whta the hell, I'm bored anyway...
There was probably a greater risk taking a cab and being killed in a car accident.
Thats's your counter argument! All that emphasis on proof, numbers and rationality and you come back with "there probably was"?
But does that risk really exist?
--I don't know, does it?
Surely there is a greater risk in hiring Arabs over Jews in almost all situations,
--Okay, so to a degree it does.
but there is also a greater risk in driving than walking.
--True, so you do the cost-benefit and make a decision.
There is a cost-benefit analysis that must be undertaken here.
--Ah, good, I see we are thinking along the same lines
Is there a serious risk in hiring Arabs, one that is not offset by the benefits?
--Again, I don't know. Do you?
as ana side, given the added idea of "categorically giv(ing) to Jews over non-Jews if financial feasible" you cost-benefit need not be what it would otherwise.
Surely there is a greater risk in hiring Arabs over Jews in almost all situations
Exactly R' Chaim's point!
but there is also a greater risk in driving than walking
Who cares? What does this have to do with anything?
it wouldn't shock me if I found out that the students had a better chance of being killed when going on tiyulim
Come to our yeshiva! It's very safe. It's a little less dangerous than hiking in the mountains!
I'm sure parents would be very comfortable sending there kids hiking in the mountains every day for an entire year. That's the peace of mind they are looking for.
Decisions need to be made after doing proper research.
And what policy should we employ while we conduct this research? Making no decision is also a decision... and that's also a decision not being made based on research, so you are stuck either way.
G,
Did you read my entire post before commenting? Because it seems like I responded to almost all your points in subsequent paragraphs.
My essential point was that decisions such as these cannot be taken without some form of cost-benefit analysis. Working on intuition is likely to be faulty due to a wide variety of cognitive errors that have been cataloged by psychologists for decades. I recall reading that there are thousands of Arab employees in Yeshivos, and I don't remember many attacks carried out by those workers. I could very well be wrong, but I am not making a decision that will affect ten of thousands of lives. I'm under no obligation to do the research (and the information costs are too high for me).
Elamdan,
Like I said to G, my point was that before making such a decision, there needs to be an analysis of the facts. Obviously there is a greater risk of terrorism if a Yeshiva hires an Arab worker over a Jewish worker. But what is that risk? How much does the risk increase if an Arab is hired over someone from Asia? Maybe the latter might steal. Does the risk drop if someone in the Yeshiva can personally vouch for the Arab? Does it matter if he's from the Galil and not Ramallah?
So basically I'm making two points. Ideally RCK shouldn't have issued any psak at all. Many situations are fact specific and should be dealt with on the local level. But if he felt the need to make a psak, he should have at least looked at the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Arab workers and factored that into the equation. There is nothing in any news report that indicates that he did such a thing.
What should he do in the meantime? Run a rough cost-benefit analysis and give a preliminary answer. In this case, the risk doesn't seem that large, certainly not relative to the other risks Yeshiva students take. RCK could disagree with me on the facts, but what I would like to see is some actual research done on a question like this before giving an answer.
This really comes down to the same issue we argued before. I feel there is more value to intuition on social issues than you do. And a Charedi will argue that the intuition of a gadol... al achas kamma v'kamma.
This really comes down to the same issue we argued before. I feel there is more value to intuition on social issues than you do. And a Charedi will argue that the intuition of a gadol... al achas kamma v'kamma.
Intuition is useful in determining facts, but how can it be better at determining empirical facts than doing empirical research? It just doesn't make sense.
There are some things that empirical facts cannot really determine. Like what exactly is the mindset of the average Israeli Arab? Will not employing them make them more likely to terrorize or not? - impossible to really determine by a study. How many lives are we saving and, more important, how much is that "worth"? Again, not really possible to determine. There are just too many factors in this that can't accurately be quantified.
Did you read my entire post before commenting?
--Yes, i did
Because it seems like I responded to almost all your points in subsequent paragraphs.
--No, you did not...hence my comments.
There are some things that empirical facts cannot really determine. Like what exactly is the mindset of the average Israeli Arab? Will not employing them make them more likely to terrorize or not? - impossible to really determine by a study.
It's impossible to determine with certainty, but studies can go a long way in answering some of those questions. They can get to the heart of the Israeli-Arabs' allegiance and can ascertain his predilection towards violence.
Even if studies couldn't determine their behavior, what is a more rational way to answer your questions: interviewing a large number of Israeli-Arabs and interpreting the data, or asking someone who has spent his entire life in Bnei Brak -- who has likely never had a meaningful relationship with an Arab -- what he thinks the Israeli-Arab mind set might be?
Also, in this case, the question doesn't involve psychoanalyzing anyone. We can just look at how many Israeli-Arabs (or Arabs in general) work for Yeshivos and see how many have committed acts of terror. We don't need to figure out mind set.
How many lives are we saving and, more important, how much is that "worth"? Again, not really possible to determine. There are just too many factors in this that can't accurately be quantified.
The first question can be determined by a cost-benefit analysis. Government agencies do it all the time. The second question is a value judgment and that is where the posek comes in. But if he doesn't have the data, what is his decision based on?
Again, if there are too many variables to quantify, are we better off quantifying none of them? How does that make sense?
Commenting by HaloScan
