moroccans and condescending to them.
It is a bit tiring to respond again, and yet apparently there is no choice.
A. For some reason you keep returning again and again to Yeruham, which is a bit reductive.
Second, I do not understand the discussion at all. Clearly Mizrahi culture is very passive by its nature. The very idea that the state would have been established by Mizrahim is amusing and absurd. The concept of the “nation-state” never reached them at all.
The Technion and Hebrew University, for example, were established by the Yekkes, and not for nothing; it is hard for me to imagine Ben-Gurion and his friends in academia – they were not of that caliber.
My claim is that the establishment simply did not understand that the role of the education system is to enable Mizrahim to be exposed to Western culture.
Mapai simply did not believe in Mizrahim on the genetic level (it is important to note that there were Ashkenazim who told Zalman Aran and Pinhas Sapir that their actions would be a cause for generations of weeping).
A short story to illustrate the difference between France and Israel. In 1945 Emmanuel Levinas, the well-known philosopher, left all his academic pursuits and went to teach young migrants from Morocco in France.
He saw this as a mission of the highest order.
One may assume that those teenagers did not come from a particularly cultural background.
Let us for a moment do an experiment and imagine that the State of Israel had been established without discrimination toward Mizrahim. Would there then have been complete equality in academia?
I don't think so. I am a pragmatic person: there are differences, and there is a different starting point for each group, but the ethnic tension would have been far less severe.
The reason I gave the example of the top income decile was to illustrate the point that when you widen the lines, things are much easier.
After all, 30 years ago a Mizrahi in the top decile was an outright oxymoron.
Besides, since when are Mizrahim exempt from responsibility? It is not either the Mizrahim or the establishment. Believe me, if you let me, as a Mizrahi, write a post on Mizrahi failures, I would do so in a way that is sharper and more amusing (I am also really good at jokes about Poles and Yekkes).
Have a good day.
Rabbi Michael, it seems to me that from North African Jewry, among those who reached France instead of the Land [of Israel], came one of the philosophers who are surely less beloved by you – Yaakov Derrida, known by his French name Jacques Derrida, born in Algeria, one of the main spokesmen of the postmodernism that is so “dear” to you (:
I know that very well. There are others too. In general, the French are not dear to me at all (regardless of their origin). In my opinion they just chatter themselves and us to death without saying anything at all. Down with the Continent; long live Anglo-American analytic philosophy.
By the way, it is a pity he did not come to Israel. Maybe if he had been a construction worker or a cleaner in Yeruham, we would have been rid of his nonsense. And in general, he could have integrated wonderfully into the whining of deprivation common here, which is rooted in the postmodernism that he helped found.
Down with Continentalism? And what about Kant?
I will judge you favorably and assume you don't have the patience to read every word in the comments here, and that is why you respond to them in such a ridiculous way.
Kant was from the city of Königsberg, namely Kaliningrad in Russia, so he belonged to Eastern Europe. His father was Scottish, so his roots were East European and Anglo-Saxon, and therefore he should in no way be attributed to the continental culture of Western Europe. Moroccan Jews, however, dealt little with his teachings, since they did not recite the cantor's repetition in Mussaf, and therefore found no time to meditate upon his doctrine 🙂
With blessings, Ernst Ostropoler
בס"ד 17 Kislev 5778
Going to settle in the Galilee and the Negev was then considered the height of pioneering, and immigrants from Ashkenazi lands as well as the best of the native-born youth were also directed to this settlement. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion himself set a personal example and went to settle in an isolated kibbutz in the Negev. Even President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who lived in Jerusalem, lived in the same hut in which he had lived when he was a simple laborer.
The people of the labor movement, despite their affinity to Western culture, and to a certain degree because of their affinity to socialism, saw the mission of the people in returning to a life of agriculture and manual labor, which they believed purified human life more than trade and the free professions, which involve a pursuit of money and exploitation of the lower classes.
Even in Bnei Akiva we used to sing, “Sanctify your life with Torah and purify it through labor,” and this “labor” meant agriculture and manual work, as in Rabbi Neria's song: “In the yeshiva a friend studied Gemara and Tosafot. In the yeshiva he studied Torah, and in the orchard through labor, for this is the way of Bnei Akiva.”
The dream of the labor movement was to change the “inverted pyramid,” in which every “Jewish mother” aspires for her son to be a member of the upper class – a doctor, engineer, lawyer, and the like – and they wanted to turn the people of Israel into a normal people, with intellectuals, but also farmers, production workers, and construction laborers. The leaders of the labor movement believed and expected that Eastern Jews, who had a tradition of generations of lives of manual labor, would lead in this direction. And to a great extent they succeeded in this: many immigrants from Europe and the East settled in kibbutzim and moshavim and became successful farmers.
If there is room for a claim against the leadership, it is in the opposite direction. The attempt to turn Eastern Jews into “moderns” in their culture was so rapid and aggressive, with much contempt on the part of some of the absorbers and instructors toward the “primitive” traditional culture, which brought the youth to feelings of inferiority toward the heritage of their forefathers, along with an aspiration to resemble the proud native-born sabra, “beautiful of forelock and appearance,” and not infrequently the young people fell “between the chairs.” They lost both pride in their heritage and the advantages of modernity.
The moral lesson to be learned from those failures is that one does not build a new world on the ruins of the old world, but rather adds to and renews upon the healthy foundations of a traditional world.
With blessings, S. Z. Levinger
As for the “selection,” it also existed with regard to immigrants from Europe, where in view of absorption difficulties and the shortage of jobs they preferred to bring young and healthy immigrants fit for work. Only in immigrations perceived as “rescue immigrations,” such as Holocaust survivors in the displaced persons camps or in the Iron Curtain countries, or the Jews of Yemen and Iraq, whom it was necessary “to bring up as a wall” because of their mass exodus. And even on this there were disputes among policy-makers from right and left. See my comments on Ariel Horovitz's interview with Dr. Avi Picard, “Remaining in the Periphery by Choice,” on the “Shabbat Supplement – Makor Rishon” website.
Hello to the honorable rabbi,
First of all I thank the rabbi for his sharp and enlightening perspectives.
Regarding victimhood/discrimination – it seems to me that there are several examples of layers in the public and additional groups that were discriminated against,
because of their origin, ability, faith, and education.
But the result was the exact opposite:
The repression caused them cohesion and esprit de corps; a threat became for them an opportunity. There was no mass dropping-out among them (that is, becoming Ashkenazi), nor departure on account of belonging or being associated with an inferior public, but rather in the sense of “But the more they afflicted them… so they multiplied.”
As a parable:
The settler public: whom the media, the cultural elite, and the beautiful-soul community of all generations never stop verbally and physically trampling – in their path and in their intentions – from ordinary citizens to prime ministers (Immanuel, Ariel, Shlomiel.. )
who clearly express, over every fresh microphone, and come out forcefully to trample their flag.
And likewise the other publics: the religious / Haredi, and more.
The discrimination against these publics (justified or not) is clearer than clear, and it does not occur under camouflage like that Mizrahi discrimination, in which the safeties are already released toward the discriminator, lying in wait to catch him in his speech.
Long live the difference between building revival and establishment on a substantive basis, and on the foundations of deprivation (invisible and suchlike).
Additional publics were and are discriminated against, yet there is still flourishing and advancement on the part of the public, and it is saturated with the ideology of a victor and not of a victim.
The choice will always remain whether to become a victim or to leverage oneself upward.
Working hard in industrial plants, in agriculture and forestry, and in paving roads – is that “Mizrahi passivity”? What are you talking about? These people left behind home and property in the Arab countries; no one gave them “reparations and compensation,” and no one gave them “protekzia,” and through hard work they supported their families, frugally but with dignity – what “passivity” are you talking about?
With blessings, S. Z. Levinger
Is there a way to follow the blog on WordPress?
You can follow by email
Hello Rabbi,
I am no expert, but at face value your explanation of the phenomenon sounds convincing. I would be glad if you could please elaborate on the argument regarding poor neighborhoods in the cities. What was bad about it (let us ignore for a moment the security background) if instead of establishing a poor town in the South, which would presumably need assistance from the welfare offices, they had established a poor neighborhood in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem that would need assistance from the welfare office?
It is proper to note that there were also a few transit camps in Jerusalem..
The problem was not the location of one specific neighborhood here or there, but the idea of population dispersal. One poor neighborhood in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv is not a problem (as you noted, there were such things). What would have been a problem is if all the residents of Israel had lived in the three big cities. Who would have populated the rest of the territory? What would have happened to it? How would they have reached decent housing if, in terms of their ability, they could only live in a tent in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? The way to give them houses was to do so in Yeruham and not in Tel Aviv.
Hello Rabbi Michi,
When reading the first lines of your post, my stomach turned a bit. How can a sharp and intelligent person like you fail to grasp that the creators of the film (whom I shared my materials with for many years, and I was also interviewed for the film, but in the end, at the premiere screening, I came away stunned by the final result – this was not the child I had prayed for) are in fact manipulating the viewers? The protocols are not classified. That is an invention of the creators for the sake of dramatization, and junior workers in the Zionist Archive, who do not realize they are being manipulated, cooperate with it. Archives are classified by law for 30 years, and the protocols of the Agency Executive from the 1950s have been accessible to everyone for more than twenty years. It is a complete bluff. A manipulation by the creators. They are fooling innocent people (the viewers, who have no idea they are being lied to) because they can, in order to achieve their aim (“these secret materials are exposed for the first time by the creators”). Exactly like the manipulations that the Agency people used on the immigrants from North Africa. The results are admittedly less significant, but the nature of the workshop is the same. Whoever can manipulate an innocent audience – does so. Whoever was familiar with the existing academic research (mine and others') understood that the “new discoveries” are not new, and almost all the texts brought in the film are familiar to anyone who bothered to take an interest and read studies on the subject.
The second point that turned my stomach in your opening lines was what you wrote about Prof. Elisha Efrat. “He stood at the center of the program,” “he had a central role.” In 1955 Efrat, aged 26, who had only just completed a bachelor's degree in geography, was not a particularly senior employee in the planning department. I assume that just as the filmmakers edited me, they also edited him. So when he told them – I am not only a researcher of the phenomenon but in my youth I was together with the people who shaped it – they turned him into the central shaper. When they presented him with quotations about the condescending attitude toward North African Jews, he, in his honesty, said that indeed that was the attitude. And when they asked him whether it would have been proper to act differently, then in his honesty, exactly like you, he says no. But in the way the directors were given a free hand to edit and cut, they presented him as a wicked villain.
At the end of the premiere screening at the Tel Aviv Cinematheque, one of the creators, the journalist Ruth Yovel, said how deeply impressed they were by Efrat, by his integrity, and so on. To the viewers of the film this does not come through. To them Efrat is presented as a villain.
So much for the praise of the film. As for your criticism, in another response below.
Avi, thank you. Indeed I did not know all this (to my shame I am not immersed in the historical material, and I am nourished by what was presented in the film). From your words it emerges that on the substantive issue you actually agree with the main points of what I wrote (that the attitude toward the immigrants was problematic, but they really could not have done otherwise. Of course I mean only on the large scales. Local mistakes and wicked acts certainly existed). For indeed from the film (as far as I remember) a different picture emerges.
I would be glad to hear what you say about the rest of my remarks here. All the best.
Hello Rabbi Michi,
1. Regarding the difference, in broad brushstrokes, between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim – to both of whom I belong and whose differences I know quite closely (though on both sides I belong to inferior subgroups in terms of elbowing one's way ahead… Moroccan and Yekke) –
I would note that not only the difference in education, resourcefulness, and entrepreneurship played a part in the gap and the fate of the immigrants from the two camps,
but also sophistication, bordering on deception and fraud.. contributed to what happened in this painful matter..
Quite a few pens have already been spilled over the reasons that caused Eastern European Jews to be moneylenders at interest (sometimes usurious..) and so on.
In any case, apparently during the years of the establishment of the state, and before and after it as well, such maneuvering also advanced them and their cronies quite nicely at the expense of others..
By the way, personal information (full disclosure.. from conversations at the Shabbat table and such): from time to time you yourself raise this issue of discrimination to the top of the agenda, but regarding the sidelining of members of the underground movements and the right-wing parties, etc., in the merry Mapai years..
2. Precisely I, who was frustrated by the crying and whining of us Moroccan descendants, could not ignore and be impressed in the film by the nobility with which most of the elderly accepted what happened.. and of course to see that at the time, the mother of David Deri, the creator of the film, did everything she could to change her family's fate, but it did not succeed..
3. What rationale is there in sending the weaker people to the desert and leaving the stronger ones in the big cities? The reasoning of population dispersal is not sufficient, and proper leadership should have decided on a more thoughtful dispersal.. a more mixed one.. and of course it blew up in all our faces..
4. Thank you for raising the subject for discussion..
To the Rebbetzin, may she live long.
Only today my mother told me about my aunt (my father's sister), who was sent straight to Kiryat Shmona. The next morning she was no longer there. In general, I have no quarrel with anything you wrote (just this once).
About the failures of the government with the immigration of four hundred thousand Jews from Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria, hundreds of books and volumes will yet be written. And I, who came up with my parents –
was seized with terror while still a child of three years,
from the ghetto in Rabat to the transit camp in the desolate sands. They shackled my hands in irons and piled barriers upon me.
From the silver waves of the Mediterranean Sea to a desert of tents
and frightened children.
The Zionist enterprise sets out between the tents and the tin shacks, and from there the page is too short to tell still more and more..
Who by vehicle and who on foot and who shall march in a file,
who to the great metropolis with a Histadrut card in his pocket,
and who to Kiryat Shmona and Dimona with a rooster and a hoe.
Here are things I wrote about the series and published on my Facebook.
Travel warning.
Tonight the series “Salah, Here Is the Land of Israel” begins on Channel 13. The film bearing that name is in fact a summary that the creators extracted from the material of the first two episodes. I have not seen the series, and what I say is based on what I saw in the film and in the promos for the series.
If a TL;DR is needed: a super-important subject. Excellent cinematic work. As far as historical truth is concerned –
it is the truth, but not only the truth and not the whole truth.
Here are the details – without TL;DRs.
Already several years ago, when the Second Authority issued a tender for a series on the development towns, researchers on the development towns were approached by several production companies bidding on the tender. Me too. In the end, David Deri's company won – a former resident of Yeruham and brother of my friend Yossi. The academic accompaniment of the series was by my friend Prof. Erez Tzfadia.
David Deri and the other creators, Doron Glazer and Ruth Yovel, approached me and asked that we talk. Over the last several years I invested in them long hours of conversation and consultation, at my home, in my office, with the creators and the researchers, emails in which I passed on materials I have and films in my possession, and also quite a few photographs in the Zionist Archive (these entered the film; I have no idea what will enter the series). Also, Deri's idea of photographing the original protocols in which the statements were made occurred to him when he came to see with me how historians work in archives.
I must note that someone did warn me that journalists and filmmakers sometimes behave instrumentally toward their interviewees. What fits the interviewer's thesis goes in, and what does not fit – goes out. I believed the creators would present a faithful picture. I was probably a bit naïve.
What is true? The point that Jews from North Africa were directed to the periphery, at a much higher rate than any other group, is correct and has been known in the research for many years, including in my studies. The degree of manipulation used on the immigrants in such cases is also no secret. Also the fact that when the Gomułka immigration from Poland began at the end of 1956, there was a change in policy – has already been published in the past, and even during the events themselves (and also by me in at least two articles). The creators are bringing to prime time what until now was known only to people who bothered to study and read. They also do this with much greater drama (in research there is no pathos-laden reading, no music, close-up shots, and so on).
Not only truth – archival secrecy. I do not know what sources will be shown in the series, but I do know that the sources shown in the film, as well as the sources shown in the promos, are from archival sources that have been open to anyone who wanted to research them for more than twenty years. Nothing was hidden from the public eye, certainly not in order to prevent access to the knowledge found there. The wandering around in the Zionist Archive among the files (something researchers never get to do, and the filmmakers were granted this privilege without the Zionist Archive staff understanding their cynical purpose) as if they were classified, is a lie the filmmakers consciously made in order to create the dramatization of a “first-time discovery.”
It may be that the series contains materials that were not exposed, but at least from what emerged in the promos – that is not the case. There are several academics who back the creators' claim that these are newly exposed materials, but these are people whose main occupation is not historical materials (a geographer, a political scientist), and therefore their source for this information is based on what the creators of the series told them, not on familiarity with the reality and with moving around in archives. I say this responsibly – the protocols of the Agency Executive from the 1950s were opened for inspection at least two decades ago.
One more thing that is partial truth. A significant portion of the historical texts brought in the film are presented while filming the original protocols, supposedly. Sometimes the original protocols were indeed photographed; I myself opened the correct page in the file several times (which is not classified at all), for example in Ben-Gurion's words: “This is unavoidable discrimination” [or: “This is discrimination that is a necessity”]. (This text also appears in my articles published many years before the tender was issued.) But sometimes the creators did not have the original protocol, so they “fabricated” it. That is, they took a text they had from an academic article, a biographical book, or another source, typed it using modern means with a typewriter font, and presented it to the viewers as an “original protocol.” The viewers cannot know that this is so, so here is a tip. A fabricated protocol is when the text appears on completely white paper (whereas when people typed on typewriters, they typed on thin paper so that there would be several copies, and that paper is somewhat yellow or grayish) and there are no spelling mistakes in it and all the letters are exactly at the same height (today, if we make a typo, we hit delete and erase and retype. On a typewriter you could not erase a printed letter, and therefore you see corrections in the text. The computer also displays all the letters at exactly the same height, unlike the situation in a typewriter). Thus, for example, here (http://reshet.tv/item/vod/sallah/articles/sallah_sneak1-601569/), there is a “protocol” in which Lova Eliav says: “I gave an order to the driver, the truck would lift, and they spilled onto the ground.” Lova Eliav indeed said these things, but this does not appear in any protocol. He said it in a television interview on the program Mabat Sheni in 1982. Since there is no protocol of this statement – they fabricate one. Sometimes mistakes occur in the fabrication, mistakes that can happen to anyone when the text is not before his eyes, such as distorting the names of the speakers or inserting names that did not exist. Thus in the film there appears a protocol in which a man named Yitzhak Königsberg speaks, described as head of the absorption department. There was no head of the absorption department by that name, and this text, like many other texts appearing in the film, was said by the head of the absorption department, Yehuda Berginski. [He had a reserved attitude toward the preference shown in absorption toward the Poles, and he expressed his disapproval again and again. In those statements one can find all the clearest texts of that preference.] These mistakes are not terrible. The problem is the attempt to present an original protocol without making it clear to the viewers that this is an illustrative shot. I assume the reason they did not do so is quite clear. No one (except me) knows that this is not the original protocol, and the caption “illustrative shot” would blunt the power of the “first discovery.”
Not only truth – reality is always complex. In every institutional body there are opinions this way and that way, arguments and differing positions regarding policy. The filmmakers want to present us with a clear thesis of discrimination and deprivation, and so they largely avoid presenting us with the different positions. Even the much-maligned Ben-Gurion sometimes expressed a critical attitude toward North African Jews, sometimes a very empathetic attitude. This complexity is a bit too great for the television format, and it also does not serve the thesis. Thus, for example, Lova Eliav did indeed say “I spilled them from the truck,” but “I stayed to sleep with them there in Moshav Osem” [or Otzem]. Likewise, the immigrants' love of the land, the empathy of the absorbers, and so forth barely appear in the film. Also, the fact that Yeruham, at least in the film, is presented as a land of exile from which everyone only wants to flee, as the director and his friend Yaron Zafrani did many years ago, is not entirely supported by reality. One could see this clearly at the screening of the film in Yeruham during Hanukkah last year. There is also a certain distortion in presenting the fact that the establishment tried to prevent, as much as possible, the immigrants from leaving the development towns, as against the fact that over the years tens of thousands did leave those towns.
Another problem – and this is also criticism of my academic colleagues interviewed in the series – is judging intentions by results. Anyone familiar with many systems knows very well that often a certain decision, intended to lead to one reality, ultimately leads to another reality. For example: if Kahlon intends, by a tax on a third apartment, to increase the supply of apartments on the market, but what results is an increase in rent, one cannot say that this was his goal from the outset. Likewise in dozens of other examples.
Over the years the development towns became North African enclaves (not Mizrahi ones, as some tend to present them). But from here to the unsupported determination that bringing North African Jews to the development towns was intended to keep them away from the center and from the eyes of the veterans – the distance is great. Looking at the texts of the period, the value-world of the absorbers, their intentions regarding the melting pot – it is clear that creating these enclaves was not the intention but a glitch in the plan, a victory of one arm of the state – which wanted to achieve the concrete goal of dispersing the population – over another arm that wanted to achieve the abstract goal of “ingathering/mixing the exiles” (later: the melting pot). And as happens in many cases in Israeli reality – the right hand and the left hand are not coordinated. As I tell my students: when analyzing the State of Israel and the choice before you is sophisticated conspiracy or bureaucratic chaos, it is far more likely that it was bureaucratic chaos than a conspiracy.
To sum up, the series is important, and it is good that the subject was brought to the forefront. I myself have been engaged in presenting the things brought there for many years. I have not a shadow of a doubt that there was discrimination and condescension, and I have written about this extensively in the past. At the same time, it could have been presented in a more precise and more complex way. Not long ago I read an article in the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon about the clothing industry, in which the writer relied on a documentary film and a television series. I fear that the day will come when researchers will rely on this series as an exclusive source for the complex reality, and that would be a shame.
I would like to address Avi Picard's words in his two comments and say, broadly speaking, that in my view his words in both posts do not deal with the main point but with the secondary matters, whereas in the film itself (and in the first two episodes of the series), his words are clear and piercing regarding the deception and discrimination, even if they contain no moral judgment concerning the motives for it.
For what difference does it make whether the film is presented as a sensational discovery when historians knew it beforehand?
And what difference does it make whether Elisha Efrat is presented, in his view, as a villain or as an honest man?
And what difference does it make whether original documents or photographs of them were shown in the film?
And what difference does it make if they erred in the name of the head of the absorption department?
In any case, I will address a few points specifically and try to defend the film's creator, David Deri..
By the way, Avi, David, and I are three diehard Yeruhamites, and of the three of us only Avi stayed to live in Yeruham, while I, like Rabbi Nahman.. all my life travel only to Yeruham.. (a bit exaggerated, but certainly not far from the spirit of the matter..)
1. A quotation from his first response: “Archives are classified by law for 30 years, and the protocols of the Agency Executive from the 1950s have been accessible to everyone for more than twenty years.”
Well then, the Archive Regulations (Inspection of Archival Material Deposited in the Archive), 5727-1966 (including amendments up to 1998 – D.A.)
include various classification periods according to the sensitivity of the materials and their implications for state security.. In any case, stenograms of meetings of the Government of Israel, in matters that are not security-related, are classified for 40 years, and material regarding a person's private affairs and personal documents is classified for 70 years..
The regulations were canceled in 2010 and new regulations were enacted, and under the new regulations as well, material regarding a person's private affairs is classified for 70 years.
I am inclined to believe David Deri that there are materials in the archive (which, as he showed in the film and in the series) they did not allow him to inspect because of classification.. even if these were archive clerks who received a sweeping instruction regarding materials that apparently contained several types of information from the point of view of the level of classification, or if it was simply convenient for them to impose an excessively sweeping prohibition.
2. Elisha Efrat was not presented in the film (and in the first two episodes of the series) as a wicked villain, nor did I get that impression of him. On the contrary, he was presented as a reliable man who, with a sharp scalpel, presented the complexity of the period and the complexity of the solution.
3. Regarding the filming of the protocols, and the claim that David Deri did not provide proper disclosure about them, it may be that he did in fact see photographs, since the inspection regulations permit the archivist to make a copy available to the inspector. Quoting Regulation 5(b): “In place of the original material, the archivist may make a copy of the material available for public inspection, in the archive or in any other place, if he sees a need for this, provided that the copy is legible.”
Besides which, in order to introduce the cinematic-dramatic dimension of emphasizing words while they are being read aloud, he necessarily had to do this on a photograph..
4. Regarding the claim that there is distortion in presenting the fact that the establishment tried to prevent the immigrants from leaving the development towns, and the proof being that tens of thousands left over the years.. Well, the point is that during the initial absorption period they tried to prevent their departure.. Clearly afterward there was no longer individual tracking of people, and they left on their own initiative…
5. I too was puzzled by some of Prof. Tzfadia's analyses regarding the motives of the establishment people, for example, that they preferred not to see the primitive immigrants near them.. My puzzlement stemmed from the fact that he did not base his hypotheses on facts or documents..
6. Avi claims that the film presents the episode with drama and fanfare of a sensational discovery, whereas historians like Avi knew these things much earlier and even wrote about them quite a bit..
To that I say that the film, though it belongs to the documentary genre, is obviously still less precise and scientific than the research of serious historians, even if it relies on them. It also makes emotional manipulations, etc. (people do not study for several years at Sam Spiegel for nothing..) but its resonance is great and it reaches even those who do not read Haaretz, and it still arouses thought and debate, and certainly does not categorically determine that there were wicked villains here as opposed to righteous people.
Everyone understands that the decisions were dependent on period, resources, and the human factor. Both that of the decision-makers and that of the immigrants played a significant role in the events..
But still, it is clear that the establishment went for the easier solution from its point of view in several respects:
A. These are not its own people.
B. They can be deceived.
C. They have no means, so they should be grateful.
To conclude, I will admit that as a Moroccan woman (admittedly only half-Moroccan, but the one-drop principle determines that if one drop of inferior-race blood flows in your veins, you belong to the inferior race… not for nothing is Obama considered black..) I feel like thinking that they screwed us over..
But the truth is that from the height of my age, I already know that, as always, there is no black and white and there are no bad and good people.. matters are much more complex..
Dafna – I know these files and the protocols quoted in the film. They are not classified and were not classified when David filmed them. He directed the staff of the Zionist Archive, just as he directed me (yes, he asked me to say something. I said it. He said no – that isn't sharp enough, phrase it more sharply, like I read in such-and-such article. I said it again. Again it wasn't sharp enough; the third time he said okay, fine. Out of all that he inserted only the final half-sentence of what I said – because that is what fit his prior assumption. The full statement contained complexity – so he cut it). I assume you have never worked in the Zionist Archive, right? Because what Deri did was exploit the archive's hospitality in the floors that usually only archive workers enter. Researchers stay on the ground floor, in a reading room, and request files according to lists, and the workers bring them from the stacks. Deri asked to film in the stacks, went to where it says “classified” on the files, and staged an entire show there with Yitzik, the archive worker. That is what you saw in the film. These are not S100 files from the 1950s. There all these files are open, and I say this responsibly. Beyond that, even the files on which Deri filmed the “classified” sticker, files some of which are from the 1980s and some of which are duplicate copies from the 1960s, are open files from which they simply forgot to remove the sticker due to neglect. I checked this myself. Deri films file S110/159 as classified. I ran an experiment – I simply ordered the file for inspection. I got it without any problem.
The lie about the secrecy of the archives is something even Deri's team agrees about, that it is a manipulation. They argued with him about it, but in the end he decided to go with this lie. It may not contradict the main point of the film, but it shows one thing clearly – reliability is not the film's strong suit. What you quote from the archive regulations is familiar to me and is a cornerstone of my work. The protocols of the Agency Executive do not include security material or material concerning privacy and therefore are not classified at all. Deri showed a lie in the film, and I say this responsibly. There is no classification on protocols of the Agency Executive from the 1950s, and there is no archive clerk who received a sweeping instruction to hide things from Deri. It is all staged theater. Deri also did not conduct independent research and did not search the archives himself for the sources. That is years of work Deri did not do. He, and especially the researchers Ranan and Talia, went to the places that academic articles pointed to in their footnotes. Therefore there was no material from what appears in the film that he was prevented from photographing.
Regarding point 3 – he did not see photographs of the material but the original material. Because this material is open in its original form, I know – I saw it and quoted from it. He was simply under time pressure to get the film out and did not go to photograph some of the protocols, and in part because there are no such protocols, for example things Lova Eliav says in an interview on Mabat Sheni. In any case this has nothing to do with the archive regulations. Interesting speculation, but unfounded. I was with him during filming, and believe me he did not treat the pages with any mercy in order to get a good shot. He did things (such as taking the delicate pages out of the folder into which they had been placed 65 years earlier) that researchers would never think of doing.
Point 2 – my impression from Facebook responses by people who saw the film was that they assumed Elisha Efrat was one of the bad guys. I am glad you were able to see beyond that.
Point 4 – one can read the newspapers of the period on the Historical Jewish Press website and see how many people left Yeruham in those years. Already in the initial absorption period. They had barely arrived and already left. And this is true of the development towns and the moshavim. Of course there were many for whom it was harder to leave, and the very fact that this was their first station in the country reduced the amount of departure, but it was not the sanctions but the lack of financial means and familiarity with the country. That is what I tried to say in the series.
The other points – it seems we agree. That is more or less what I said. The series is important, it brings these things to the knowledge of a broad public, but in my opinion, beyond the fact that it broadcasts Yeruham-style misery, it also presents good guys and bad guys in a sharp and clear way.
Sometimes it seems that people find it convenient to cling to the idea that, well, what can you do, after all it was the 1950s. Dr. Picard, you surely know the studies of Zvi Zameret and others showing that they continued and deepened the discrimination and the gaps. (I invite everyone to read the protocols and judge for themselves.) So what shall we say about that? The education system was supposed to be the way par excellence to reduce gaps; instead, it entrenched them. By the way, in Religious Zionism too, rabbis did not keep their hands out of the pot; they did not see this as racism but as preserving quality.
“Naturally they were fed by stereotypes and acted accordingly. One may criticize those stereotypes, but it is not right to criticize those who acted according to them. He did the best he could according to what he truly thought. Even if they were mistaken, one must not judge them with anachronistic judgment.”
Hitler too did the best he could according to what he truly thought. Even if he was mistaken, one must not judge him with anachronistic judgment.
Indeed true. And Godwin too.
I believe I already wrote here once about my appreciation for suicide terrorists and about a complex assessment of people in general, and about judgment by results (teleological) or by intentions (deontological).
What does one do with such anachronism? In light of the state's wrong toward those settled in the development towns, it should compensate them financially (just as it releases funds to the Palestinians, for example) for the fact that, for example, they were placed in public housing and not in veteran neighborhoods in Ramat Aviv. Beyond all the complexity, partial justice could be done here by transferring money to the “passive” and to their descendants. If they decide to spend it on consumer goods or food, that is already their problem. But the leaders of the state have a moral debt toward them.
It has already been written here, and I tend to agree, that this obligates society/the state to compensate them now (though not certainly, because the state also did many good things for them). Regarding the question whether to compensate in any case even if the money will be wasted or not, I am doubtful.
It's nice that you have the courage to write this way in the age of correctness discourse.