I never imagined it would come to this - that I would find myself agreeing with Gideon Levy. But the impossible
I agree with every word of his condemnation of the ugly phenomenon of hate.
happened when I read his column "Anti-Semitism in Tel Aviv" (Haaretz, May 14). In it, he strongly criticized residents of my northern Tel Aviv neighborhood of Ramat Aviv who have been hit by a virus of anti-Semitism, their hatred swelling not against Arabs, but against ultra-Orthodox Jews. Both types of hatred are offensive, to me as well as to Gideon Levy.

I agree with Levy even though, as a native Tel Avivan, I disagree with his description of Ramat Aviv as a "left-wing neighborhood" and as being, "pretty, modest, calm... the most enlightened neighborhood in our country's most enlightened city."

Yet I agree with every word of his condemnation of the ugly phenomenon of hate, whether it is directed against Arabs or against Haredim. Demonizing and dehumanizing people is unacceptable. Up to that point, I agree. But then Gideon Levy can't help being Gideon Levy, and so his enlightened attitude toward Jews stops at the Green Line.

A truly enlightened person is one who recognizes the Jews' right - yes, Jews too - to live in their country, and does not demand that some parts of it be out of bounds for them. A true liberal would denounce the idea of a forced eviction of people from their homes, be they Jews or Arabs. Anyone who believes in "peace" based on such a ban or on such a transfer does not really want peace. Such a "peace" is not Jewish, not democratic; it is neither Zionist nor moral. It can be defined as a "swinish peace" and it is based on an ugly phenomenon: auto-anti-Semitism. It is no less offensive than its brother, anti-Semitism.

The fact that the ultra-Orthodox community does not serve in the Israel Defense Forces, does not take part in developing the state's economy and prevents its children from receiving the education they need in order to become a part of society, is outrageous and it must change. But that does not justify their being subjected to racism and anti-Semitism.

In contrast with the Haredim, the "orange" public - whether religious or secular, and living on both sides of the pre-1967 border - today forms the backbone of the IDF, and is a full partner in the state's economic and social life. However, it is precisely that sector that time and again is a target for Levy's fury, even in a column about anti-Semitism. Levy rejects "hatred of Haredim in Ramat Aviv, or of Arabs in Safed. The disease is the same disease." On the other hand, it hurts him that "no such burning hatred is directed at the settlers."

The orange-secular public, on both sides of the Green Line, is precisely the one that could serve as a bridge
It is important that this secular public come "out of the closet".
between those who are really enlightened in Ramat Aviv (and the rest of Tel Aviv and its suburbs), and the orange-religious public, which accounts for fewer than half the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria. That could be a real Jewish-Zionist response to Levy's hatred.

For that to happen it is important that this secular public come "out of the closet" and demonstrate, with its very large numbers, that it does not hate the other and is not afflicted with racism or auto-anti-Semitism. And for that to happen, it is important for the orange-religious public to recognize the orange-secular public's existence, and not to alienate it or treat it with scorn and arrogance for not being "Jewish enough". For that scornfulness and a priori dismissal, the National Union party has paid time and again by failing at the polls.

Just as racism toward Arabs and Haredim is unacceptable, incitement against settlers deserves every form of condemnation. The remedy for every expression of hatred of the other is acceptance of the other, be he religious or secular.