The Checkpoints are More Crowded than Usual

… we, members of the people's council, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the united nations general assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the state of Israel. [from The Declaration Of The Establishment Of The State Of Israel (May 14, 1948)]

Yaakov,

neither you nor anybody else replied the concluding consideration and question at the end of my comment (the only comment) to your post "Reading Palestinian intentions":

I think some Palestinian politicians and intellectuals, before 1948 an even recently at the informal Geneva talks, have seriously spoken of a secular state, where Jews, Muslims, Christians, non-denominational or openly agnostic/atheist citizen can share in peace the same citizenship.
How much weight do these Palestinian politicians/intellectuals carry? Is a secular Israel just a Utopia?

How can you manage to reconcile within yourself the two lines herebelow:

To focus attention on one specific ethnic group is horrible, apartheid racism.

As I said, some call it racism. I call it prudence. … People who ignore reality around here put themselves and those around them in danger.

I can tell, from all your posts, that you, an Israeli, an intellectual and a true democrat, live this situation in great distress. But isn't it time to start wondering if the very "original sin" of Israel isn't in the "Jewish State"? Isn't it time to start asking if, security for any ethnic, linguistic and religious identity cannot be better guaranteed in a truly secular state?

Sorry, but in my view, racism cannot be renamed when you feel you have justification. Whatever reasons you may have for your beliefs and actions, you are still a racist. If you can't stand up under the word, then perhaps you lack the strength of your convictions. Every racist has a reason for his or her belief. When you start to rename racism to something else, it becomes easier to accept, and even seems right. Nothing in that section of the world now is anywhere close to "right", but renaming the parts that apply to you won't make them go away. Maybe if we called "racial profiling" racism, people would work harder towards finding a better solution.

Servetus, the only people talking about a secular state are non-Israelis and non-Palestinians. Though it sounds like an appealing idea to us, a secular state would a) end the concept of a "Jewish homeland" because Jews would very quickly become the minority in Israel, thus being unacceptable to Jews; and b) force Palestinians to give up their dream of their "own state," thus being unacceptable to Palestinians. I don't think it's an option.

Yaakov, I know that you are a very smart guy with good intentions. I won't take issue with the need for checkpoints into Israel. But are we missing the broader point here? But what about the big picture, which is the settlements themselves? Why do you choose to live where you live? Do you think the network of settlements in the West Bank is a good thing for Israel? For the Palestinians? I've often wanted to ask a "settler" exactly that, so there is my question and I look forward to your response.

@Yaakov re fastfinge comment

We had something similar in the UK when the police were stopping a lot more black youths in the streets than anyone else in certain areas and the black community accused them of racial harassment.

The police argument was one of perpetrator profiling based on past convictions, but still got a lot of stick for it.

At the end of the day you have to do what is required to detect the terrorists. It would be ludicrous to stop everyone, just so you can say you have been even-handed, and end up with 12 mile queues.

What would fastfinge prefer?

(1) Far longer queues for no extra protection, inconveniencing Israelis of all persuasions.
(2) No queues and civilians at risk?
(3) "Racism"

Those are your choices - pick one fastfinge

Yaakov, this is a very good article. I see no racism in these acts. What is wrong with a country protecting its people. I also agree with Mr. Wright, sometimes these things need to be done to protect innocent civilians. I just wish so many people where not so quick to assume something is racist.

To clarify, my objection wasn't to this particular instance of racism; my objection was, and is, to people playing with words to squirm out of giving something its true name. If you're going to do this, you should at least stand up and call it for what it is. Racism is evil, but the death of innocent people is even more evil. However, just because the second evil is worse doesn't mean you can call the first evil good. Sometimes the ends justify the means; but it is important never to forget the means.

We can also say it is in a way racist, for these suicide bombers to attack Israeli civilians.

Fastfinge, you insist on calling a "differential treatment of races for practical safety purposes" racism. It's not.

Maybe you define "differential treatment of races" as racism, regardless of how it comes about.

If so, it is a poor definition because it is an emotive term that implies criticism of the action, even if the action is entirely reasonable and justifiable.

The definition referred to by Yaakov is eminently better because it labels as racists those who differentiate between races purely on grounds of prejudice.

You are the one making a big thing about giving something the right name. Maybe you could give this some thought.

I understand perfectly well what you're saying: Arabs are not stopped because they're Arabs, Arabs are stopped because they're terrorists. The assumption that Arabs are terrorists based only on race, is racism, no matter how much data you have to back it up. This leads you to concentrate on stopping Arabs, instead of stopping terrorists. You've just introduced one layer of obfuscation so you can avoid calling it racism.

They are pulled over because 99.9% of the terrorist security threats aimed at killing and maiming Israelis originate from the Arab residents of Israel.

He never said "Arabs are terrorist based only on race. " Read the article again and think about it for a second. It is the right of Israel to protect its people and country, even if it means they must stop people of Arab decent. Why are some so quick to pull the racist card.

Dennis: "differential treatment of races" is exactly the definition I am using, and one that my dictionary agrees with ("Discriminatory or abusive behaviour towards members of another race"). The whole reason I am insisting on the use of the word racism is exactly because it "implies criticism of the action". The fact that it is reasonable, and the lesser of two evils, does not make the action okay so we can give it some magical new word. You seem to divide racism up into good racism and bad racism, and want another term for good racism.

Ballew74: "He never said "Arabs are terrorist based only on race.""
I never said that he did; if you read what I commented, nowhere do I say how he came to his conclusions; how he arrived at them does not change what they are.

No. There is only bad racism. The checkpoint behaviour is not bad because it's not racism and it should not therefore be criticised.

You seem to accept that it's justified but still want to call it racism and still want to criticise it. Why?

I give up.

To clarify: "based only on race" was meant to apply to the terrorists; what I meant is that other data other than race should be used to find terrorists. I did not mean that he is assuming all Arabs are terrorists, I meant that he is assuming all terrorists are Arabs. That's what I get for writing too quickly.

The fact that it is justified does not mean it is good. It is less evil.

Servetus:

If Israel stopped being a Jewish state, wouldn't the Arab majority take over and kick the Jews out? Secular zionists have always said that it is normal and natural for Arabs to defend their land against zionist colonialism. So it's quite impossible for Israel to be a secular state and the fact that there are Arab Israelis is already a pretty incredible balancing act.

Yaakov:

Very nice write-up, my compliments. You make it look like your checkpoints are merely defensive, and you do a very good job. You admit that you live on illegally occupied Arab land but nobody notices because we sympathize with your humane and reasonable attitude in the face of a constant threat of violence and death.

However anyone who knows anything about the West Bank can tell you checkpoints are used to oppress the Palestinian people. The soldiers manning them are brutal and sadistic. They use their unlimited powers to control the life and death of Palestinians with total arbitrariness, closing down roads and gates indefinitely without warning, making sick people languish in ambulances and taxis, keeping farmers from harvesting their crop, and forcing people to perform degrading acts or become informers.

So that's why you have to constantly worry if someone is going to blow up at a checkpoint.

However anyone who knows anything about the West Bank can tell you checkpoints are used to oppress the Palestinian people

Yaakov lives there. You I guess don't.

How come you are qualified to present glib generalistic comments like that as if they were an obvious statement of fact?

Racism? What "races" do Arabs and Jews belong to?

Man, I knew as soon as I read this article that it would turn into this. Let's remember the good thing about Newsvine, which is that people can talk and argue and maybe convince each other to change their minds, and let's try not to insult each other or let emotions run too high (in what is an admittedly highly emotional topic).

Regarding the racism question, I can throw in my two cents based on classes I have taken in law school that have to do with the treatment of African Americans in America. There is something that many commentators have written about called "rational discrimination." This, according to individuals like Dinesh D'Souza, is not racism because it is premised on statistical evidence (like the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs, most violent crime is committed by blacks) rather than race animus (Arabs are all murderers, blacks are all violent). The critics of "rational discrimination" argue that it is not, in fact, rational, because a more viable explanation takes in socio-economic factors (poor, uneducated blacks commit crime; poor, brutalized Arabs commit terrorism) and because people have selective memories (once they form a stereotype they throw out contradictory information while remembering reinforcing information).

In the context of African Americans in the US, I was ultimately persuaded by the critics of rational discrimination, because rational discrimination fails to take in the "external costs" of the discrimination, which can be so high as to make the discrimination irrational rather than rational. Thus, in the US, African Americans are so used to being taken advantage of by the police that they no longer trust the police or the government, and this detroys the basis of our social system and trust in the rule of law. In other words, it may not be racist, but it is nonetheless irrational to discriminate in this way.

Now, in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am not so sure that the calculus is as clear. I am inclined to accept Yaakov's assertion that the roadblocks and checkpoints are rational discrimination, not racism. But I would remind Yaakov, and all Israelis, that there are serious external costs that are not being addressed in this post. Is it rational or irrational to set up a system that pisses off the Palestinians to such an enormous degree that it may actually encourage even more terrorism and violence? It may be that in the final analysis the Israeli roadblacks are, like American race profiling, irrational rather than rational discrimination. Or it may not be. I'm just not sure.

In the end, it is the violin which win

Meir Shalev Yediot Aharonot, 26.11.2004

So, what did we have in the past weeks? We had an officer who "confirmed" the killing of a 13-year old girl [by shooting her point-blank in the head after she was already mortally wounded and helpless]. We had soldiers mutilating the dead body of an enemy and posing for photos with a cut-off head and a cigarette placed between the dead lips. We had soldier at a checkpoint demanding that a passing Palestinian play the violin for them.
(. . .)
I look at the photo of the Palestinian playing the violin to our soldiers. The face seems very familiar. It seems very familiar because this deliberately expressionless look on the face, this intentionally unfocused gaze, is very common at thousands of checkpoint encounters, and even at ID checks conducted by our fighters right here in the center of the city. But it is also familiar because we know this sight from the not too distant past, we know it very well from the other side of the violin, and the other side of the checkpoint, and the other side of the gun barrel.
(. . .)
For once, we were the people who played the violin. The Jewish violin played in weddings, and at concert halls, and before the thugs in the camps. We played and joked: the violin is our instrument because it is so small, so easy to carry when you need to run away...