Yediot’s Sima Kadmon methodically deconstructs the anti-NIF smear campaign
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel | Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross; Dorit Abramovitch; Amir Paz-Fuchs| News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community;Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF; Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part I: Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part II: Ha’ir media critic on journalism as propaganda; Delegitimization and censorship continue: JPost stops publishing Naomi Chazan’s columns; Nahum Barnea: How US Jewish leaders stepped in to block the Knesset anti-NIF bill |
Sima Kadmon is senior political commentator at Yediot, second in stature only to Nahum Barnea. She devotes much of her Friday (February 5 2010) column to a methodical deconstruction of the motivation and methodology behind the Im Tirzu anti-NIF smear campaign. Kadmon adds domestic depth to Nahum Barnea’s exposé of the role mainstream Jewish-American leaders played in putting the brakes on the Knesset’s participation in the campaign.
Note how the column concludes with a quote from Meretz Chairman MK Chaim (Jumes) Oron, who was the first politician from the Israeli left to take a public stand on this issue.
Oron
The transition from a democratic to a fascist society does not happen in a single move, Oron said upon emerging from the plenum hall. It is done in several steps – some of which may go unnoticed, some of which we may share, and others may be initiated or not opposed by the government. In the end, the society finds itself in a totally different place, and then everyone starts asking how it happened.
I have a feeling, he said, that we are already on this slippery slope, and even more so over the past few weeks. The powers that can stop this process have weakened. This is a very critical moment, he said. I hope it would make those who weep over the left’s defeat shake off their mourning mood and realize this is war. This is a struggle for the future and shape of this country.
Here’s a link to a translation of an important op-ed Oron published on the issue of last Thursday (February4 2010.)
With reports such as these
Excerpt from column, Sima Kadmon, Yediot Friday Political Supplement, February 5 2010
Shoval
Ronen Shoval is a young, energetic, and ambitious man. He is an obvious right-wing activist who established the Orange Cells in the universities and struggled hard against the evacuation of the Katif Bloc. He demonstrated ceaselessly, raised the banner of the settlers’ struggle in the media, and became their darling. He was even given a slot on the Jewish Home [Habeyit Heyhudi] list of Knesset candidates in the last elections. Ronen Shoval, however, failed miserably in his war against the left, the media, and the Israeli Governments. The disengagement happened and the media and the majority of the public supported it.
Then he had a revelation. Shoval realized that the public does not want to listen to the weird pro-settler right, and decided he would be the wiser. He dropped the Orange Cells and founded the Im Tirzu movement. What is Im Tirzu? It is, in fact, more of the same, but Shoval stated that his new organization is a “centrist, extraparliamentary movement that wishes to renew and bolster Zionist values in the State of Israel, and counter post-and anti-Zionist phenomena.” On various occasions, Shoval explained that his movement will balance out Peace Now which, according to him, dominates the public discourse.
The next stage in Shoval’s plan was reaching the national media, deciding it was no longer the enemy but rather a tool to be used to promote his goals. This right-wing activist studied the way Peace Now publish their reports about the settlers and how B’Tselem runs reports about human rights abuse, and decided he can do it too. So he sat down and authored a report that aimed at portraying Israeli human rights groups as collaborators with the enemy.
The conclusion that his report attempted to draw was that the Goldstone report was, for the most part, fed by Israeli organizations that are, for the most part, sponsored by the New Israel Fund — a philanthropic fund that raises millions of dollars for worthy social causes in Israel. Among others, it finances the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), and other civil rights groups. The Shoval report attempted to besmirch the fund and the organizations it sponsors. Keshev — The Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel, examined the Im Tirzu report and issued its own report that clearly shows Shoval’s crude distortions and manipulation. For example, citing statistical data, the Shoval report claims that 92% of the “incriminating” arguments against the State of Israel in the Goldstone report were cited from Israeli left-wing organizations.
Yishai
Keshev proved that the Im Tirzu report ignored the main sources that served Goldstone, mainly remarks by senior officers and cabinet members such as Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, Maj. Gen. Dan Harel, and Minister Eli Yishai, as cited in the Israeli media. Another important source was an article by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Gavriel Siboni of the Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies.
They presented the policy the IDF followed in Operation Cast Lead in no uncertain terms. Defining the goals of the operation, Minister Yishai said: “We can destroy Gaza to make them realize that they should not mess with us. This is a great opportunity to smash thousands of terrorists’ houses and make them think twice before they fire their Kassams” — remarks that the Walla! news portal carried and the Goldstone report cited. And this is only one of some 450 quotations from Israeli sources that the Im Tirzu report overlooked.
Orange Cells activist Shoval succeeded. His dubious report caught the media attention and was extensively covered by Maariv last week. Shoval has managed in lumping together important human rights organizations and a fund that provides millions of dollars for worthy Israeli causes with the Goldstone report. After all, Goldstone, with whom Israel refused to cooperate, had been defined by the government as one-sided and biased, which is how the public views him.
This is war
Schneller
Last Wednesday, before Berlusconi arrived here, the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee convened and decided to establish a subcommittee that would look into the sources of foreign funds that sponsor Israeli associations. Though this was not stated explicitly, clearly the target was the New Israel Fund. The political argument behind the demand that the issue be investigated is that someone is financing anti-Israeli associations; that the fund is actually a cover for anti-Zionist activities; and that organizations such as ACRI, PHR, Breaking the Silence, Machsom Watch, and others are actually anti-patriotic groups.
Nahum Barnea: How US Jewish leaders stepped in to block the Knesset anti-NIF bill
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel | Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross; Dorit Abramovitch; Amir Paz-Fuchs| News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community;Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF; Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part I: Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part II: Ha’ir media critic on journalism as propaganda; Delegitimization and censorship continue: JPost stops publishing Naomi Chazan’s columns |
Much to note in this bizarre tale, so characteristic of a country in a tailspin: how it took AIPAC types to beat the Israeli parliament back to its senses (albeit for self-interested reasons); how Likud liberal-hawks stood up for the NIF and democracy, while MKs from the supposedly centrist Kadima led the charge; and, perhaps least surprisingly, Ehud Barak’s role.
Kicking the fund
Excerpt from column, Nahum Barnea, Yediot Friday Political Supplement, February 5 2010
Im Tirzu demonstration outside Prof. Naomi Chazan's home
It was a difficult week in the life of Prof. Naomi Chazan, a former Meretz MK and president of the New Israel Fund (NIF). It started on Friday, in a report published by a right wing NGO in Ben Caspit’s column in Maariv. The report asserted that 92 percent of the quotes hostile to Israel in the Goldstone report were provided by Israeli NGOs, most of which are supported by the NIF. The report brought right wing demonstrators to Chazan’s house, accusing her of treason. She was in New York, at a conference of the fund’s board of directors. The atmosphere was hysterical. They feared that donors would jump ship. And then the news from Australia arrived: The Reform Movement in Australia, which invited Chazan for a lecture tour in Sydney and Melbourne, canceled its invitation. The timing is not right, the Australian Jews explained.
All this was overshadowed by the initiative in the Knesset. MK Otniel Schneller, who is still in Kadima, placed a proposal on the Knesset agenda to establish a parliamentary commission of inquiry to investigate the fund’s actions. The proposal elicited interesting reactions. Minister Michael Eitan (Likud) took the podium to pour cold water on the proposal. “Such a thing has not happened,” Eitan said. “Parliamentary commissions of inquiry are established on non-political issues, such as corruption in soccer or water prices. It is impossible for the (right wing) majority in the Knesset to investigate the minority.” Ruby Rivlin and Benny Begin (Likud) ruled out Schneller’s proposal for similar reasons.
Rivlin, Begin and Eitan, staunch right wingers, can afford to be democrats: No one will question their patriotism. Members of Kadima and the Labor Party, however, went both ways. Tzipi Livni did not intervene. If the investigation is general, and not against a particular organization, she would not be shocked, she said.
It was one of those days when the hooligans of the Knesset came to light. Former prison commissioner Arie Bibi, who is currently a Kadima MK, Danny Danon (Likud) and others, used words like “treason” and “fifth column.” These are the words they know.
Foxman
The attack on the fund greatly troubled the American Jewish establishment. An investigation in Israel could harm other Jewish organizations. Questions will be raised about political involvement in a foreign country, dual loyalty and tax offenses. Anti-Defamation League Director Abe Foxman, who is not associated with the NIF, said to The Jewish Week that the accusations of the right wing NGO were impudent. “It’s almost undemocratic,” Foxman said to me over the phone yesterday.
In the afternoon, Rivlin received a phone call from a leader of one of the Jewish organizations. “Have you gone mad?” the man lashed out at Rivlin. “You’re going to investigate us for funds we send to you? You’re out of your minds.”
Barak
“I can’t stop it,” Rivlin said to him. “It’s not within my authority.” He called Netanyahu and reported to him about the call from New York. Netanyahu turned to Schneller and convinced him to remove the proposal from the agenda. Schneller says that he promised him to recruit the entire coalition to support the proposal, if the discussion of it would be postponed to next week. Netanyahu mentioned Ehud Barak among the people who were pressuring him to support the establishment of the committee. Barak wants to prove that he is defending the IDF against its defamers (Barak denies this. On the contrary, his spokesman says. True, Barak doesn’t like the attacks on the IDF, but he thinks that the committee is unnecessary).
Schneller withdrew the proposal. A few hours later, he asked Rivlin to raise it again. “Now it is within my authority,” Rivlin said, and refused.
Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper
Merav David
As Noam Sheizaf demonstrates, Maariv, Israel’s third-largest newspaper, has been a primary instrument for the dissemination of the recently launched anti-NIF smear campaign. To its credit, however, the newspaper has hosted dissenting opinion on a daily basis, in both the print and online editions. This morning (February 3 2010,) two senior reporters, social affairs correspondent Merav David and diplomatic affairs correspondent Maya Bengel, published a particularly incisive criticism of the campaign and related Israeli policies. A translation with links to supporting documentation is provided below.
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel| Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross| News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community; Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer |
Don’t silence
Op-ed, Merav David and Maya Bengal, Maariv February 3 2010 [Hebrew originals: print; online]
Maya Bengel
The Im Tirtzu movement declares in its advertisements that its purpose is “a second Zionist revolution in public discourse in Israel.” If we were to judge it on the basis of the campaign it launched this week against the New Israel Fund (NIF), it would see that Im Tirtzu’s Zionist revolution includes an annulment of Israeli democracy.Im Tirtzu published a report this week that reviews statements that were submitted to the Goldstone commission by Israeli human rights organizations that receive financing from the New Israel Fund. The report and the campaign that followed in its wake accuse the New Israel Fund and the organizations responsible for the publication of a blood libel against the IDF and of collaboration with the enemy. The campaign absolutely delegitimizes organizations that are extraordinarily vital for Israeli democracy, even when they voice criticism that is painful to hear.The more severe problem is that the discourse that that campaign represents has trickled down into the Israeli media, including this very newspaper in which this article has been published, as if this were a central and normative school of thought in Israeli society. The article that was published by Ma’ariv cast Ronen Shoval, the chairman of Im Tirtzu, as “married with two children, lives in Ramat Hasharon, secular, served in the Armored Corps”—the good old fashioned good Israeli. The truth is that Shoval represents a nationalist organization with an extremist ideology that calls for an end to freedom of speech, in the event that the speaker belongs to a “subversive” organization, such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
Ad on page 3 of the January 31 edition of the Jerusalem Post.
There is no problem with the fact that the report was published, but the question is how it is to be treated. When the datum that was prominently cited in all reports was that 92% of the quotes from Israeli sources that substantiate Goldstone’s allegations against the IDF originated with organizations that are funded by the New Israel Fund, it sounds sensational. But even the report itself admits that the organizations funded by the New Israel Fund constituted only 14% of the sources the Goldstone report used. For some reason, that datum was not reported by the media. It wasn’t a good idea to report it prominently because then the story would have shrunk back to its natural proportions—yet another news item and hardly a foundation for a campaign of incitement.After all, Judge Goldstone visited Gaza. Did he need the Israeli human rights organizations necessarily? Aren’t there other human rights organizations? Doesn’t the UN have bases in Gaza? The fine print of the report are filed with ludicrous information. Among the 16 organizations that are cited as having collaborated with Goldstone is the movement Itach, whose sole purpose is to defend impoverished women (what was the organization’s crime? It signed a petition calling for the establishment of an Israeli investigative committee), and the Kol Aher movement, which comprised Sderot residents, which submitted testimony by Israelis to the Goldstone commission.But even if we were to accept the validity of the argument that without the Israelis’ contribution there wouldn’t have been a Goldstone report, does the information that was submitted to the UN commission constitute a blood libel? And if it does, why were criminal investigations launched in the wake of those complaints by the Military Police? Why did Judge Advocate General Brig. Gen. Avi Mandelblit said to Ha’aretz that B’Tselem, which “stars” in the report, helps the army clarify complaints and “aspires like we do to the investigation of the truth?” Is the death of eight members of a single family, one of whom was a two-year-old toddler, by a phosphorous bomb, not a complaint that ought to be looked into? It certainly is against the backdrop of reports about two high-ranking officers who had a disciplinary hearing after they approved the use of phosphorous bombs and endangered lives.
Fact checking the anti-NIF report: Systematic omission and distortion of data
Amir Paz-Fuchs
Dr. Amir Paz-Fuchs is a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Ono Academic College and a member of the board of Bimkom — Planners for Planning Rights.
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel | Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross; Dorit Abramovitch; Amir Paz-Fuchs| News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community;Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF; Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part I: Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part II: Ha’ir media critic on journalism as propaganda; Delegitimization and censorship continue: JPost stops publishing Naomi Chazan’s columns; Nahum Barnea: How US Jewish leaders stepped in to block the Knesset anti-NIF bill; Yediot’s Sima Kadmon methodically deconstructs the anti-NIF smear campaign; Contextualizing the JPost and Chazan: You can’t have it both ways |
——
Fact checking the anti-NIF report: Systematic omission and distortion of data
This analysis compiles a critical mass of examples of misrepresentation of data in the Im Tirzu anti-NIF “report.” A recent Keshev report underscores substantial omission of relevant data. Combined, regardless of whether they are the result of malice or incompetence, these systematic flaws are more than enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the entire report and on the organization using it to demonize Prof. Naomi Chazan as an individual, the NIF as an organization and Israeli human rights NGOs as a community.
Caspit
On January 29 2010, journalist Ben Caspit presented his political credo in Maariv’s Friday Political Supplement, providing broad and extensive platform to a shallow and poorly conducted “report” by a movement named Im Tirzu (“if you wish” in Hebrew) According to the “report” and the article, “the New Israel Fund sponsors very many Israeli organizations that supplied the Goldstone Committee with incriminating materials against the IDF.” That was reason enough for the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee to establish a subcommittee to look into how foreign foundations sponsor Israeli organizations.
However, detailed examination of the data supporting the allegations against the sixteenIsraeli NGOs listed by the “report” should be reason for worry for anyone honestly concerned about Israel’s future: If indeed, as Im Tirzu leader Ronen Shoval told Caspit, the researchers were trained by the IDF Intelligence Corps, our security situation is even worse than previously thought. The “report” is so amateurish that its authors would have flunked their course if they submitted it as a college paper. There would also be a good chance the institution would task a faculty panel to investigate suspicion of intentional distortion of data.
Omission of data
Shoval
A report by Keshev — The Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel examined the main Israeli sources referred to by the Goldstone report and, unsurprisingly, found that the Im Tirzu study simply chose to ignore many of the citations: of Israeli cabinet members [see Yishai quote below], IDF generals [paragraph 14, see Eizenkot quote below], government-affiliated organizations, and major Israeli media, Maariv included. If we are to follow the rationale of the “report”, they too should be accused of “causing Israel serious political damage and harming its military ability to defend itself at war,” and they too should be considered “extreme leftists and anti-Zionists” (sic).
Eizenkot
The Keshev report presents the main Israeli sources of information that the Goldstone committee used, including the then CO Northern Command Gadi Eizenkot, who adopted the Dahia doctrine according to which “We will employ disproportional force and inflict huge damage and devastation on every village from which rockets were fired at Israel” because “the way we see it, these are not civilian village but rather military bases”; then CO Southern Command Dan Harel, who said: “We will attack not only terrorists and launchers…but also government buildings, production centers of the security apparatuses, and more”; or Minister Eli Yishai, who stated: “We can destroy Gaza to make them realize that they should not mess with us….. I believe they should be all razed. Thousands of houses, tunnels, and infrastructures should be destroyed.”
Systematic distortion of data
Yishai
Following in the footsteps of Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er, who focused on the omissions of the Im Tirzu “report,” I will now proceed to examine the substance of the charges leveled at the Israeli NGOs. Allegedly these organizations provided the Goldstone committee with “incriminating materials.” How did the Im Tirzu researchers reach that conclusion? They counted the report’s footnotes (!) and eagerly listed the organizations they mentioned. The problem is that if only those researchers bothered to read the footnoted texts, they would have realized that in many cases, the issues did not at all pertain to Gaza, but to the West Bank and even to human rights in Israel.
Furthermore, in most cases, the cited passages were taken from reports, press releases, or petitions to the Israeli High Court of Justice authored and published or filed long before the Gaza war. Many were authored by organizations whose mandates do not include the Gaza Strip and their materials were cited in relation to human rights in Israel generally. Of the sixteen organizations listed, only four actually testified before the committee.
Below is a list of citations which the Im Tirzu “report” used to support its allegations, but which, for better or worse, cannot be substantially connected with the committee’s research inasmuch as it pertains to the inquiry of the IDF and defense forces’ activities during the Gaza operation.
-
Ad on page 3 of the January 31 edition of the Jerusalem Post.
Adalah — The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel: The only relevant data this NGO provided was an assessment of the number of Gazans who were detained without a trial during the operation, arguing that they were not allowed to have a phone call. Since the UN committee members met with and interviewed some of those detainees, the Adalah’s submission was superfluous. The three other Adalah citations counted by Im Tirzu are clearly irrelevant: reporting on the arrests of Israeli citizens who protested within Israel during the war; a report on Area C in the West Bank; and (the peak of absurdity) a petition still pending in court (footnote 789 of the Goldstone report.)
- B’Tselem — The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: A multitude of Goldstone citations of B’Tselem reports counted have nothing to do with the Gaza war. These “incriminating materials” include: First Intifada casualty figures, the implications of the separation barrier and impediments to freedom of movement on Palestinian life in the West Bank, violations of the human rights of East Jerusalem Palestinians, and a report on the IDF’s failure to investigate reports of criminal behavior by soldiers during the Second Intifada. Undoubtedly, however, the most damaging “material” was BTselem’s confirmation of the number of Israelis (!) killed by Kassam rockets during the war,
- The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI): ”Incriminating materials” include a report [page 5] on police refusal to permit a demonstration in Tel Aviv during the war if Palestine flags were displayed and a report East Jerusalem residents’ rights. In addition, ACRI joined Attorney Daniel Reisner, former head of the IDF International Law Department, in providing information regarding the ratio of IDF investigations to civilian deaths during the Second Intifada (footnote 750).
- Hamoked — Center for Defense of the Individual: Citations irrelevant to IDF conduct during the war: Palestinian freedom of movement between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; quotation of Justice Minister Daniel Friedman (!) calling for the denial of rights to Palestinian security prisoners in Israel as an instrument of pressure for the release of Gilad Schalit; and a High Court of Justice petition prison conditions in Israel.
- Yesh Din — Volunteers for Human Rights: This NGO operates almost exclusively in the West Bank, which explains why Goldstone cited its reports on on Israeli military courts in the West Bank, IDF accountability regarding violence against Palestinian non-combatants in the West Bank (which cites a 2005 Maariv article!), and a High Court of Justice petition on West Bank residents held in Israeli prisons. Despite their lack of relevance, Im Tirzu aggregated these citations into the “incriminating materials” statistics.
- Physicians for Human Rights — Israel (PHR-I): A multitude of PHR sourced “incriminating materials” counted by Im Tirzu refer to issues such as: the pre-war Palestinian, ongoing closure policies, and the treatment of Palestinian prisoners. An interview the committee held with PHR representatives (footnote 1037) on the lack of bomb shelters in Israeli Bedouin villages within Kassam rocket range is also considered “incriminating” by Im Tirzu.
- Gisha — Legal Center for Freedom of Movement: A report on the implications of the pre-war Gaza blockade and a position paper on the ongoing Israeli policy of separating the Gaza Strip and West Bank, are considered by Im Tirzu as war crimes eveidence.
- Bimkom — Planners for Planning Rights: That organization never dealt with the situation in the Gaza Strip, neither during the (relative) calm nor during the fighting. Indeed the only references to its materials relate to planning policies in Area C in the West Bank, and with the impact of the separation fence Palestinian life in the West Bank. According to Im Tirzu, however, these are among the cornerstones of the Goldstone’s criticism of the IDF’s conduct during the war.
- Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR): This NGO earned its place on the “incriminating sixteen” list beacuse of one citation — as a petitioner against the demolition of the vast majority of houses in a Palestinian village in the Jordan Valley.
- Itach — Women Lawyers for Social Justice: This NGO is not even mentioned in the Goldstone report. Im Tirzu decided to include it anyway, however, because it found a reference in one of its publications to a letter by eight other human rights organizations to the attorney general, urging an independent Israeli investigation ion IDF conduct during the war. Similarly, Machsom Watch and New Profile are listed because of their association with anti-war protests in Israel. Both organizations are not referenced by Goldstone.
- Other Voice (Kol Aher) — For a Civil Solution in the Sderot-Gaza Region provided the Goldstone committee with information for the chapter it devoted to the daily and ongoing suffering of Sderot residents and students of the Sapir College because of Kassam attacks.
Im Tirzu demonstration outside Prof. Naomi Chazan's home
This analysis provides a critical mass of examples of misrepresentation of data in the Im Tirzu “report.” The Keshev report underscores substantial omission of relevant data. Combined, regardless of whether they are the result of malice or incompetence, these systematic flaws are more than enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the entire report and the organization using it to demonize Prof. Naomi Chazan as individual, the NIF as an organization and Israeli human rights NGOs as a community. Yet for ten days media outlets have been treating the issue as, at best, a symmetrical controversy. Independent fact-checking, is, apparently, an anachronism.
Editor’s note: In an interview tonight (February 9 2010) Im Tirzu leader Ronen Shoval told the JTA’s Ron Kampeas (one of the few journalists covering the substance of the report consistently and responsibly) to “check the Goldstone report for a single mention of Sderot from an NIF group and get back to me.” Items 2 and 11 provide multiple mentions. If Shoval is willing to include Bedouin citizens of Israel, even if though they are not Jews, in this equation, item 6 also applies. What is Shoval thinking? Either he is not familiar with the report or he assumes that nobody will bother to check the veracity of his assertions. This is the man who sees himself as a future national leader; the man whose reporting nearly led the Knesset to establish a parliamentary commission of inquiry.
Contextualizing the JPost and Chazan: You can’t have it both ways
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel | Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross; Dorit Abramovitch; Amir Paz-Fuchs| News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community;Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF; Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part I: Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part II: Ha’ir media critic on journalism as propaganda; Delegitimization and censorship continue: JPost stops publishing Naomi Chazan’s columns; Nahum Barnea: How US Jewish leaders stepped in to block the Knesset anti-NIF bill; Yediot’s Sima Kadmon methodically deconstructs the anti-NIF smear campaign |
——-
The firing of Naomi Chazan by The Jerusalem Post has quickly turned the newspaper into a convenient (and attractive) punching bag for the many in Israel and among Jewish-Americans angry and indignant over the anti-NIF smear campaign. Indeed, its conduct in this matter has been more than problematic, as I will expound below.
Ad on page 3 of the January 31 edition of the Jerusalem Post.
I believe it is important, however, to be careful not to allow this sorry episode to sully the reputation of what is largely a quality newsroom. Reporters like Dan Izenberg, Tovah Lazaroff, Ben Hartman, Ron Friedman, and Hilary Leila-Krieger, to name just a few, regularly produce good journalism, under incredibly difficult conditions. Abe Selig has closely followed an issue I have been intimately involved in — the emerging protest movement against the evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah — and his reporting has been both fair and balanced (not in the Fox News sense.) He has also done a professional job following the issue at hand.
The news editor, Amir Mizroch, is a responsible and conscientious journalist. On Gaza-related issues, he recently investigated and published an important report on questionable Israeli conduct, which went above and beyond what most of the Israeli media, except Haaretz, were willing to do. In addition, he was the first, on his personal blog, to expose the problematic connection between the Israeli Government Press Office and Maariv’s sponsorship of the anti-NIF campaign.
Many Jewish-Americans have a compelling need to consume in-depth English-language reporting on Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian issues. The English editions of Haaretz and, to a lesser extent, Ynet, are important, but insufficient. The Jerusalem Post expands the breadth of information available and its newsroom performs an important function.
The Post’s editorial line is, in understatement, not my cup of tea. Some of its columnists, like Caroline Glick, engage in a kind of fascist demagoguery that makes even Fox News appear mainstream. Blogger Shmuel Rosner consistently and dishonestly wraps neoconservative talking points in a “centrist” wrapping and seems to operate without any kind of effective editorial supervision. That, however, is part of what a vibrant public discourse is all about and is irrelevant to this discussion.
Having said all that, I will cut to the chase — on the recent Naomi Chazan flap, the Jerusalem Post’s behavior has been unethical and duplicitous. It was the first among the Israeli media, last Sunday (January 31 2010) to publish the Im Tirzu ad, with its explicit incitement and anti-Semitic overtones. When I questioned a senior journalist at the paper about it, he replied, in effect, that there was a firewall between the business and editorial sections of the paper. That is a contentious, but legitimate argument (Haaretz’s editors overruled their ad departments.)
The following day (February 1 2010,) Chazan’s lawyer, Gilead Sher, sent a letter to all the business managements of the Israeli media outlets running the ads — the Post, Maariv and Ynet — demanding that they cease and desist. Notably in this context, this correspondence did not stop the Maariv and Ynet editorial departments from running commentary by NIF associates throughout the week.
David Horovitz
On Friday morning, Haaretz English edition’s Dimi Reider revealed that Chazan had been informed by the Post’s editor-in-chief, David Horowitz, that her column was to be discontinued after 14 years. Over the weekend, this development was heralded (including on Coteret) as a sign that the Post had joined the Im Tirzu campaign. This morning (February 7 2010,) Horovitz demurred — the reason for the firing was the above-mentioned legal correspondence.
The Jerusalem Post is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it is shirking responsibility for the content of the ad by claiming “separation of powers.” On the other, it is justifying the removal of Chazan from the editorial section by pointing to her confrontation with the business section. This is either dishonest or an admission that the editors are completely subservient to the whims of their bosses. Both options do not bode well for the paper. Its journalists and readers deserve better.
The art of using invented headlines as “proof”: Israel Academia Monitor exposed
Ofer Neiman is a co-editor of Occupation Magazine. He is a BSc in Mathematics and Computer Science, teaches computer science and also works as a translator.
Sloppy McCarthyism is still McCarthyism: From the lectern of the Israel Academia Monitor
On the art of using invented headlines as “proof”
Steinberg
Recent years have seen the flourishing of various right-wing “monitoring groups”, claiming to act in the name of truth and justice, in order to expose those evil ones among us “scheming against Israel” (a euphemism for taking action against apartheid, racism and war crimes committed in our name). In the past few weeks, we have also witnessed one-sided attempts to block funds going to Israeli peace and human rights NGOs or smear and even muzzle Israeli peace and human rights activists.
Coteret has covered the honorable Prof. Gerald Steinberg and his NGO Monitor’s attempts at silencing our criticism of Israeli policies. However, the jewels in the crown of a vast McCarthyite US-Israeli network may be those academic monitoring groups which keep a watchful eye on lecturers and students who have the nerve to criticize American or Israeli human rights violations. Most US-based readers are probably familiar with fifth columnist hunter Daniel Pipes and his
Pipes
Campus Watch. Another monitoring group is Haifa University Dr. Steven Plaut’s IsraCampus. Plaut is a rather vociferous fellow. A few years ago he smeared dedicated Israeli peace activist Dr. Neve Gordon as a ”Judenrat Wannabe”, which resulted in the filing of a successful libel suit by Neve. Plaut seems to be consistent in his reluctance to mince words.
It turns out that IsraCampus has a little sister, called the Israel Academia Monitor (IAM). According to various publications, IAM is run by one Dana Barnett, whose righteous views are presented here (Hebrew), in an interview with Israeli Channel One TV’s Keren Neubach. Note that around minute 03:00 Barnett vehemently denies allegations that her NGO is all about silencing dissenting
Plaut
voices. She speaks in the name of “academic excellence”, and argues that IAM merely monitors all forms of political activity by lecturers (carried out at the expense of academic duties.) Well, not exactly…
This writer has been communicating with the IAM for some time now (let it be known, for the sake of full disclosure, that his support of terrorism had been exposed by an IAM headline). The following excerpts from various exchanges should speak for themselves. The often frustrating exchanges beg a sigh of frustration along the lines of O sancta simplicitas! One should bear in mind that a great deal of harm has been done throughout history by righteous useful idiots.
If it is of any comfort, please note that our eloquent opponents are not always united, and that trouble may erupt in the McCarthyite paradise too.
Now, without any further delay, let us delve into the wonderful world of IAM polemics (with pearls of spelling and grammar left untouched).
——–
Delegitimization and censorship continue: JPost stops publishing Naomi Chazan’s columns
Cross-posted from Promised Land.
David Horovitz
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel | Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross; Dorit Abramovitch; Amir Paz-Fuchs | News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community;Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF; Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part I: Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part II: Ha’ir media critic on journalism as propaganda |
Haaretz reveals today that following the right-wing campaign against the New Israel Fund, Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief David Horovitz informed NIF President Naomi Chazan that the paper will stop publishing her columns.
Yesterday Chazan received an e-mail from Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief David Horovitz, informing her the newspaper would cease publishing her column.
Chazan had provided the daily with one of its few leftist voices in recent years. Horovitz declined to respond to questions from Haaretz last night.
This is just one of several recent cases of self-censorship in the Israeli media: Both Maariv and Yediot, two of the leading tabloids in Israel, have decided recently not to publish major articles which were critical of Israel and the IDF.
Chazan, who was the target of a Der Sturmer style ads in the Israeli media, also commented on her personal feelings following the rightwing Im Tirzu movement’s campaign against her:
“I don’t know why they chose me – I can think of plenty of human rights supporters they could pick on. But I’m ever so proud to be a symbol of Israeli democracy. No doubt about it.”
Earlier this week, the Jewish community in Melbourne canceled a scheduled event with Chazan.
Dr. Amir Paz-Fuchs: McCarthyism, pure and simple
Dr. Amir Paz-Fuchs is a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Ono Academic College and a member of the board of Bimkom — Planners for Planning Rights.
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel | Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross;Dorit Abramovitch | News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community;Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF; Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part I: Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part II: Ha’ir media critic on journalism as propaganda |
Im Tirzu (“if you wish”), we’ll tell you a fairytale
Ben Caspit
An ill wind is blowing and gloomy clouds are darkening our skies. Another red line was crossed last weekend. In an alarming and alarmist article, Maariv’s Ben Caspit expounded his political philosophy and gave generous space to a pathetic and superficial “investigation” carried out by an organization called Im Tirtzu (“if you wish”). According to the investigation and the article, the New Israel Fund supports many of the Israeli organizations that provided the Goldstone Committee with incriminating material relating to the IDF. The article was powerful enough to convince the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to consider establishing a committee of inquiry to examine the forwarding of information by Israeli organizations to the UN’s investigative committee.
The background to this investigation and the article is perfectly obvious. The Israel Police arrests a woman for wrapping herself in a prayer-shawl; regularly stops youths who are inoffensively walking in the Rechavia neighborhood of Jerusalem or the Hadar neighborhood of Haifa and carries out searches without legal grounds; disperses a demonstration that the court has ruled does not require a permit; and arrests human rights activists, including Hagai El-Ad, executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. The Knesset comes up with its own initiatives – the Loyalty Law, the Citizenship Law, the Nakba Law – in order to deny Israeli Arabs their basic rights and the possibility to share a common fate in solidarity. Not to speak of the Infiltration Law, which threatens to imprison refugees or those who assist them for decades.
Ben Dror Yemini
These are just a few examples from the past few months alone; there are many others. Who is trying to stop this repellent flood? Civil society organizations, which are funded by the New Israel Fund, among other sources. The New Israel Fund supports over 300 organizations active in the fields of women’s rights, the struggle against racism, immigrant absorption, single-parent families, and promoting equality and social justice in Israel. For Ben-Dror Yemini, however, editor of the opinions section in Ma’ariv, all this is just a sophisticated cover. He is convinced that “most of the bodies supported by the New Israel Fund are active in delegitimizing Israel… They are the biggest enemy… of the free world and human rights.” No less! Caspit follows suit with manipulative malice: “Are these activities by the Fund actually intended to conceal radical actions that undermine the foundations of the Zionist state?” His Machiavellian allusions do not end there. Responding to a question from the “journalist,” Ronen Shoval, chairman of Im Tirtzu, claims that the authors of the investigation drew on the intelligence skills they acquired during their army service. After all, for Shoval there is no difference between collecting information about “organizations that support Hamas and the New Israel Fund.”
Ronen Shoval
The investigation names sixteen organizations that supposedly assisted Goldstone. The truth must be told: if the investigators of Im Tirtzu honed their skills in the Israeli Intelligence Corps then the IDF is in a worse state than we thought. A simple examination would have revealed that at least half of these organizations are not involved at all in the subject of the Gaza Strip, so that they could not possibly have had any information, let alone “incriminating” information, about the IDF operations. Many of the organizations are active in the field of human rights in general, and their publications were quoted in the Goldstone Report in chapters that have nothing to do with the fighting in Gaza. For example, one of the organizations mentioned in the Im Tirtzu investigation — Rabbis for Human Rights — appears in the context of a petition it submitted to prevent the demolition of homes in a Palestinian village in the Jordan Valley. The publications of Bimkom — Planners for Planning Rights association mentioned in the investigation relate to Israel’s planning policies, which strangle any possibility of development by Palestinians in “Area C” in the West Bank. The association Itach — Women Lawyers for Social Justice did not appear at all in the Goldstone investigation.
Unsurprisingly, Shoval, Caspit, and Yemini piously declare that their sole interest is to reveal the truth and encourage freedom of expression. There is no element of revealing the truth here. Is the argument about freedom of expression sincere and substantive in this case? Far from it. This is the conclusion to be drawn not only from their political positions but also from their intentions. An extreme right-wing activist such as Itamar Ben-Gvir can acknowledge the importance of the position of human rights organizations in supporting the right to carry out vigils without police interference. As he explains, this has been his principled position for years. Similarly, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel supported the demand by Ben-Gvir and Baruch Marzel to march in Umm al-Fahm. Genuine human rights discourse certainly serves diverse political orientations. But this is not the discourse proffered by Yemini, Caspit, and Shoval. Their discourse is in keeping with the strategy of the organization NGO Monitor, and its purpose is to silence expression. It is not about freedom of expression, but freedom of denigration. Its purpose is not to enrich public discussion, or even to advance a particular political position within the free market of ideas. Rather, it seeks to trample the opposing position through lies, manipulation, intimidation (as in the headline Fifth Column in Caspit’s article), and demonization. This is McCarthyism, pure and simple. Now more than ever we must remember the words of Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Debunking the Im Tirzu report part II: Ha’ir media critic on journalism as propaganda
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel | Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross;Dorit Abramovitch | News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community;Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF; Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010; Debunking the Im Tirzu report part I: Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er |
Im Tirzu (“if you wish”), this is what we’ll write
What is the difference between Ben Caspit and a reporter? A reporter would have checked the content of the charges that the organizations gave Goldstone, verified them or not, and establish his view of the issue based on his findings. Caspit, however, does not care about verifying the facts; he is here to uphold the approach he came with
Itay Ziv [media critic], Ha’ir [Tel-Aviv weekly owned by Haaretz], February 5 2010 Issue [Hebrew original here]
The difference between Ben Caspit and a reporter is that a reporter checks the facts, and Ben Caspit does not have to. Once they are included in the Goldstone report, for example, they are no longer important. Why? Well, because Justice Richard Goldstone is “a loathsome liar,” according to Caspit. Let us, for the moment, set aside the question of why Goldstone did not file a libel suit against Caspit and Maariv, the newspaper he works for (probably because he is an internationally renown legal expert who does not care much about being slandered by this or that Caspit). What is more important is the chain of the underlying assumptions of the Caspit article that adorned the cover of Maariv’s Musafshabat supplement last weekend (“The Stuff the Goldstone Report Is Made Of”) and was given a front-page banner (reading “The New Fund and the Industry of Lies”).
Ben Caspit
That article was based on an inspection conducted by a movement named Im Tirzu (“if you wish”), which argued that almost half of the Israeli sources quoted in the Goldstone report are organizations that have one thing in common: they are all sponsored by the New Israel Fund. Furthermore, when Im Tirzu isolated only the negative quoted passages — that is, claims about IDF wrongdoing — it turned out that 92% of them were furnished by those same organizations. Caspit and Maariv celebrated the “disclosure,” branded it “an exclusive scoop,” and carried fancy banners on the paper’s front pages, as noted. This was a celebrated political charge sheet disguised as a journalistic achievement. What exactly is the achievement? After all, every remark cited in the [Goldstone] report came with a clear reference to its source, specifying exactly what organization it was taken from. Furthermore, the fact that the NIF sponsors some of those organizations is no secret matter; it actually takes pride in that. If Caspit had bothered to read the report properly, including its reference list, he would have single-handedly found the “incriminating material” that he is now celebrating. As one of those who came out against the report from the day it was published, it was actually Caspit’s duty to do so. It seems, however, that he did not do the bare minimum he was required to, and so he shamelessly established his article on a “research” by an ephemeral and clearly politically-motivated movement, gave it a stage it could not even dream of and, to validate his accusations – that is, its accusations – he even exalted its leader, a 29-years-old character.Thus he did the same thing he had attributed to the cooperation between the Goldstone committee and the Israeli human rights organizations: “they scratch each other’s back and promote each other, as long as their common agenda wins.”
Ad on page 3 of the January 31 edition of the Jerusalem Post.
The hidden assumption at the core of the Caspit article is that the Goldstone report is illegitimate and thus each and every one of the claims or testimonies it contains is false. This a far-reaching assumption that was borrowed one-for-one from the government position — I am speaking of the broadest meaning of the term, referring not to the political position of the government under Netanyahu – against whom Caspit has been conducting a personal campaign, for his own reasons – but to the ruling position that currently stands above the facts. This is the core difference between Ben Caspit and a true reporter. A reporter would have first checked the facts and, based on those, would determine his position later. Caspit, however, has a basic attitude toward the facts the article is based on it. In the specific case before us, a reporter would have checked the content of the claims that the organizations made to Goldstone, verified them or not, and established his view of the issue based on his findings. If he found them wrong, he would have had an opportunity to screw those organizations, as well as Goldstone himself, which is what Caspit, the star of the Maariv team, has been dreaming of. Caspit, however, does not care about verifying the facts; he is here to uphold the approach that he came with and, in most cases, he does that by simply declaring it. In philosophy, this is called “assuming the consequent.”In this case, this conceptual distortion bred a journalistic absurdity. Throughout his entire piece, Caspit rages against a series of arguments and quotations without citing their reference or verifying their veracity. He hides that because, no matter what their content might be, once they were given to Goldstone, he views them as “contaminated” – that is, scheming against him and the position he serves, which is why they are compartmentalized. In this context, we should pay attention to Caspit’s choice of words when he describes how it worked: “The organizations provided him (Goldstone, I.Z.) with the references… offering the committee incriminating materials.” That is to say, no one argues that the testimonies were true (they have “references”) and that they can substantiate real accusations against the IDF activities (they are “incriminating”), and the only trouble is that now this has been made known abroad as well – and that should have been prevented.
This is how journalism serves propaganda.
Debunking the Im Tirzu report part I: Keshev’s Yizhar Be’er
Yizhar Be’er is the Director of Keshev — The Center for Protection of Democracy in Israel. Below is a synopsis of a report he published today, which methodically analyzes and debunks the Im Tirzu “report” attacking the New Israel Fund. The full report in Hebrew can be downloaded here.
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel | Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross; Dorit Abramovitch | News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community; Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF; Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010 |
“Im Tirtzu”: If you will it… or just full of it?
The “Im Tirtzu” movement has published a report on the involvement of organizations supported by the New Israel Fund in shaping the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, blaming them for causing serious damage to the state. Sources in the media and the Knesset have also blamed these organizations for harming the national interests of the State of Israel. Keshev analyses the report’s structural flaws and brings to light facts that the Israeli media did not relate about the identity and motives of its authors.
Im Tirzu demonstration outside Prof. Naomi Chazan's home
The Im Tirtzu movement has recently published a report attacking the New Israel Fund and organizations that it supports for their involvement in the report prepared by the Goldstone Commission, the commission appointed by the UN to investigate events in Operation Cast Lead. The report has gained widespread media exposure. Coverage of the report and interviews with its authors appeared in Ma’ariv, Channel 2, Channel 1, IDF Radio and Reshet Bet of the Voice of Israel. On the basis of this report, Im Tirtzu, which defines itself as a “centrist extra-parliamentary movement that strives to strengthen the values of Zionism in Israel”, has launched a public campaign against the New Israel Fund. Its activists, garbed in keffiyahs, have protested outside the home of former Knesset Member Naomi Chazan, President of the New Israel Fund. In the report itself and in media interviews, the movement’s leaders claim that the New Israel Fund is a fifth column that damages the security of the state.
A meticulous review of the Im Tirtzu report finds that it is tendentious, biased and rife with failings and distortions. The report analyses the sources of information in the Goldstone Report based on the footnotes that appear in it, while ignoring many other sources upon which it relies including government Ministers, generals, government institutions and major media outlets in Israel, including Ma’ariv. By the logic of the report, they too, should be blamed for “causing serious political harm to Israel and damaging the state’s military capability to defend itself during wartime”, and like the New Israel Fund, they too, should be considered “extremist leftists, anti-Zionists” (in the words of the report.)
Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010
Hagai El-Ad is the Director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). He blogs at the Huffington Post, where he recently posted an incisive article on Sheikh Jarrah.
Other recent posts on the latest wave of suppression of dissent in Israel| Essays Hadas Ziv; Hagai El-Ad; Yariv Mohar; Aeyal Gross; Dorit Abramovitch | News and analysis IDF joins assault on Israeli human rights community; Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “Responsible for Goldstone Report”; Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer; Two senior Maariv reporters attack the anti-NIF campaign sponsored by their newspaper; Following the Im Tirzu campaign: First Knesset steps against NIF |
Israeli McCarthyism, circa 2010
Ad on page 3 of the January 31 edition of the Jerusalem Post.
The deliberations in the Knesset yesterday (February 3 2010) breathed new life into Joseph McCarthy’s legacy. After a week of incitement against the New Israel Fund (NIF) and its human rights grantees, the nonsense reached parliament. And as if carefully reading the instructions for would-be new McCarthys (“McCarthysm is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence”), here’s how Israel’s parliament deliberated with the upmost seriousness the “Data transfer for the Goldstone Report by the NIF and lefty organizations”. The discussion did not only demonstrate utter disregard to facts, it actually defied common sense. Here’s an eclectic tasting-menu from yet another day in the ongoing project of dismantling Israel’s democracy.
MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi – New National Religious Party) begun with a short introduction to the concept of treason: “My friends the members of the Knesset. Treason was defined as a crime so to prevent soldiers and civilians from providing ammunition to the enemy to destroy Israel. That’s treason… The Goldstone Report, I think, is the harshest report issued by the UN against Israel, and Israel, in my opinion, wall to wall, is trying to undermine the report, refute the lies, the libel presented there. And we realize that we are fighting against a report that threatens us as much as war. Is nothing less than war. It gives legitimacy to fuel Israel’s worst enemies to fight us. And if there’s a premium mitzvah, it’s the commandment to undermine and erase the Goldstone Report. But what do we discover? That within us, among citizens of our country, from [Israeli] organizations, they feed, provide, give information, help falsification of facts, a huge amount, an amazing percentage, to support the Goldstone Report. So you ask me – does it constitute treason according to criminal law? Probably not. You ask me if it constitutes moral treason? Yes and yes.”
MK Danny Danon (Likud) presented the concept of truth: “The question is very simple and we will know the answer within a few months. If these organizations did not give false information to the Goldstone Report – then all the fuss is for nothing. I’d be wasting precious time of the Israeli Knesset. But if they indeed passed false information to Israel’s enemies – if they fed them false data – we need to say: enough.”
This suggests the following philosophical question: what is a worse crime – feeding one’s enemies with false data, or with real one? Or, putting the sarcasm aside for a moment: how is MK Danon going to find out if the questions raised with regard to the IDF’s conduct during Cast Lead are true or false, if there won’t be any credible investigation into Cast Lead?
MK Chaim Amsellem (Shas) seemed terrified, while continuing to demonize: “Jewish and Israeli people, with a clear agenda that is very specific, their voice sounds constantly, on all channels… they get a stage everywhere, are professors at universities, serve in public bodies; each report they publish and every fragment of a press release that they issue receives disproportional headlines and becomes the talk of the day – without almost having anything to really discuss.” Terrifying indeed! Perhaps these dangerous individuals should somehow be silenced? But it gets even more terrifying. Something truly sinister is lurking in the dark, but the courageous defenders of Israel will soon expose it. Read on.
Senator Joseph McCarthy
Environment Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) seemed reassuring with his kind words, that there’s no suspicion of anti-Semitism involved: “I do not mean, in any case, at least in my eyes, to go to each and every donor to the NIF and say: you are actually a partner to anti-Semitism and to deliberately harming Israel”. Thank you minister! But – then again – one can never be too careful, right? It might be anti-Semitism after all: “We need to make sure that there’s no campaign of concealment, that under the guise of social programming for human rights they are actually acting in an anti-Semitic campaign to deny the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.”
So: is it anti-Semitism or not? Erdan helps us solve the dilemma: “Those organizations, companies and friends, are part of the global campaign of radical, extremist Islam, in its fight against the free West…” One has to wonder – is Erdan the new local prophet of neoconservatism?
MK Nissim Zeev (Shas) demonstrated copywriting skills when renaming NIF the “New Ishmael Fund”. MK Ilan Gilon (Meretz) demonstrated talent in his rebuttal of this never ending nonsense: “You can perform a nation-wide rectoscopy to everyone you wish.”
MK Arie Eldad (Ihud Leumi), a physician who opted not to discuss proctology in his remarks, wrapped things up by bringing us back to our key original theme, treason: “I want to explain to you why we need to submit this topic to the Labor, Welfare and Health Committee — since this is a health issue. There’s the issue of noise. The hierarchy of noises I know begins with a birdsong, chamber orchestra, rock band, to the sound of a Merkava tank. The next level of noise is that produced in these Knesset chambers when catching the Arabs and the Israeli left performing treason.”
MK Eldad seemed to be rejoicing in the sound of catching those lefty, Arab traitors. I was hearing noises too – but found no reason for joy. Catching traitors? I don’t think so. The sounds I was hearing were those of Senator Joseph McCarthy grinning at us from the past, rising from his grave. The noises of the undoing of a democracy.
Didi Remez
Michael Sfard
Aeyal Gross
Ami Kaufman
Noam Sheizaf
Hadas
Hagai El-Ad
Yariv Mohar
