Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondent, gladly provided food for thought to so inclined readers. Especially to readers who up till now didn't have enough reasons to bash Israel, its uncouth manners, its security arrangements, its lack of refined "agonizing" over questions of morality, its everything, in short. The article in question is titled In Israel, racial profiling doesn't warrant debate, or apologies and raises the issue of Israeli security (particularly that of our main international airport) using what Anshel considers to be "racial profiling" in security screening of passengers.
Anshel is clearly tied up in knots over the issue. He doesn't feel good when he, being Jewish and Israeli citizen to boot is allowed to breeze through security checks and shop to his heart's content, while some others...Let's admit it, there is a general acceptance of the fact that non-Jewish, especially Muslim, passengers will get a working-over and have to arrive at the airport three hours earlier than the rest of us.
Anshel has a solution for this glaring breach of equality too:Of course, they could subject everyone to these inspections, but that would mean we couldn't progress quickly and smoothly from check-in to duty-free, and of course since it would mean hiring hundreds more security agents, ticket prices would go up.
Although, when he comes to think of it, this is not an ideal solution. Because of, you know, the time and money involved. Should I point out to Anshel the obvious: that hiring "hundreds more" security agents will create more chaos and increase the chance of a security breach? I am not sure Anshel, in his delirium of riding the high moral horse will be responsive to simple reasoning.
Besides, Anshel knows clearly what I, the ill-behaved and amoral Israeli, think about his conundrum:Many Israelis have no problems with this: Let the Muslims suffer for the sins of their brothers.
And, of course, Anshel knows very well the difference between him and me, the moral chasm we'll be never able to cross:But those of us who like to think of ourselves as liberal humanists find it too easy to ignore the sight of entire families having their luggage rummaged through in front of the entire terminal while we are waved through.
I wonder whether feeling ill at ease at the abovementioned sight interferes with Anshel's duty-free shopping?
I also wonder whether you, the reader, while being entranced by Anshel's suffering, have noticed the difference between the two Anshel's quotes above: "non-Jewish, especially Muslim, passengers" in the first and "Let the Muslims suffer" in the second? Quite a sleight of hand, I would say.
So, while being skeptical about my chances of reasoning with Anshel, I still feel that I have to use some straightforward reasoning. After all, who knows, Anshel could benefit from it.
To conclude: there are two different kinds of agony. One, relatively brief, could be experienced by a passenger that survived the immediate impact of the blast caused by a terrorist, plunging for a few minutes the obligatory ten or eleven kilometers.
The second kind of agony that can accompany a liberal humanist for an indefinitely long time, is the agony that, according to Anshel, he is prevented from suffering by some sinister order from above (I guess so, since he doesn't say):Does that mean that while the rest of the civilized world, to which we aspire to belong, are agonizing over these questions, we are exempt from any form of public debate?
Well, I've checked the matter of a special permit for Anshel, and am glad to inform you all that by a special decree from above Anshel is allowed to agonize as much and as long as he desires.
Agonize, Anshel, agonize...
1 hour ago
1 comments:
He. So true, esp. when some Haaretz journos are concerned...
Post a Comment