What Is Racism? (Column 10)

With God's help

The world is once again in turmoil. To everyone's delight, this week's designated racist has been found. It is Rami Sadan, who has been appointed chairman of Channel 10. He is credited with the following "racist" remark: "I hate the Shas party and Deri the thief". Fair enough. I too hate the Shas party, and especially Aryeh Deri the thief. Am I too a racist? Presumably so, since Rami Sadan was added on the Walla site (which, as everyone knows, is the certified site for racism studies) to the distinguished list of racists throughout the ages, alongside Yair Garbuz and others. I hope they do not read this column, otherwise I too will appear there.

The basic assumption implicit here is that anyone who hates a political party all of whose members are Sephardim[1] is a racist. According to this bizarre logic, anyone who hates the employees of the Afula municipality is an antisemite, since all its employees are Jews (or Arabs, who are also of the Semitic race). And anyone who hates all the children in Leah Kindergarten is anti-Haredi, since all the children there are Haredi. In fact, anyone who hates me is a racist, since I too belong to some race or other.[2]

Why is there really no racism here?

If one really has to explain things this simple, there are two main reasons: 1. the defense of "I spoke the truth". 2. Not every hatred is racism. I will now elaborate a bit more.

1. What Sadan said is the plain truth. The fact that Deri is a thief is backed by a court ruling in Israel (well, that too was racism). He took bribes for his own pocket and for his party, and bribery means using public power, resources, and authority to derive personal benefit. This is what, in ordinary jargon, is called "theft", even if that description is not entirely precise in legal terms. And what about his party? Well, the Shas party is indeed a loathsome and corrupt movement, led by a rabble of self-styled "sages", whose statements (which classify everyone outside their camp as Amalekites, antisemites, and the like) testify more eloquently than a thousand witnesses that they are a rabble in suits. Needless to say, the last constituency Shas cares about is its own voters (which does not prevent most of them from continuing to vote for it, for various reasons). Shas's main aim is the perpetuation and glorification of Sephardi feelings of discrimination, since without that Shas itself would have no future. If there is no discrimination, what will they do? It is roughly like asking what will become of Meretz once there is peace and we all become loyal communists. In fact, even their current "anti-racist" campaign against Rami Sadan is nothing but part of Shas's cynical campaign to perpetuate feelings of discrimination. Nothing more.

2. Even if I were not speaking the truth, still, if I hate someone for a substantive reason, even if it is not actually correct (and here, as noted, it is correct), that is not racism. If I hate the Shas party and Aryeh Deri for the reasons above, then even if, by chance or not by chance, all the objects of my hatred there are Sephardim, there is not the slightest trace of racism here. My hatred is based not on their race but on their conduct (see above, the example of the Afula municipality). Only if the hatred is based on ethnic reasons can it be regarded as racism. But that does not seem to be the case here.

And what about covert racism?

Someone may come and argue that if the hatred here is indeed based on incorrect reasons (which is not actually the case), then there is room to claim that this is an expression of hatred of Sephardim, and then one can speak of covert racism. But is that really the case here? Does the Shas party not give people good reasons to hate it? Even if the haters are mistaken, and even if in fact the Shas party is a model of enlightened, proper, and moral conduct, it is still hard to deny that many people do not see things that way. The conclusion that all those people's hatred is based on the ethnic origin of Shas's activists and voters is wild speculation without the slightest basis.

Who is the racist here?

To tell the truth, I ask myself why all Shas activists really are Sephardim. Why is there not a single Ashkenazi MK or rabbi to be found there? Would it not be more correct to conclude that the racism lies precisely in their own camp? In fact, they themselves leave their haters no choice. They force me, as their consummate hater, to be a hater of Sephardim, since they accept no Ashkenazi activist or rabbinic leader as a partner in their path. So how can I hate Shas for its conduct without being classified by the holders of the scientific chair mentioned above as a racist?

It is quite clear to me why they do not include any Ashkenazi. Beyond their own racism and their desire to provide jobs and positions of power for their own people, what is at work here is that same desire to perpetuate the sense of discrimination, to show how persecuted they are, and ultimately also to accuse anyone who opposes them of being a racist who objects to Mizrahi identity. After all, if there were Ashkenazim among them, they could not accuse Rami Sadan, who hates them, of racism. Are there no corrupt Ashkenazim? I, as an anti-racist, hereby declare before all the world that loathsome and corrupt Ashkenazim can also be found. But Shas apparently cannot find any. Otherwise, why not conduct its various exploits with their kind assistance?

What breeds the chorus of fools: and again, who is the racist here?

Thus representatives of Meretz, the prime minister, professors, and the rest of our finest enlightened politicians and journalists join this parade of folly and hypocrisy, and not even a single sane voice is heard anywhere. I cannot understand this phenomenon. After all, Meretz are Ashkenazim, and therefore I do not suspect them of lacking intelligence. So how do they too join this parade of folly? And why do all the journalists who hate Shas at least as much as Rami Sadan and I do also join this parade? Add to this the fact that Rami Sadan denies that the words were said at all, and I have now read that an overwhelming majority of the board members who were present there are joining him (see here). The band of fools that from time to time generates and manages what here is for some reason called "public discourse" (which is really slander against the term), kicks in like some Pavlovian instinct; and like any instinct, it operates without a drop of rational control and with complete disregard for the facts. Across the board, everyone joins the chorus condemning Sadan's vile "racism". The question is why all these people submit to the reign of terror of political correctness. Why is not even one sane voice heard anywhere? (Not claiming that the words were not said, but claiming that such words are not racist.) I can raise several hypotheses, and perhaps all of them are correct.

The first is the IQ of the people and institutions involved in this "discussion". Although this is not some especially subtle philosophical distinction, perhaps they simply are not capable of making it. The second, which seems more plausible to me, is these people's essential condescension toward Shas and Mizrahim, which leads them to defend them at any price. Third, the post-colonialist guilt feelings that drive the West to defend those who murder within it and undermine the foundations of its existence. The Israeli importers of these feelings, that is, the left, apply this to our own local Orientals. After all, they are "marginalized" (and of course never themselves to blame for their condition). We Ashkenazim screwed them over, discriminated against them, were racist, and so now it is forbidden to demand anything of them. They must be defended at any price. They are the underdog. And anyway, what can one demand of such marginalized and inferior Indians?

That same condescension leads people on the left to defend the Arabs at any price and to expect nothing from them. They can carry out massacres throughout the world, wail about expulsions and Nakbas when they themselves started a war aimed at throwing all of us into the sea and were defeated in it, do nothing whatsoever for themselves, abuse women and minorities (such as Christians), and murder their own people, while at the same time expecting others to solve their problems and bear the blame. They are of course unwilling to make any compromise or engage in any dialogue, but all this is legitimate. After all, they are "marginalized". Those burdened by these guilty consciences expect nothing of primitive natives. If that is not racism, I do not know what racism is. In the eyes of these condescending people, they are a lower order of creature from which one cannot really expect anything, and therefore all demands are directed at the Jews (in the Palestinian context) or the Ashkenazim (in the context of Shas).

Because of these feelings of guilt, Palestinians are allowed to murder and to cry the cry of the wronged Cossack, and by the same token Shas operatives are allowed to steal, appoint cronies everywhere, speak in a racist and contemptuous way toward others, exercise brutal force, and seize positions of power in more or less legitimate ways, while continuing to whine about racism and condescension like that same wronged Cossack. In fact, what Edward Said did to the West in his book Orientalism, Shas does to the Ashkenazim here in Israel. Exactly like him, they build and cultivate an ethos of ongoing victimization (some of which is also true), and cynically make sure that guilty consciences are built upon it; those will already do the work for them.

And perhaps there is a fourth reason, much more cynical. All in all, it probably does not hurt that the subject of the discussion, Rami Sadan, wears a kippah, and is moreover a resident of Gush Etzion, heaven forfend. So why not use the enlightened tool of a loud campaign against racism to prevent the entry of such a dubious and racist type into the strongholds of enlightenment? You may say: speculation? Indeed. But this puzzling phenomenon still cries out for some explanation. Sadan himself attributes the matter to his religious and ideological identity (see here). Do you have another explanation for this nonsense and for the general consensus that has formed around it?

The Garbuz case

Remember Yair Garbuz, so fondly remembered? As noted, the researchers at Walla's chair of racism studies grouped Sadan's remarks together with Yair Garbuz's statements before the elections. You can no doubt guess my opinion of what Garbuz said. But there is no need to guess, for I already wrote about it in some detail in the introduction to my book Emet Ve-lo Yatziv ("Truth and Not Stable") (and in a short article to which I referred there). There I also explained the postmodern roots of this bizarre approach. Here is part of what I wrote there:

Before the elections to the Twentieth Knesset (March 2015), the painter Yair Garbuz delivered a speech at a left-wing demonstration in Rabin Square, in which he attacked the "people who kiss amulets and prostrate themselves on graves" who are taking over Israel. He was immediately accused of racism, and afterward many attributed the right's victory in the elections to his words (which, of course, had been entirely predictable in advance and had not the slightest connection to what Garbuz said). There was not a politician or media figure in Israel who did not condemn and disavow his "grave" remarks. The furor that followed his words recalled a medieval witch-hunt, and they were very close to burning him at the stake in the town square. It is worth noting that the "marginalized" (that is, fundamentalist Mizrahim led by the Shas movement) joined forces with the "enlightened" (the postmodern left), and all of them together, in a well-orchestrated chorus, attacked him mercilessly and accused him of racism. So let us think for a moment about what he said. Garbuz merely described a factual situation (correct, in my view) and expressed a critical stance toward it (entirely correct, in my view). How can such remarks be tied to racism? It is important for me to note that I say all this as a religious person committed to Jewish law and faith, and politically inclined to the right. Is every criticism of another culture and worldview racism? He thinks that prostration on graves is folly and that kissing amulets is of no use whatsoever. Is it forbidden to think that? Is it forbidden to express concern about the power and influence of this culture in our society? And even if someone thinks he is wrong, does that mean the remarks are illegitimate? Do they necessarily express racism?

In a short article I wrote on the matter[3], I explained that where there is no right and wrong, all that remains is to look for dark and unconscious motives. In such a place, every criticism is by definition unjustified and does not belong to the rational plane. Racism. In our postmodern world, anyone who raises any criticism, or dares to claim that someone else is wrong or primitive, is simply a racist. And this is said without blinking by those who belong to fundamentalist movements in the style of Shas, whose leaders call others Amalekites, curse and excommunicate them, use amulets and sorcery, and sometimes violence as well, and appeal to the most primal emotions of the traditional voter. It is interesting to note that before these elections many people from the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow (intellectuals of Mizrahi origin, professional victims, most of whom describe themselves as detached from religious faith and as espousing liberal and universalist views, and as supporting radical equality toward the entire universe and its wife) joined in supporting the Shas movement, which is religious-fundamentalist, excludes women, and with all its might prevents any progress and improvement in the status of the population it purports to represent. This is another facet of the link between fundamentalism and postmodernism. The protest and condemnation directed at Garbuz's remarks are nothing but a sharp expression of liberal helplessness in the face of fundamentalism, as described above.

Even in Garbuz's case, although he is very far from my views on many issues, I do not find even the slightest trace of racism. As I wrote, I agree with almost every word he said.

Is there no room for criticism of Sadan?

There is room for political criticism of Rami Sadan's remarks. In his words to the board he expressed a political position, and this can raise concern about bias and political slant in the organization he will run. Although this is a rather dubious argument, it is at least a substantive and legitimate one. Why dubious? Because every media outlet is headed by some person, and as a rule he is not among Shas admirers (and rightly so), even if he does not say so openly (or perhaps he does say so, but no one goes looking for him because he does not live in Gush Etzion). In my view, almost all those who are shouting in this case fully share Rami Sadan's opinion of Shas, and it seems to me that many of them do not hide it either. You ask, why are they shouting? See several proposed explanations above.

So the argument is quite dubious, but at least it is legitimate and not absurd on its face (only absurd beneath the surface). But what has that to do with racism? Where does anyone see racism here? From Shas, as noted, I expect nothing (after all, they are both Sephardim and "marginalized"). But the wall-to-wall participation in this witch-hunt (whose factual basis is not at all clear, though even if it exists, as noted it has no conceptual or substantive basis) is utterly insane. Every now and then I actually pinch myself to make sure I am not dreaming this.

Summary

I have argued here that there are four main ways of understanding this fascinating anthropological phenomenon: either we are dealing with fools who do not understand what they are talking about. Or with a process nourished by Ashkenazi condescension (which defends the "marginalized" Indians at any price, even when they are entirely responsible for their situation and for the way they are treated) operating in coalition with typical Shas-style cynicism. Or with post-colonialist guilt feelings rooted in a postmodern loss of backbone, or perhaps simply with opportunism and political persecution of Rami Sadan. Dear reader, all that remains for you now is to decide which of these four options is more flattering to the merry chorus beneath the cypress. Or perhaps all the answers are correct?…

[1] I am careful to use the term "Sephardi" and not the customary "Mizrahi," although it is of course imprecise, since the move to the other term is part of that same detestable regime of political correctness against which I am arguing in this article.

[2] I would say that he hates the Hungarian community, except that unfortunately "community" applies only to Moroccans, Ethiopians, or Iraqis. As is well known, there is no such thing as a Hungarian (or Polish, or Ashkenazi at all) community. The community of paprika-eaters is shamefully discriminated against in Israeli discourse.

[3] Michael Abraham, "On the Anti-Racist Madness Spreading Among Us," Psifas 7, May 2015