Fear of the "other" in Sefad, ancient Egypt, Aboriginal Australia, politics and ethics

To be opposed to migration or people different to ourselves is generally seen as racist. What are the ethical limits of legitimate fear directed toward new arrivals?

Two Extremes

On one end of the spectrum is proven hostility. Australian Aboriginals had every right to fear white settlers once their behavior demonstrated their hostility to the existing people and their way of life. I am reading the accounts about Ernest Gribble, one figure who colluded with police to have Aboriginal children forcibly taken to his mission where they were forbidden to speak their own language, and actively sought to coerce them to lose their connection to their own way of life¹. At the other extreme is baseless fear that is talked up by cynical leaders who know that there is really nothing to fear except their own loss of power.

An inadequate formula

One way to approach our question is to approve of collective self-defence against legitimate threats and disapprove of measures that do not address a real threat. This is an inadequate formula, because there are degrees of “threat” that do not justify the suspension of principles of kindness, nor can it justify the hardship imposed on the “other”.

Exhibit A. Ancient Egypt

The Pharaoh stated that the Hebrews were a threat to the Ancient Egyptians. He declares, that “they are more numerous and stronger than we are...if there will be a war, the Hebrew will join with the enemy, make war on us and go up from the land²”. Thus is born the device of the Anti-Semite, “the international Jew”. The Hebrew, has no roots in our land, he arrived from elsewhere and will return there when it suits him. If there is a war, he may well side with our enemies, pillage and rob us and go to Canaan taking everything of ours with him. He will not fear retribution because he can simply skip the country³.

Facts

Was this fear based on fact? We have a range of factors and interpretations to consider.

a) When the Hebrew arrived Joseph had them settled in one small enclave, in the land of Goshen which might have been motivated by wanting to keep them apart from the Egyptians. They did not change their names, language or clothes⁴. They did not integrate.

Let us not underestimate the significance of language. Aboriginal people were punished on missions for speaking (their) “language”⁵ because those bent on destroying their people-hood intuitively understood the power of language. “Language has a unique ability to prevent assimilation. A special language allows a nation to stand apart and see themselves as outside the larger society⁶”.

b) The children of Israel were fruitful, and multiplied like insects, they increased, and were very, very strengthened, the land was filled with them⁷. It was like a forest, that is sprouting many reeds⁸. Being the proud owner of a Bamboo infestation on the side of my driveway, I know the metaphor is about a rapid increase in volume and size that can begin to dominate an area.

“Facts”, are of course, used to justify a range of choices. It is often less important to determine if something is “fact-based”, and more important to consider how these “facts” are being selected, contextualised and interpreted.

Political Imperatives

It would seem, the Egyptians were in fear of being “swamped by Jews”. Consider, this Midrash⁹.

Another interpretation. A new king arose¹⁰ (in Egypt). But he was Pharaoh!

Only, the Egyptians said to him. “Come let us engage with this nation”.

He said to them, “fools, until now we have been living from theirs, how should we “engage” with them now?, if not for Joseph we would not be alive”

Because he did not listen to them, they took him off his throne for three months, until he said “whatever you do, I am with you”. So they reinstated him, therefore it says “a new king arose”.

Taking it from this perspective, the “threat” the Hebrews posed, was not real. The fears of being over-run by these foreigners should have been handled with calm thinking and the courage to live with some discomfort and low probability risk.

Tzfat/Zefad

It has been disheartening, to read about Rabbis in this holy city issuing edicts forbidding the sale or renting of homes to Arabs. There have been reports of an “Arab plot” to buy up homes and 'change the character of the city'. This is different to direct self defence against clear security threats, it is a broad effort aimed at keeping “others” out. Some of the direct quotes from residents reported in Hamodia that I will not repeat had echoes of anti-Semites and bigots everywhere, if your replace the word Arab with Jew, or Black and Arabic with Yiddish or Asian languages. From the comfort of my home in Sydney it is hard to grasp the depth of tension and fear, so I am less interested in the questions of blame or judgement than the moral issue.

Universal standards of morality

Jews are called on to seek to influence other members of the human family in relation to seven “commandments”, one of which is the establishment of justice. As so many other Jews, I am grateful to live in the time when Martin Luther King jnr's dream is an accepted standard for moral behaviour. This is clearly part of mankind engaging in the pursuit of justice. Ethnic cleansing is rightly condemned by the world. We rightly condemn shedding the blood of civilians and women and children as the wrong way to deal with territorial disputes. There are international standards about how to deal with competing claims and desire for the same land, killing civilians is out, lawful purchase is in. We must embrace international principles of justice, and abide by them.

I am grateful not to have been a refugee from the Holocaust, desperate to escape being murderously unwanted in one place, but unable to find refuge because someone thought “we don't have a racial problem in Australia and see not need import one”¹¹. There is plenty in our holy Torah that calls for doing that which is “right and straight”, remembering that “we were strangers in Egypt” and therefore should be more sensitive to the needs of other less powerful minorities when we have power.

There are facts and fears that justify defensive measures, equally there are facts and fears that must be dealt with without resorting to discrimination.

(For a more Halachic/Legalistic scholarly view, see blog post of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein's view, http://kolharav.blogspot.com/2010/12/rabbi-aharon-lichtensteins-response-to.html )

1Halse, C., (2002) A Terribly Wild Man, Allan & Unwin, Australia.

2Exodus 1:9-10

3Ramban, on Exodus 9:10

4Midrash Vayikra Rabba 32:5

5Halse, ibid

6Rabbi Yosef Yitzchat Schneerson, quoted by Shaul Leiter.http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379807/jewish/Redemption-and-Jewish-Pride.htm

7Exodus 1:7.

8Midrash Tanchuma, Book of Exodus, Parsha Shemot 5, and commentary Etz Yosef.

9Midrash Tanchuma ibid.

10Exodus 1:8

11Thomas White, Australia's representative to the 1938 Evian conference seeking to justify Australia's tight quota on Jewish immigration