Coteret

Yariv Mohar is an Israeli culture critic. He blogs at Explorer, where a Hebrew version of this post appeared this morning. For background, see Noam Sheizaf’s wrap, Hadas Ziv’s critique, and Hagai El-Ad’s essay, as well as an exposé of the funding of the NGO behind the anti-NIF by Pastor Hagee and CUFI.

Im Tirzu (“If You Wish”) to risk Israel’s security

The extreme right-wing organization of Im Tirzu (“If You Wish”), wishes not only to monopolize Zionism and patriotism, but also to gravely delegitimize Israeli human rights organizations and other critical voices in the Israeli society.  In a report it issued recently, Im Tirzu blames the human rights organizations and the New Israel Fund of making “murder libels against the IDF,” which it claims were made in and after the Goldstone report.  Im Tirzu even launched an inciting street campaign in the same spirit.  In the long run, however, this spirit will harm not only the human rights organizations, but also Israel’s security as a whole.

Im Tirzu charged that reports and testimonies produced by Israeli human rights organizations that are sponsored, among others, by the New Israel Fund, served to substantiate the Goldstone report.  In addition to various distortions, mistakes, lies and half-truths found in the Im Tirzu report, it is based on a false basic assumption.

The way the organization sees it, Israel’s “dirty laundry” was taken out because of the Israeli human rights organizations — as if CNN, Al-Jazeera, and Palestinian and international human rights organizations were never there to witness what happened.  Furthermore, the argument that Israeli sources are considered more reliable, and thus create the most damage to Israel’s image, is rather weak.  The Israeli organizations made sure they produce a balanced and professional picture, and severely criticized Hamas for firing at Israeli civilians.  If it were not for them, the report on Operation Cast Lead might have been much harsher and more critical.

At the same time, if the Israeli defense establishment were more attentive to the human rights organizations to begin with, Israel’s standing would have been much better.  Taking human rights under consideration does not equal the delegitimization of the struggle against terror.  Organizations such as The Council for Peace and Security exposed, on several occasions, how a policy that impairs on human rights cannot be reasonably justified with security reasons and actually harms Israel’s security.  Even in the specific context of Operation Cast Lead, it is clear today that an impartial Israeli commission of inquiry would have been the best tool to ward off the comprehensive criticism that was leveled at Israel, and could help distinguishing between legitimate criticism and remarks that only give Israel a bad name.

Still, the vision of the report that will follow the next war we will engage in, God forbid, is particularly troubling.  Should the Im Tirzu vision materialize, that report would not include reports by Israeli human rights organizations because they would abstain from criticizing the government and the army.  Instead, that report will contain only biased and one-sided reports by Palestinian and international organizations that are not particularly attentive to criticizing voices that emerge from Israel.  It would make Israel look like a semi-democratic state that used to have a critical civil society, but whose current atmosphere and legislation castrates and silences other voices.  The claim that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East” would be obfuscated so that there would be no real distinction between it and the terror-sponsoring states.

Such an atmosphere would lose us the world’s sympathy, and as we witness a radicalization of IDF norms, God forbid, we will witness many more initiatives to isolate Israeli globally.  The US and EU support might also be questioned, and the economic forces will respond accordingly.  A large and progressive part of the US and European Jewry would feel even more alienated from Israel.  This would make smear and incitement campaigns against Israel face little to no international resistance.  The Im Tirzu vision itself will thus be distorted.

The Im Tirzu ision is the opposite of Herzl’s vision.  It is a dangerously short-sighted vision.  It conflicts with the core values of the Israeli society as described in the Declaration of Independence.  It needlessly puts Israel in harm’s way in the name of some simplistic, childish, and twisted vision of patriotism that does not suit an open, democratic state.

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.

A Hebrew version of this article appeared on NRG, Maariv website, this afternoon (February 1 2010.) For background, see Noam Sheizaf’s wrap, Hadas Ziv’s critique and an exposé of the funding of the NGO behind the anti-NIF by Pastor Hagee and CUFI.

On the delegitimization of human rights groups in Israel and the essence of democratic life

The ongoing attack on Israel’s human rights organizations is a misunderstanding of the importance of government oversight – and an even more lethal offence to Israel’s image as a democracy

The scandalous report by Ben Caspit in Friday’s Maariv (“Our contribution to the materials out of which the Goldstone Report was made,” January 29, 2010), set a new low in the wave of mudslinging against the human rights and civil society organization in Israel. Many of us saw Caspit’s article, read it and were shocked – by the inflammatory tone, the McCarthyistic style, the impudence and the salacious “charges” based on the “investigation” by the organization, Im Tirtzu. And if that were not enough, they added to that an ugly and shameless personal attack against Prof. Naomi Chazan, President of the New Israel Fund.

This article is too brief to list Chazan’s record in defending human rights, promoting social justice, civic and gender equality, freedom of religion and democracy in Israel. With her leadership Chazan has contributed tremendously toward the creation of a better and more just Israeli society, of which we are all a part. No mudslinging, as ugly as it may be, can take the least bit away from her brave, determined and moral record.

The cliché about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel is unfortunately appropriate for the present assault against the New Israel Fund. Unfortunately, the present slander is not the first – and will probably not be the last. Campaigns of delegitimization against human rights organizations in Israel and against the Arab public have become a painful part of daily life in Israel. Instead of dealing honestly with the tough challenges facing Israeli society, there are many who choose to attack those who dare identify those challenges.

If extreme organizations such as Im Tirtzu, NGO Monitor, Yisrael Beiteinu and their partners succeed, the ones who pay the price will not “only” be the civil society organizations in Israel or human rights activists. The price will be paid by our democracy and its citizens. The harm caused to the future of Israel and those who live in it will be intolerable. What is on the balance is not a matter of image nor is it a passing trend; gradually, the essence of democratic life in Israel is evaporated.

Months of government indecision since Cast Lead

The current assault focuses on the contribution of Israeli human rights organizations, who receive grants from NIF, to the Goldstone report. This is a particularly grim example of the way those who refuse to deal with an uncomfortable reality instead attack the human rights organizations. Had the government listened in the first place to the reasoned arguments of the human rights organizations in Israel right after Cast Lead, as to the need to conduct a credible investigation in Israel, the report by Judge Goldstone’s committee may not have ever come to be.

Im Tirtzu‘s campaign refers extensively to the damage caused by the Goldstone Report to Israel’s public image. This is an embarrassing mistake in the reading of reality: The fundamental damage (including to Israel’s image) was entirely the result of the policy decisions made willingly by the government of Israel, from its management of the war to its refusal to investigate its own actions.  Presently, after months of confusion, it appears that the state may decide to conduct an investigation after all. Even the outgoing Attorney General, Menachem Mazuz, openly and unequivocally now supports an investigation. Does Im Tirtzu plan to slander and vilify him as well?

Anyone truly concerned about Israel’s fate would have long ago joined the demand by the human rights organizations in Israel with regard to Cast Lead. Instead, dual damage is caused: both by the ongoing pressure to prevent the necessary investigation that Israel must adhere to – and by defaming NIF for its tremendous contribution to strengthening Israeli democracy. Read more…

The antisemite who finances Zionist self-righteousness

The Im Tirtzu movement accuses the New Israel Fund of financing anti-Zionist organizations, but all the while enjoys donations from an evangelist preacher who believes “Hitler was carrying out God’s will”

Danit Gottfried, Walla [Israeli news portal owned by Haaretz group], February 1 2010 [Hebrew original here]

Hagee

In the last days various media have been running a campaign against the New Israel Fund, which defines itself as a venture capital fund for social initiatives. Behind the campaign are activists for the Im Tirtzu movement, which defines itself as an extra-parliamentary movement to strengthen Zionist values in Israel. Im Tirtzu claims NIF funds 16 left-wing organizations that were quoted by the Goldstone report and contributed to the collection of false charges against IDF soldiers during Operation Cast Lead and the negative world climate against Israel.

Among other things, the campaign included a demonstration in front of the home of the president of NIF, Professor Naomi Chazan, in which the demonstrators were dressed up as Hamas members and carried signs saying “we love Chazan and hate the IDF,” and posters showing Chazan’s face with a large horn coming out of her forehead.

But an investigation by Walla! found that some of the funding for Im Tirtzu itself comes from parties that are not regarded with fondness or agreement by the Jewish public. Donors to the movement include the Christian American lobby CUFI – Christians United for Israel, headed by evangelist preacher John Hagee. The organization’s website specifies the sum it gave Im Tirtzu — $100,000.

Hagee was in the headlines in 2008 during the US presidential campaign, when a recording circulated in which he claimed that “Hitler was fulfilling God’s will, to return the Jews to the land of Israel according to the biblical prophecy.” Right after the radical comment, Republican presidential contender John McCain had to repudiate Hagee’s public support. Additionally, in his book “Who Is a Jew?” Hagee claims that “Hitler was half Jewish, from the descendents of Esau,” and that “the Holocaust happened because the Jews rebelled and denied the real God.” He claimed that “Jewish rebelliousness is the reason for the anti-Semitism and persecution they suffered over the years.”

About the economic crisis that hit the US and the world in 2008, Hagee said that “the U.S. Federal Reserve is under the control of a few shareholders, including the Jewish Rothschild family.” He added that “the Rothschild family is part of an extensive economic conspiracy by strong shareholders who reside in Europe.” Hagee is considered a controversial and extreme figure among the Jewish communities in America, after he called the Reform Jews “poisoned” and “spiritually blind.”

Read more…

Hadas Ziv is the Director of Physicians for Human Rights Israel.

A Hebrew version of this op-ed appeared in the February 1 2010 edition of Maariv. Please read Noam Sheizaf’s wrap of recent developments on this issue for background.

Farther right than the government

In the course of Operation Cast Lead there was a sense — in Israel as well — that irregular acts that were immoral had been committed. Upon the conclusion of the operation, demands were made in Israel and around the world to conduct an independent investigation of the events in Gaza that would investigate both Hamas’s actions and Israel’s conduct. A committee headed by Judge Goldstone was formed, which made a public request for testimony in tandem with its request to the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government in Gaza to allow it to arrive in the region.

Any reasonable person who is summoned to appear before a judge should testify to what he saw and experienced. That is the essence of giving testimony before a judge, and he is the one who is supposed to paint for himself a picture that stems from the aggregate of witnesses and testimony. The implication of the arguments presented by the Im Tirtzu non-profit organization, with the support of Ben Caspit, is that it would be better to dodge, lie and cheat only in order to defend the actions of the army, even if they were immoral.

The Israeli government would have done well had it gathered soldiers, officers and statesmen to present the Gaza Goldstone committee with the aggregate of evidence. It is reasonable to assume that the army’s testimony would have enhanced Goldstone’s ability to reach the truth. Had they bothered to testify, the weight of the testimony that we introduced would have diminished from 42% to a marginal amount. But perhaps that is precisely what troubles Ben Caspit and Im Tirtzu: the possibility that the truth about the turn of events in Gaza would have become clearer not only to Judge Goldstone but also and mainly to us.

Judge Goldstone — the man whom Caspit beholds as a “despicable liar” — not only asked but actually begged Israel to allow him to hear its testimony, opinion and interpretation of the turn of events in the course of Operation Cast Lead. Goldstone said explicitly that his report was incomplete precisely because he was not allowed to visit Israel and to hear the testimony of its statesmen and soldiers. He also says very clearly that the report gives rise to suspected war crimes but, since it is restricted in its ability to investigate, a local, independent and worthy investigation was necessary both in Gaza and in Israel.

That integrity — which Judge Goldstone paid for by becoming a persona non grata in our country—was nowhere to be found in Ben Caspit’s article. If Ben Caspit truly wanted to give “side two,” as he referred to the New Israel Fund in his report, a real opportunity to respond — why did he only provide it with a select number of pages instead of the full version of the Im Tirtzu report for it to read? If the report cites a large number of organizations and individuals, why did he not bother to ask them for their response?  But far more significant is the discernment that Caspit wrote an article that was relevant three months ago. Today Israeli society, officials in the Justice Ministry and the Foreign Ministry, MKs and cabinet ministers all understand that the refusal to testify before Goldstone was a mistake. Many of them believe that had Israel provided all of the information it had and created an atmosphere of cooperation, the committee would have been more capable of investigating the truth.

The norm is to say that the media is biased in favor of the left wing. Many studies have demonstrated that not only is that not the case, but that in times of conflict or a fight with external forces, the media tends to toe the government line. Caspit’s article shows that sometimes the media even goes further to the right than the government.

Cross-posted from Promised Land.

Ad on page 3 of the January 31 edition of the Jerusalem Post.

The New Israel Fund (NIF), the American based progressive organization that sponsors social justice projects in Israel, is the victim of a new smear campaign launched by the right-wing movement “Im Tirzu” (אם תרצו) and picked up by Israeli media. Im Tirzu, together with right-wing MK’s and even IDF and Shin Beit seniors, are demanding Knesset and government actions that will prevent the NIF from transferring funds to Israeli human rights and peace organizations – and possibly even ban the organization altogether.

Im Tirzu’s campaign against NIF started in the cover story of Maariv’s political section this weekend. An article by Maariv’s senior political correspondent, Ben Caspit, quoted a claim put forward by Im Tirzu, according to which human rights and peace groups are responsible to more than 90 percent of the evidence against Israel in the Goldstone report. This was a gross misrepresentation of the facts to begin with, because as even Im Tirzu’s representatives admit, the Goldstone report was based mainly on evidence collected form Palestinians and international sources. From the data provided by Israeli sources, 42 percent came form human rights groups.  It didn’t bother Mr. Caspit to make it sound like it was Israeli NGO’s who were behind the entire report.

Israel’s image is at an all-times low. International pressure is mounting, and with it the calls for boycott. All this was fueled by the Goldstone report, which was in itself fueled by Israeli sources. The funding for these sources is provided by, amongst others, the NIF. The question is whether the New Israeli Fund is indeed for Israel.

Caspit mentions 300 grassroots and social organizations receiving funds through the NIF, and asks: “is all this activity just intended to serve as a front for radical subversive activity, acting against the very foundations of the state?”

Caspit never bothered to call anyone in the NIF or other NGO’s to discuss this story. The fund was only given a few words of official comment at the bottom of the article, and the notion that “more than 90 percent of the Goldstone report is based on Israeli sources” has become a “fact” used by the mainstream media.

——————–

During the weekend, Im Tirzu activists demonstrated in front of the house of former MK and the chairman of the NIF, Naomi Hazan. They were dressed with Kafia’s and carried signs saying “I hate the IDF, and I support Naomi Hazan.”

Today (Sunday), the popular host of channel 2 news, Avri Gilad, interviewed on his morning show one of the heads of Im Tirzu, and while doing so, referred to this demonstration as a left wing one against the IDF. “The signs say it all,” Gilad said. “They hate the IDF.” Had channel 2 bothered to check the clip before airing it, or to host in their studio someone from the NIF, they would have found out immediately that this is a right wing hoax. But Gilad was in such a rush to denounce the left, such details never bothered him, and he even repeated his mistake on his radio show on the IDF station.

You can watch the interview here. The protest comes after 4:40 min.

——————–

Today, Im Tirzu wrapped things up in a Der Strimer-style add at the Jerusalem post aimed against Naomi Hazan and the NIF (shown above). Meanwhile, in Maariv, Ben Caspit reported that the Knesset will discuss “the involvement of the NIF in the Goldstone report”. MK Yisrael Hasson  (from opposition party Kadima!) called to investigate all NGO’s “which aid Hamas with their activities.”

As Didi Remez pointed on Coteret blog, Maariv’s story this morning reveals that even IDF and Shin Beit officials are involved for sometime in efforts to introduce measures against Israeli human rights organizations:

Now it turns out that the materials exposed on the weekend are familiar to the IDF authorities and the legal authorities in Israel. Some of them were given half a year ago to the Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit.

He checked the material and gave it to the Atty. Gen., with a recommendation to open an official investigation. No such investigation has been made so far. The Israel Security Agency [Shin Bet; GSS] is also familiar with the material and the sensitive issue. Taking action against this is not simple because NIF is a registered association in the US. Also, it is noteworthy that a large part of the fund’s activities in Israel are devoted to social and public issues of the first order.

At the time of writing, following Maariv, other right wing media organizations in Israel are joining the campaign, and even the Examiner is now claiming NIF and Naomi Hazan (”former Member of Knesset for the semi-Marxist Meretz Party”, as they refer to her) are in fact front men for Hamas.

I will report more on this issue in the next few days