RESPONSE TO PHIL

By Reuben Moses

Phil’s original comments are provided below this response

Phil,

You raise some valid issues, and answer them yourself.

You are certainly right about the number of issues that need urgent attention - all issues raised by people with valid claims. But your list is clearly only a partial one. You can add to this the doctors who, despite a hunger strike of 123 days in 2000, are still awaiting the results of the committee of enquiry set up then. Of course, by the time the findings are published, they will be obsolete, hence inapplicable. Holocaust survivors are another case in point. Promises to them were made, but not kept. To this, add the postponement of the raising of the minimum wage, the promises made to increase the "medicine basket", the sending out of soldiers ill-equipped for war (and now, training), the statement by the PM about why bomb-shelters are an unnecessary soporofic for the masses, two rallies in the last six months of over 100,000 people who were totally ignored ....(do I need continue?). Incidentally, while writing this response, it was announced on the radio that a group of eight disaffected sections of society are organizing "legaresh et ha-hoshech". (I missed the name of the group)

By contrast, read Forbes and Globes magazines. In the last two years, the number of millionaires in Israel has increased by 12%. The list of the 20 richest people in the Middle East (including the oil-rich countries, of course) includes SIX Israelis. 19 families control the pay packets of 60% of the population.

Now put those two elements together and this will explain my use of emotive language. (It could also be argued that recent reports on the drop in motivation to serve in the army are quieter expression of disquiet).

You are also certainly right about other countries having their own list of issues to deal with. To some extent they, too, have their tinder box conflagrations, as we see at present in France, and have seen not so long ago in the US with the Rodney King riots, and in Britain with the immigrant riots in the north. What sets us apart from these countries is density of population. I am aware that the US also has its financial barons (pardon the use of emotive language here, but it is so reminiscent of the control of our own finance minister of the same name), but the US France, and Britain can absorb these conflagrations in a way that we cannot both because of their size and relative invulnerability economically. If there is a conflagration in one quarter of Paris, the rest of the country can continue with its business undisturbed. But if there is a conflagration in any district in Israel, its sheer physical proximity to the centers of wealth as well as to other deprived sections of society means only one thing: it simply spreads faster.

The next point to which you invite me to relate is the issue of the rule of law. I mentioned in another interaction on the list, that this is not a matter of "breaking the law". It is a matter of drawing attention to the unjust and morally unjustifiable use of law to violate a basic human right - the right to protest. It is also an action for which the teachers are prepared to pay the fine, as we have demonstrated in terms of lost pay during the past fifty days. It is nowhere near the same as setting tyres on fire at traffic junction. There, the lives of others are being put at risk, and there is no evidence of their being prepared to pay the cost. They used mainly minors who were not legally culpable, and those that were "caught"were officially pardoned for their action. Nor,unlike the teachers, did they give due notice to the authorities of their actions so that the authorities could be prepared to cope with them. So their action does notmeet the criteriaof civil disobedience, and poses a greater threat to what you call "the rule of law".

I would like to take this discussion a couple of steps further.

The first of these relates to last night's broadcast of "Why Democracy?" dealing with India. It is worth checking them out on the net as they now have an interesting website. It would appear that there is a deep conflict between Gandhian protest and vision and increasing globalization, from which we too are suffering. Gandhi presents us with a slightly different understanding of democracy, an understanding which cannot be dismissed lightly. He rejects the notion of the good of the majority andadvocates insteadthe good of all. He argues that the majority imposes a different form of colonialism on the have-nots of society and thus the rights of the latter are infringed.

The second point I wish to raise takes me back to my "tinder box" claim. It was claimed by the capitalist school of thought that greater economic prosperity in the country would lead to improved prosperity for all. The developments of the last decade, as evidenced by the reports on poverty associated with the recently published education results reports suggest clearly that the economic gap inIsraelis widening. Improved propsperity for the country is not leading to the good of all. On the contrary, it could be argued that it is at the expense of all. I am not suggesting a socialist agenda in presenting this argument. What I am saying, instead, is that unbridled capitalism is dangerous to society and will eventually lead to a conflagration.

I had mentioned Britain's problems with immigration earlier in this response. But it could be argued that there was much greater potential for conflagration in Britain than did actually occur. This is because Brtain's capitalism also includes a social agenda. Major firms there are aware of the importance of that agenda, and make major direct cotnributions to the social problems that beset the coutnry. Major firms actually release staff for several hours each working week to volunteer in local schools during the working day. (Intel in Israel does something similar, giving credit to staff who volunteer to help pupils in Tirat-HaCarmel). Other firms encourage the The Arts. The National Theater closes its doors on a regular basis, only to raise the curtain for people who would not normally have access to the theater. This is financed by a major company whose name for the moment I do not recall. There are countless examples of how commerce contributes to the social scene in Britain, in effect partially protecting itself from the threat of conflagration. They seem to be a bit more aware than we are that unbridled capitalism will ultimately be self-destructive. Unless we learn the same - and do so quickly we are, indeed, sitting on the tinder box.

----Original Message ----

From: Phil Simon
Subject: Civil disobedience
In response to Ruben's article, I think that first of all it is necessary to separate rhetoric and emotive language from a serious discussion of the issue. Statements such as "the country is sitting on a tinder box about to go up in flames at any moment" are unwarranted and certainly not "a fact", but are, rather, reminiscent of the wishful thinking that we hear from our neighbors and Iran about Israel. Those who travel know that the state of this country is no worse than most others, each of which has its troubles and discontentment. Ruben's dire words of gloom and doom could apply just as well to France.
Regarding "civil disobedience", it is necessary to distinguish between actions such as demonstrations, chaining oneself to buildings, etc. and plain breaking of a court order. The former is carried out against a government that is thought of as going against the wishes of a majority or a sizable minority or where the government's actions are perceived of as being fundamentally immoral. (The term "civil disobedience" was first coined at the time of the demonstrations against slavery). Civil disobedience is
very nice when it is carried out by "our side" but not so pleasant in other circumstances, e.g. by Haredim blocking off main roads on Shabbat, or Arabs doing the same for their own perceived rights, or animal rights people bocking entrance to hospitals. The list of people who consider "civil disobedience" as just to their cause is endless.
Breaking specific court orders is different. Here the opposition is not to the government itself, but to the rule of law. There has been talk among teachers about not obeying back-to-work orders; that is breaking the law. From there the path is short to a breakdown of law altogether. Now obviously we teachers believe that our cause is just. But so do other groups. All it needs is for one group to defy a court order, for every other group or individuals to do the same in the future. Nurses, social workers,
pensioners, electricity workers, religious, Arabs, environmentalists - all have causes that are just.
It is very serious that, as Ruben says, "The pupils are supporting the teachers in this and even writing letters to the Prime Minister, supporting the threatened violation of the law." Is this what we want - for us to show pupils that it is a good thing (or even mention the possibility) to break the law?
We need to be very careful with what we do. We have a responsibility as teachers not just to ourselves but to the students who are watching us. We are the last group who should be even talking about breaking the law.
When it comes to demonstrations, they are a part of forces within democracy.
But when it comes to the courts of law, they are a bulwark of democracy.
Without those, the whole edifice of democracy collapses.
Phil