A DAY AT THE BEACH
The first time I ever visited Israel, friends gave me change to give to people in the street for 'tzedakah,' or charity. This was supposed to be a good deed-to give something to people in need in the 'holy land.' Through the years, I have come to realize that tzedakah is not an answer-instead of charity, people need 'tzedek,' or justice, not just in Israel of course, but around the world.
When people outside of Israel think about this country, they think usually of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but there is another conflict internally inside Israel, regarding what kind of country it will be and how it treats workers, especially those from foreign lands.
During the Intifada, Israel allowed over 150,000 immigrant workers into its borders, from West Africa, Thailand, China and elsewhere, to do the jobs that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank once did. In recent years, Israel has changed its strategy and its policies and many of these workers have been sent back home or elsewhere. But there are still foreign workers here in Israel, and there is a special group of them-young men from Eritrea--many of whom don't have legal work permits.
These young men came here via the Sudan and Egypt. Egypt didn't want them and essentially dumped them in Israel. Now, Israel is tightening the rules about foreign workers in nasty and inhumane ways, taking workers off the street when they are walking or taking parents from their children.
Today, I was at a beach cafe when two policemen came to the cafe and I watched a worker whose job it was to take change from people before they went to use the showers look fearful as soon as he saw the police. At first, he quietly stepped away and lit a cigarette but when the policemen still didn't leave, he nervously went and hid inside a utility closet. After the policemen left, I went to find one of the young Israeli waiters to tell him that the restaurant's worker was scared and hiding in the closet and that they should let him know that the coast was clear.
I went over to meet and talk to the worker-a man named Benhame, 30 years old, with three children in Eritrea. He said that he works for 12 hours a day at this job, and takes home $250 shekels a day, which is roughly $62 a day. For most of the money that he earns, he sends home to his family, which also includes four brothers, two sisters and his parents. he said that he can't return to Eritrea unless there is a new government, having run away from the army. He showed me his entry card for Israel, but he doesn't have a work permit, so he is vulnerable-as are his friends who work with him and with whom he lives-4/5 to a room.
I called a friend of mine in the Knesset to see if there was anything that could be done and they reminded me of a wonderful organization and tireless advocate, Sigal Rosen, who runs the Hotline for Migrant Workers in Israel. Later in the day, I returned to find him to give him the Hotline number and to give him some money, so that maybe he can find some tzedek in Israel and in his life.




















Beautiful blog, both the writing and the sensibility. Many thanks.
July 30, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your act of human kindness.
Would that your sensibility were more prevalent here.
I just checked on Google to see what hot lines are available here for illegal immigrants. I was sad to see that the few that exist are outnumbered, by about three to one, by hotlines that may be contacted to REPORT illegal immigrants.
Sigh. Apparently, the Statue of Liberty's injunction to "Give me your tired and poor, your wretched masses yearning to be free" can no longer compete with Lou Dobbs and his base.
July 30, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where I saw this--maybe right here on TPM, but with a little jiggling of the spaces Lou Dobbs becomes Loud Obbs. I think I'll refer to him that way if I'm forced to use his name. Maybe it will catch on--it certainly is appropriate.
July 30, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an historical book called Matthew, which was written long ago in the land of which you speak. A prophet, whom many call Jeshua ha Meschiach, is quoted therein, as he taught this principle of divine wisdom: "I was a stranger and you took me in...and whatever you've done for the least of these, my people, you have done it for me."
The makers/enforcers of Israeli immigration policy should take a look at that ancient text, which is an important document of their heritage. US immigration authorities should consult its pages as well. Even Lou Dobbs could improve his empathy quotient by reading Matthew, chapter 25.
July 30, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many, many passages in the Hebrew Bible that make the same point.
By framing your comment as Christian vs. Jew, you weaken your message and come across as borderline anti-Semitic, which I'm sure was not your intent.
July 30, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
By framing your comment as Christian vs. Jew, you weaken your message and come across as borderline anti-Semitic, which I'm sure was not your intent.
did it ever cross your mind that maybe the poster is more familiar with the new testament than he is with the hebrew bible?
you need to give your anti-semitic radar a tune up.
July 30, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. My conscience is progressively enlightened.
July 30, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key period was between 1967 and 1987 when the Israelis administered the territories after Arabs refused all negotiations with their famous three “nos.” The Arabs were adamant against trading “land for peace” following their defeat in the ’67 war, so Israel inherited the territories.
During this 20-year period under Israeli rule, some 250,000 Israelis settled in the Territories. These were the supposedly predatory settlers. They supplied the infrastructure of power, water, education, and medical care that attracted nearly ten Arab settlers for every one Israeli. During this period, the economy in the territories grew some 25 percent per year, nearly the fastest in the world, and far faster than that of Israel itself, which was still bogged down in socialism. Arab life expectancy rose from 40 to around 70. Their incomes tripled while their population soared. Seven universities and 2,500 factories were established. It was the golden age for Palestinian Arabs.
Then, in the early 1990s, the U.N. and the West sold out the country to Yasser Arafat and his terrorist forces. The Palestine Liberation Organization became the world’s leading per capita recipients of foreign aid as international organizations squandered billions on them and thus transformed the Palestinians from entrepreneurs and workers into terrorists, welfare queens, and political poseurs of victimization and violence.
Since 1991, venture capital in Israel has increased sixtyfold. Israel has become an extension of Silicon Valley that is excelling its source. It is a paragon of defense-technology innovation. In 2008, a study by Deloitte and Touche showed that Israel has become the world’s chief fount of innovation outside the U.S. in such fields as microchips, telecom, software, biotech, medical devices, and cleantech. Only Germany is close, and they are ten times larger.
Israel epitomizes the excellence and accomplishment of Jewish culture. It is hated by anti-Semites not because of any flaws or legal infractions but because of its unique virtues, which show up and shame the forces of mediocrity everywhere.
How does defending Israel defend capitalism?
Under Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is the world’s ascendant capitalist country. While the U.S. is immersed in a slough of increasing taxes and regulations, Israel has been privatizing its companies and deregulating its financial institutions. They are reducing tax rates and preserving the key capitalist assets of the West while the U.S. is trying to cap and trade capitalism, suppress energy production, and raise tax rates on everything. As rates rise above 50 percent, entrepreneurs have a greater incentive to shuffle and hide existing wealth than to create new wealth.
Western civilization, in part, originated in Israel. Now Israel is a crucial source of invention, military intelligence, and entrepreneurial creativity that may yet save the West. I believe Netanyahu is a Churchillian figure emerging at the perfect time to confront the jihad.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTI5ZjY2NTk3YWU2Yzk3NTk5ODliYmNjYjMxOTBjZDk=
July 30, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe Netanyahu is a Churchillian figure"
I don't but you are entitled to your belief. I doubt many American jews share it.
July 30, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Netanyahu saved Israeli economy several years ago.
July 30, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Churchhill presided over a rather dramatic fall in British economic power. Not that he was to blame - it was pretty much inevitable after the destruction Hitler wrought and our rather retarded (and I mean late, not wrongheaded) entry into the war.
July 30, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
These were the supposedly predatory settlers. They supplied the infrastructure of power, water...
Water?? Now where did they get that water? As a matter of fact it came from the deep water aquifers in the West Bank. It was owned (or the rights to it in 1967) by the Palestinian inhabitants. Those water rights were then taken over by the occupying authority. This is not "supplying" a natural resource but rather stealing one. The Israelis have never supplied water to the land that was formerly known as Palestine but rather they seized that resource from its previous occupants.
Anna A try to think logically. Water is not some invention of modern technology, it is a natural resource to be used sensibly or exploited irresponsibly by those who live on the land.
July 31, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: comment by AnnaA:
If this statement is verifiable: "They (the Israeli settlers of '67-'87) supplied the infrastructure of power, water, education, and medical care that attracted nearly ten Arab settlers for every one Israeli. During this period, the economy in the territories grew some 25 percent per year, nearly the fastest in the world..."
And if this is also true: "Israel has been privatizing its companies and deregulating its financial institutions. They are reducing tax rates and preserving the key capitalist assets of the West..."
Then this presentation from AnnaA is one of the most amazing collection of facts I've ever seen, and perhaps Bibi is a character of Churchillian proportions, worthy of the world's, and the President's, re-appraisal.
Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them..." Isaiah 10:20
July 30, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for you
http://m-central.org/factsheets/40YrIsraeliAdministration.htm
nfant Mortality and Life Expectancy in Palestinian Society, 1967-68 vs. 2000
1967-68
2000
Infant Mortality per 1000 Live Births
60
15
Life
Expectancy, Years
42
72
Utility Supply, Percentage of Palestinian Population, 1967 vs. 1986
1967
1986
Electricity
20.5%
92.5%
Running Water
16.0%
85.0%
Gross National Product of Palestinian Society, 1968 vs. 1999
Year
1968
(West Bank)
1999 (All PA Territory)
GNP Per Capita
$165
$1,800
Comparative Characteristics and Demographics:
July 30, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Life expectancy in Jordan is even higher--
link
Life expectancy in China under Mao nearly doubled, from the mid 30's to the high 60's or low 70's. (I'm too lazy to find a link).
In general, there've been huge jumps in life expectancy in a lot of countries, sometimes countries under appallingly brutal governments.
July 31, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Life expectancies for various countries, according to the CIA. I'd take all these numbers with a grain of salt, not being a trained demographer and not knowing how these numbers were obtained, but I doubt there was anything extraordinary about what happened to life expectancy under Israeli occupation vs. what happened under a fair number of Arab dictatorships.
link
July 31, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The latest news on the moves to deport immigrant children is that the final decision has been put off for 3 months. Shimon Peres is actively lobbying against it, citing hearing these kids speaking fluent Hebrew on a recent visit to a TA schoolroom and quoting Leviticus.
I don't have any doubts that bibi and the more aware Israelis realize what a PR disaster this could turn into. If Israel does go ahead with this notion, I would advise that they do so while the world is distracted by another Israeli war of "self-defense".
Israel is practicising for another land invasion of Lebanon by implementing revised training methods for ground troops and integrating new weapons technologies into their tanks specific to situations they faced in the '06 Operation Just Reward.
Of course, the Lebanese (and UNIFIL) are on high alert because of recent IDF/IAF actions AND the threats of wanton destruction from Israeli idiots.
So far, the Obama administration is maintaining the traditional US position of deafness to Lebanese concerns, as per usual.
I've always seen another attack on Lebanon as concurrent with an attack on Iran, but of late, I'm wondering if the diplomatic/military build-up could be signaling preparations for a "pre-emptive" war; foolish as that might appear given the reaction to Gaza.
Staying tuned.....
July 30, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
God Bless you!
It is often said that charity (tzedakah) is morally optional whereas justice or
(tzedek), is morally obligatory. Your real-life example illustrates this point exactly.
July 30, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for everyone's comments. The actual number on illegal workers in Israel has been much higher through the years, but the numbers are never accurate of course.
Andrew Strat, where is that from-your quote about moral obligatin and tzedek? that is lovely-thanks,
jo-Ann
July 31, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jo-Ann
Can't say that it is an exact quote that I know of but the idea is generally attributed to the philosopher Immanuel Kant and other deontologists.
The term "supererogatory" as opposed to "obligatory" comes to mind.
Kant--somewhere describes-- the case of a person with a bad disposition forcing herself to do the right thing (the just thing) even though all her inclinations are towards doing the opposite. Such a woman is more praiseworthy than a person who is good by natured and does the right thing by inclination and does not feel compelled to do it against their will.
That is a little harsh and Kant has been criticized for the harshness of that judgment, but there is a grain of truth to it. If you do the right thing because you are inclined to do so by your very nature that's fine and we hope and pray that one day we are all so inclined, but often enough people feel the pull to not do the right thing for selfish reasons but are virtuous enough to bend their will towards overriding their inclinations and do their duty anyway. They are indeed to be admired.
I think I got off topic.
The Kant thing has to do with the principle of universalibility. When you are contemplating an action ask yourself "what if everyone would do that?" Would it be sustainable? For example what if everyone lied to get out of some kind of jam, what would happen? Well nobody would believe anyone and lying itself would not achieve its intended effect: to fool the other person. That makes telling the truth a "perfect duty". However suppose (as you say) a person is contemplating giving alms to the poor and asks himself the Kantian question "what if nobody gave alms to the poor?" Would it lead to an impossible situation? No not really, life would not be as pleasant but it would not lead to an impossible situation either. So Kant calls them "imperfect duties": namely it would be nice if you did them but they are not obligations. It is all part of Kantian Rationalist Ethics and I could write about it a lot more about but I won't.
Just ask yourself what if "might makes right" prevailed as a rule of conduct? Would it not lead to an impossible situation? Would not everyone use force whenever they had a chance to gain advantage for themselves? Would it not lead to chaos and a Hobbesean world of war of all against all? I think so; therefore "might makes right" is an unjust maxim and forbidden as a motivator of action.
August 1, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Andrew. Would that the world were simply comprised of Kantians! what a wonderful world that would be...
best,
Jo-Ann
August 3, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink