The ruling of the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court concerning the suit for slander submitted by Mali Shalev against Sahar Shefa is a very sad document.

This is a story in black and white. Shefa, the white man, one of the owners of the Aroma coffee-shop chain in Tel Aviv, asked for service at the offices of a company that imports Mercedes cars. He was received, after a delay, by the coordinator of customer service, Shalev, "a woman of Mizrahi extraction" (of North African or Middle Eastern origin), as she was described in the legal documentation.

Shefa, apparently a busy man, showered the plaintiff with racist remarks. He declared, "I am white and you are black," informed her that she was a "black stain," "an inferior black woman" and promised that "this white man will teach you a lesson." Shalev did in fact learn a lesson - and asked the court to teach Shefa one.

	Advertisement

The judge, Shoshana Almagor, found the plaintiff's version of events to be credible; it was also reinforced by the testimony of the security guard who was present at the time of the confrontation. Almagor found Shefa guilty of slander, since his words had the effect of humiliating and scorning someone on the basis of race or ethnic origin. After admitting his responsibility, the accused said he would compensate the plaintiff with a sum of NIS 100,000 (18,000 euros).

In the compromise agreement on the issue of the compensation, Shalev accepted Shefa's apology as "frank and genuine" and declared that there is "a profound social lesson" to be learned here.

Meanwhile, organizers of the protest demonstrations in front of the branches of the Aroma chain in Tel Aviv are justly trying to teach Shefa a lesson by causing him financial damage, and are suggesting that customers forgo Aroma's delicacies, mainly in light of Shefa's statement to Shalev that "you are a zero and I earn $800 a minute."

The lesson to be drawn from the affair involving Shefa, on the painful assumption that he is not alone in his belief in the superiority of the "white race" over the "black race," is that we have not yet learned to eradicate completely our racist attitudes or what can be called "expressions of hatred" - in spite of the long way we have come.

The memory of the Holocaust and the advent of political parties that incited to racism and called for "a Jewish state free of Arabs" led to the 1985 amendment to the Basic Law on the Knesset that, among other things, allows the disqualification of a Knesset slate if it "incites to racism." In three cases in the 1980s and the 1990s the Supreme Court approved the disqualification of parties for this reason.

The Israeli penal code asserts that publicizing anything with the aim of inciting to racism is a crime that carries a maximum punishment of five years' imprisonment. Ten years ago, the Supreme Court convicted a rabbi of this crime, when he wanted to discuss with his students an issue of "permission to kill non-Jews." The court, in this context, emphasized the value of human dignity and the degree to which it is undermined when we try to strip people of their human traits because of their racial identity, in the spirit of the Nazi era.

This year the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court convicted a man accused of shouting "Death to the Arabs" in a soccer stadium at the conclusion of a moment of silence in memory of the death of a fan of a Jewish team in a terror attack.

The approach excluding racist talk from the power play in a democratic society has developed in Israel in spite of the great importance we attribute to freedom of expression. Thus the Supreme Court this year approved the decision of the chair of the Knesset Elections Committee to disqualify one party's election broadcast, which presented ultra-Orthodox Jews as reptiles and as leeches at the feet of secular Jews, in a spirit that seemed similar to the propaganda presented in anti-Semitic caricatures and films.

The Supreme Court emphasized the obligation of enabling broad freedom of expression, even for opinions that are extremely hurtful. However, it was emphasized by then president Aharon Barak that protecting freedom of expression does not mean "unlimited freedom to humiliate and scorn a person and to greatly undermine his human dignity." The election broadcast was rejected with the explanation that "it is horrifyingly similar to anti-Semitic propaganda, which will be a harsh reminder to viewers of the millions of our brothers who were incinerated in the Nazi crematoria."

Eliminating racism and the struggle against the new-old anti-Semitism remain a mission whose importance should not be minimized. Next week the European Union will hold a European-Israeli seminar in Brussels that will focus on the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, in light of recent serious incidents.

The State of Israel must be the leader in this struggle. Using legal means and imposing ethical obligations on the media and on advertisers will not be of any avail without an ongoing and very thorough educational process.

Mr. Shefa, the white man of means who demanded fast service from the Mercedes importers, asked that the court release him from responsibility for his harmful words, based on an argument that is found in the anti-slander law, which refers to "trifling" words that "a reasonable person would not have complained about."

The judge justly rejected the argument in this case. A "reasonable person" should not only reject such words in disgust - he should also complain about them so we can eradicate all that is evil and racist from our society.