For those of you who have missed the latest chapter of what Matt Duss calls “the continuing attempt to redefine ‘blood libel’ as ‘saying things about Israel I don’t particularly like’”, here’s a brief: This week’s TIME Magazine cover story was a feature by Karl Vick, entitled “Why Israel doesn’t care about peace” was not very useful from the current Hasbara perspective. Unfortunately, attacking it on its merits proved to be somewhat difficult. But Abe Foxman is always ready to play the anti-Semitism card. Haaretz:

A Time magazine cover story claiming Israelis are more interested in their booming economy than reaching an historical peace agreement with the Palestinians is another version of the anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews prefer money above any other interest, the Anti Defamation League said in a statement on Thursday.

This vile anti-Semitism has apparently penetrated Israel’s largest daily,  Yediot Acharonoth. Here’s how senior political columinist Sima Kadmon wraps her analysis of the latest polling on this morning front-page (entitled “Goodbye to peace”, full translation and poll results at bottom of this post):

What has happened to us? When did we come to be so lacking in faith? A week ago Time magazine ran a cover story about why Israelis don’t want peace. Many people criticized the article’s point of departure.

When one reads the findings of this poll, one is forced to contemplate the possibility that that thesis is not so ludicrous.

—

Goodbye to peace

Sima Kadmon, Yediot, September 14 2010 [page three with front-page teaser]

Profound pessimism — that would probably be deemed the understatement of the year in describing the Israeli public’s positions on the morning that the prime minister leaves for a summit meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh.

A Mina Tzemah poll that was conducted yesterday proves that the Israeli public has lost its faith: it has lost its faith in Netanyahu’s intentions, it has lost its faith in Abu Mazen’s abilities and his intentions to be a partner, it has lost its faith in peace. And worst of all, it has lost hope.

It would seem that somewhere along the way to a peace arrangement with the Palestinians we turned into a bitter, untrusting, weary and despairing people. Only that can explain how 48% are opposed (versus 45% who support) a peace arrangement with the Palestinians in which they recognize Israel as a Jewish state and Israel concedes most of the territories in the West Bank, while keeping the settlement blocs in Israeli possession. Since when would a plan of that sort be unacceptable to the public, when would we not have endorsed such a plan wholeheartedly?

Perhaps the reason is that only 36% of the public believes that Netanyahu is sincere in his intentions to reach an arrangement with the Palestinians. Fifty-six percent believe that he is doing everything as a result of American pressure. And that is relatively good in comparison to what the Israeli public thinks about Abu Mazen’s intentions. Only 23% believe that Abu Mazen and the Palestinians are sincere in their intentions. Seventy percent believe that they were forced into the talks by American pressure. So is it any wonder that only a quarter of the Israeli public, 25%, believe that there is a chance that the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will lead to a peace agreement? Seventy-one percent reject that notion.

And if that is the state of affairs and there is no chance of reaching a peace arrangement, why continue with the internal disagreements about a construction freeze? Why continue to wrack our brains on compromises, on calming tempers? Let’s tell everyone we’re not playing that game any more and go all out. When the respondents were asked whether they believed that the resumption of construction would lead to the derailment of the talks with the Palestinians, 68% said they believed it would certainly lead to their derailment. Nevertheless, 51% of the public believes that construction should be resumed everywhere throughout Judea and Samaria. In other words, despite the fact that a large majority believes that a resumption of construction while talks are underway will derail those talks, that course of action is acceptable to more than half of the Israeli public.

Even when the respondents are offered the option of a compromise in which construction is partially suspended and will be pursued mainly in the settlement blocs—a compromise that on the face of things ought to be acceptable to a majority of the public—it turns out that only 42% are prepared to consider that possibility. Thirty-two percent of the public object to that compromise because they believe that the construction moratorium ought to be ended altogether.

What has happened to us? When did we come to be so lacking in faith? A week ago Time magazine ran a cover story about why Israelis don’t want peace. Many people criticized the article’s point of departure.

When one reads the findings of this poll, one is forced to contemplate the possibility that that thesis is not so ludicrous.

—-

Poll: Majority opposed to moratorium

Poll by Dahaf Polling Institute, Yediot, September 14 2010 [page three with front-page teaser]

Q: Should Netanyahu extend the settlement construction freeze after September 26, or should construction be resumed?

Extend construction freeze: 39%

Resume construction: 51%

No response/don’t know: 10%

Q: Would you support a compromise in which construction in the territories is partially suspended—in other words, for there to be construction only in the settlement blocs?

I would support such a compromise: 42%

I am opposed because the construction freeze should be comprehensive: 20%

I am opposed because the construction freeze should be ended: 32%

No response/don’t know: 6%

Q: Do you believe that Netanyahu is serious in his intentions to reach an agreement, or do you believe that he has entered negotiations because of American pressure?

Because of American pressure: 56%

His intentions are sincere: 36%

No response/don’t know: 8%

Q: Do you believe that the Palestinians are serious in their intentions to reach an agreement, or do you believe that they have entered negotiations because of American pressure?

Because of American pressure: 70%

Their intentions are sincere: 23%

No response/don’t know: 7%

Q: Do you believe that a resumption of construction will derail the negotiations with the Palestinians?

Believe construction will derail negotiations: 68%

Do not believe construction will derail negotiations:24%

No response/don’t know: 8%

Q: Do you believe that there is a chance that the negotiations Netanyahu is holding with the Palestinians will lead to a peace agreement?

I believe they will lead to a peace agreement: 25%

I do not believe they will lead to a peace agreement: 71%

No response/don’t know: 4%

Q: There is a plan stipulating that in the framework of a peace agreement in which the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Israel will concede most of the territories in Judea and Samaria but the settlement blocs will remain in Israeli hands, in exchange for which Israel will return to the Palestinians territory of comparable size from within the State of Israel. Do you support such a plan or are you opposed?

Support: 45%

Am opposed: 48%

No response/don’t know: 7%

The results of the above poll are based on the responses of 501 respondents, who constitute a sample cross-section of adult Israeli society. The margin of error is +/-4.5%

Kahana lives? Kahana is revived

The initiative: To revive the Jewish Defense League that Kahana founded; The goal: To protect Israeli speakers abroad

Efrat Porsher, Israel Hayom, February 14 2010

JDL Logo

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Israel’s US Ambassador Michael Oren may not like the new initiative, but in the wake of recent incidents, they and other representatives of Israel worldwide are in for some unexpected help from extreme-right activists.

In recent days, prominent right-wing activists conversed with activists of the Jewish Defense League abroad, as well as with other right-wing activists and students who attend universities in the USA and Europe, who expressed an interest in the idea of reviving the League.  The Jewish Defense League was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahana in the late 1960s, and it was active for some two decades before it faded away.

Ben-Gvir

The idea to revive the League was born after pro-Palestinian students interrupted lectures by Ayalon and Oren in US and British universities.  The League will work in two directions.  First, organization activists will show up at events that Israeli diplomats are expected to address and try to prevent students from interrupting their lectures.  Second, they will prevent diplomats from enemy countries or from countries that are hostile toward Israel from speaking at university venues.  “Those who exploded events attended by Israeli representatives will live to regret it,” said right-wing activist Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Kach, Kahana’s political movement, was outlawed in 1988.

I had some interesting responses to my post on the “split personality” of American liberal Jews. One of them was from Rabbi Jason Miller from Detroit, Michigan, who posted on his blog some of his thoughts regarding this issue. Among other things, he refers to “the seemingly ironic position that so many liberal American Jews find themselves in concerning their views on Israel.”

Admittedly, I am in this category. I never criticize Israel or its government’s policies publicly, because, well, it’s Israel — my Israel, my homeland. The Jewish state has enough critics, I reason; it could use more people playing defense for the team. But when it comes to religious pluralism, I have no problem expressing my frustration for the control that the ultra-Orthodox wields in Israel. A monopoly by one denomination of a religion for all official religious acts is not democratic.

I think that Rabbi Miller is being very honest here about his views on Israel. In a different post, he refers to the acceptance of Gays and Lesbians by the Jewish community as one of the most important development of the decade. This is another example of something that the religious establishment in Israel wouldn’t even consider doing – in fact, Rabbis and religious MKs here led the fight against Gay rights – and Rabbi Miller has no problems speaking against Israel’s orthodoxy.

I wonder, however, what is the different, in the eyes of a liberal person, between Gay and Arab rights. I understand Jews’ hesitations to come out publicly against Israel on issues that involve national security, but when it comes to minorities’ rights, the current government in Jerusalem is far worse than any administration America had in the past fifty years, yet Jews – who took part in some of the great civil rights fights in the US – remain very careful not to criticize Israel on these matters.

Just recently, the Knesset passed a law which would  allow Jewish settlements inside Israel (not to be confused with West Bank settlements), build on public state land, to forbid Arab citizens from purchasing a home within them. At the same time, the Knesset turned down a bill that was meant to make the state allocate land to Jews and Arab on an equal basis.

Doesn’t the fact that Rabbi Miller views Israel as his homeland only makes it more urgent to protest when this country is marching down the “separate but equal” road?

———————–

Going back to the national security issue, my question to Israel’s liberal supporters is if they can imagine a time in which it would be justified to come out publicly against Israel.

Naturally, this is something liberal Israelis ask themselves all the time – when does it become justified to speak against our country, even our community. Often I wonder how would a certain post or news item I might quote here be viewed, used or misused or taken out of context when people around the world read it.

Among leftist bloggers who write in English, we joke that after one raises some critical or controversial issue, you start by being praised by those fighting for peace and civil liberties, than by anti-Israelis, later on by anti-Semites, and finally Holocaust deniers. Naturally, many of these responses are not exactly what we aim for, but still, we think that some of Israel’s actions – more and more lately – deserve to be criticized publicly. The truth – about the West Bank, or about Gaza, or about civil liberties in Israel – must be told, even if it occasionally leads to some unfortunate consequences.

Sometimes I get the feeling that many American Jews exempt themselves from this dilemma by simply accepting Jerusalem’s view all the time. So again, my question to them is this: Can they think of an event that will make them come out against Israel, both privately and publicly?

———————–

Maybe there are signs of change. Here is something I read at James Besser’s blog on The Jewish Week, And Besser is far from being anti-Israeli or a radical lefty:

…there’s something disturbing about the growing determination to stifle debate in an American Jewish community with a multiplicity of pro-Israel views. Israelis engage in vigorous debate about these issues all the time, but apparently our own leaders believe that support for Israel is so shaky here that we can’t raise issues like whether or not the Gaza blockade is in Israel’s long-term security interests.

Interestingly, Besser makes the same point I had: that some of the stuff written on the Israeli mainstream media would be unacceptable for American Jews had it appeared at their town’s paper. After quoting the Haaretz editorial calling to reconsider the siege on Gaza, he wonders:

Wouldn’t any American Jewish group making such an argument be tarred as a violator of the pro-Israel orthodoxy, shunned, called “dangerous” to the Jewish state?

What do you think?

Please comment at Promised Land.

Netanyahu

From a Jerusalem Post report on Sunday’s (January 10 2010) Israeli cabinet meeting:

Basing himself on information provided by the Palestinian Media Watch, Netanyahu said that “incitement continues in the Palestinian media and education system; in its official media outlets and in the schools under its supervision. These serious actions represent a harsh violation of the Palestinians’ international obligation to prevent incitement. I say to the chairman of the Palestinian Authority [Mahmoud Abbas]: Stop the incitement. This is not how peace is made.”

From a report in the January 7 2010 edition of Haaretz:

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a complaint to the White House several days ago lamenting ongoing incitement against Israel by Palestinian leaders.

In the complaint, senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office urged their American counterparts to demand that Palestinians President Mahmoud Abbas cease to glorify the memory of terrorists who murdered Israelis. The complaint went on to insist that the Palestinians live alongside Israelis peacefully and spread peace. [...]

This complaint is the first of its kind — against Palestinian incitement — to gain media attention in Israel, after many years during which Israel largely refrained from making official complaints, or delivered these complaints discreetly to the Palestinian president.

Rabbi Yisrael Rosen

Haaretz’s Akiva Eldar demonstrates this morning (January 12 2010; full annotated text after the cut) that on this issue Netanyahu is throwing stones from within a glass house:

“Shabbat Beshabato,” [is] a weekly pamphlet on the Torah portion distributed in thousands of copies to synagogues all over Israel. Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, the founder of the Conversion Authority and head of the Tsomet Institute of Halacha and Technology [Hebrew], wrote in the most recent edition that “the time has come ‘to declare war’ on the Israeli Arabs, and of course on the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria, who are not loyal to the state, using clear tests to determine this, and to designate them as ‘enemies.’” [...]

What kind of enlightened democracy finances a body that is behind the publication of unacceptable remarks against its citizens? The Tsomet Institute, like quite a few “rogue elements” (such as the Od Yosef Hai Shechem yeshiva, whose rabbi, Yitzhak Shapira, permits the killing of gentile babies) receives thousands of shekels annually from the state. In 2007-2008, Tsomet received from the Science and Technology Ministry over NIS 580,000, and another NIS 100,000 or so from the Ministry of Education, as well as NIS 200,000 from the Gush Etzion Regional Council.

Yisrael Rosen and his institute are known in the US for their Kosher technological solutions the problems posed by a modern observant life. In Israel, the Rabbi serves as an official consultant to a range [Hebrew] of government bodies, including the Police and the IDF. Incitement, however, is also a regular Rosen product: In 2006 and 2008 he published Halacha interpretations equating Palestinians with Amalek and calling for their destruction.

We have no incitement here

Column, Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, January 12 2010

The prime minister complains, and rightly so, that the Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas took part in a ceremony naming a square after a female terrorist. Really the time has come to change the name of all the squares named after suicide bombers and members of the pre-state undergrounds, murderers and freedom fighters. Benjamin Netanyahu protests, and rightly so, the incitement-filled publications against Israel distributed by the Palestinians.

Indeed, as he said two days ago to American senators, “this is not how you make peace.” This is not the time to encourage religious fanatics and fund extremist organizations that incite against their Jewish neighbors.

Among us, those who incite against the Arab neighbors are always “rogue elements.” So why do Israeli governments irrigate them with public water? Take for example, “Shabbat Beshabato,” a weekly pamphlet on the Torah portion distributed in thousands of copies to synagogues all over Israel. Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, the founder of the Conversion Authority and head of the Tsomet Institute of Halacha and Technology [Hebrew], wrote in the most recent edition that “the time has come ‘to declare war’ on the Israeli Arabs, and of course on the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria, who are not loyal to the state, using clear tests to determine this, and to designate them as ‘enemies.’”

In an article [Hebrew] featured prominently on Tsomet’s Web site, Rosen suggests the ammunition to be used against the Arab citizens: “Taking away rights, also collectively (such as traveling on major arteries), as long as they do not meet the test of loyalty to the state. Also the right to vote for the Knesset, and certainly the right to be elected, are not ‘God-given rights’ and may be encroached on due to disloyalty, and certainly for security reasons, and to protect ourselves from those who would harm us.”

The spiritual leader states that “whoever ‘everyone is against’ runs amok and goes wild.”

An enlightened democracy must not take such remarks to heart. But what kind of enlightened democracy finances a body that is behind the publication of unacceptable remarks against its citizens? The Tsomet Institute, like quite a few “rogue elements” (such as the Od Yosef Hai Shechem yeshiva, whose rabbi, Yitzhak Shapira, permits the killing of gentile babies) receives thousands of shekels annually from the state. In 2007-2008, Tsomet received from the Science and Technology Ministry over NIS 580,000, and another NIS 100,000 or so from the Ministry of Education, as well as NIS 200,000 from the Gush Etzion Regional Council.

“The reason for our inability to implement this ‘war’,” wrote Rabbi Rosen, “lies with our ‘internal enemy.’” And who is this terrible enemy? “Our brethren, the Jews of the left, head by some of the High Court justices who prefer human rights and humanism for our enemies to the security of the state and its citizens (see Route 443).” The halacha teacher warns of a battle against those he refers to as “brothers-enemies,” a cleaner definition than “traitors” or “betrayers.”

Machsom Watch member Edna Kanti, one of the residents of the house on Channel Two’s “Big Brother” show, certainly fits this description. She dared to suggest to the Palestinians that they should refuse to show their documents and cross through the checkpoints en masse. The rabbi suggests dealing with Kanti and others like her “through persuasion alone, and primarily with sharp explanations and even mobilized (sic), perhaps we will be able to dissipate ‘their hostility’ or at least marginalize them.”

Kanti can relate to what this handling is like; alongside the Facebook pages calling [Hebrew] for her to be kicked out of the “house” and thousands of talkbacks denouncing [Hebrew] her, her family is receiving death threats, suggestions to trade her for Gilad Shalit and so on. Her friends, who want to maintain the Palestinians’ dignity at the checkpoints, report that the persuasion methods the settlers use with them include pouring water, curses and violent actions. Rogue elements, as we already noted.

Cross-posted from Promised Land Blog.

Last Saturday I met an Israeli-American friend who came for a short visit from his studies in Europe. We talked some politics, and finally came to an issue which always puzzles me: the fact that American Jews are unwilling — almost unable — to criticize Israel, both in public and in private, and even when Israeli policies contradict their own beliefs. My friend noted that if some of the articles on the Israeli media – and not even the most radical ones – were to be printed in the US and signed by non-Jews, they would be considered by most Jewish readers like an example of dangerous Israel-bashing, sometimes even anti-Semitism.

I’ve became more aware of this issue myself since I started writing this blog. Things I say or write which are well within the public debate in Israel are sometimes viewed as outrageous by American Jewish readers; at the same time, events which would make the same readers furious if they happened in the US – for example, the Israeli municipality which tried to prevent Arabs from dating Jewish girls – are met with indifference.

Naturally, I’m generalizing here. Between millions of Jews you can obviously find all kinds of voices – and this is part of the reason I hesitated before writing this post – but I think one can recognize some sort of mainstream opinion within the Jewish community, which both echoes the official Israeli policies, regardless of the identity of the government in Jerusalem, and at the same time, turns a blind eye on events which might distort the image of Israel which this community holds. And this is something which is hard to understand.

———————–

All known data indicates that the vast majority of US Jews support the democratic party, and many consider themselves as liberals (Barack Obama captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote). Yet except for a group of well known activists, you can hardly hear these people criticize Israel, which is not exactly a picture-perfect liberal democracy.

I am not talking here about the old Jewish establishment or about AIPAC. AIPAC are professional politicians. Their status is based on their connections to the Israeli governments, and their ability to promote Israeli interests in Washington. Breaking up with Israel — even just criticizing Israeli politics — will not just hurt their status, it will simply leave them unemployed. Expecting AIPAC or other Jewish leaders with good ties in Jerusalem to declare that, for example, Israel should lift the siege on Gaza, is like asking an insurance lobbyist to speak in the name of the public option.

Naturally, I don’t expect anything from Jewish neo-cons either. These people like Netanyahu, they supported George Bush, and they will go on speaking about culture wars and Islamo-Facists versus Judeo-Christians even on the day Mahmoud Haniya converts to Zionism. You can agree or disagree with them, but at least their views are consistent.

With the Liberals it’s quiet a different story. It’s obvious they care much about Israel, and some of them are very passionate about politics and extremely well-informed about what’s going on here, but from time to time, I get the feeling they hold back some of their views.

I don’t think many liberals, if they really are ones, can accept the siege on Gaza. Even if they think that Hamas is to blame for the current state of affairs, surly they don’t support collective punishment against 1.5 million people, do they? What would they say if the US was to seal the areas in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan where the insurgents are hiding, not letting even basic supply in or out, preventing civilians from growing food or working, and practically leaving the entire population on the brink of starvation? I presume many Americans will oppose such policies.

But let’s leave geo-politics aside, and talk about the current wave of anti-Arab legislation in Israel. There are things happening here on a daily basis which would make most American Jews go out of their minds if they occurred to Afro-Americans in Alabama or to Native-Americans in Oklahoma, rather than to Arabs in the Galilee. Take for example the temporary order preventing Arab citizens who marry none-Israelis to live with their partners and children here, or the new legislation which will make it legal for Jewish neighborhoods and settlements to refuse to accept Arabs. Is this something Americans – not just liberals – would tolerate? I’m not even talking here about the de-facto discrimination of Arabs, but on a legal effort to introduce ethnic segregation in Israel. Isn’t that the same issue Jews fought against throughout our entire history? Weren’t American Jews an important part of the civil right movement? What’s the difference between Blacks in Birmingham and Arabs in Katzir?

I guess that part of the reason for not criticizing Israel is that many Jews are extremely sensitive to the existential threat Israelis sense, so they don’t like to speak against security measures taken by Israel, since it’s not them who would be hurt when these measures are lifted. This is understandable, but many of the problems the Arab minority faces has nothing to do with national security, but with the desire of many in the Israeli public – and their elected officials in the Knesset – to make Israel not just a Jewish state, but a state for Jews, and Jews only. It’s not about terror, just racism.

——————————-

Given the sense of shared history and even close family ties between the two communities, there is something very natural with the American-Jewish community’s desire to take side with Israelis in what seems as its conflict with the Arab world. I guess taking sides also means avoiding looking at some of the faults of your partner. But the problem with the Jews’ attitude towards Israel is much deeper than that, and it shows the most on issues which have nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and are purely an internal matter of the Jewish people.

Here is an example: as we all know, the Orthodox Jewish establishment has an official statues in Israel (unlike most Western countries, state and religion are not separated here, and the chief Orthodox Rabbi has a position similar to this of a supreme court justice). The same Orthodox establishment is very hostile to non-Orthodox Jews, which happen to make most of the American Jewish community. A few weeks ago, Fifth-year medical student Nofrat Frenkel was arrested for wearing a talit at the Kotel. I expected all hell to break in the States. After all, this concerns Jews’ right to practice their faith in the most holy place in the world. I wouldn’t say the event went unnoticed – I saw some blog posts and articles referring to the incident, and Forward published Frenkel’s account of the day – but it certainly wasn’t enough for people in Israel to notice. If American Jews spoke on this matter, it was with a voice that nobody heard.

Now imagine the public outrage if Frenkel was arrested anywhere else in the world for wearing in talit.For some reason, many Jews accept the fact that only in Israel – the same country which asks for their political and financial support – they are seen almost as Goyim. Very few of these Jews will admit that Israel is simply not a very tolerant place, to say the least.

What followed the incident in the Kotel was even more interesting: speaking at a convention of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren said that Frenkel was not arrested but just “led away” by police from the area after offending some people’s feelings there. This was simply not true – she did get arrested – and two weeks later Oren admitted to this fact and claimed he was given “incomplete information” from Jerusalem(even though the fact of Frenkel’s arrest was widely known and never disputed, both in Israel and in the US). Yet even then the ambassador didn’t provide any explanation for the arrest itself, and nobody seemed to demand it from him anymore. More importantly, if there was some discomfort felt in the Jewish community regarding the way ambassador Oren handled the whole affair, it failed again to reach the Israeli media or the Israeli public.

———————–

About ten years ago I worked in one of these programs which bring American youth to Israel. It was a fairly good one: unlike the Taglit-Birthright tours, which last 10 days, we spent 5 weeks on the road, holding seminars and visiting places from Eilat in the south to Mt. Hermon in the north. But as far as politics and history goes, it was elementary school level, with the whole program avoiding any issue that might seem too complex or controversial.

Sometimes I feel that with regards to Israel, the entire Jewish community never got off the Taglit bus. Jews are almost desperate to hold on to some sort of a naïve image of this country, its people and its institutions. This is most evident with the way they see the IDF. It’s not just that they don’t believe what the Palestinians are saying – they can’t even imagine the Israeli army doing bad things. The US army – yes; the IDF – never.

What’s understandable for 16 years old kids is becoming absurd when intelligent, powerful and influential grown-ups are concerned. What is it that makes people think that the Israelis enlisting to join the IDF paratroops are any different than their own Marines during the Vietnam War, or from Blackwater operators today? You get better and worse people everywhere, so we shouldn’t fool ourselves – the Israeli army is a perfectly normal one, able of heroic acts as well as atrocities.

As I said, this whole approach never seizes to puzzle me. I was always fascinated by American history and culture – to the point of obsession – and I admire the role Jews played in it. But something in the current Jewish politics and ideas regarding Israel don’t fit the long tradition of fighting for civil liberties, freedom and tolerance by this community, both at home and around the world.

More than ever, I wonder what role this naïve image of Israel – almost an abstract Israel, which has nothing to do with the actual Middle Eastern country – plays in the way Jews see themselves, and how are they going to look back on it ten or twenty years from now.

The Catholic Church today is respectful of Jews and Israel; it also adores its former Popes. I don’t see a contradiction. I’m not sure why I’m so unmoved by these Jewish protests — maybe because I think Jews should keep their powder dry for actual problems. Or maybe because excessive whining is just so damn annoying.

Those ‘actual problems’ include the obliteration, in Israel, of so many values I was brought up to believe were what Judaism was all about.

Yehuda Hiss

Short story

There is no corroboration of what appears to be the way most of the world now perceives as the assertion of the now infamous Aftonbladet op-ed — that Palestinians were targeted and killed by Israel for the purpose of  harvesting their organs. If anything, Israel was an equal opportunity organ thief. All cadavers going through the National Center for Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir were subject to this treatment, including at least one IDF soldier. The Palestinian connection is indirect — because they are occupied by Israel, some of their cadavers also went into this production line. This is not to understate the criminality of the practice, nor it’s immorality and hypocrisy, especially from a culture that places so much value in the integrity of cadavers and a state obsessed with their recovery from enemy hands. The classic blood libel — that Jews kill gentiles and use their bodies — has not been affirmed, however.

Long (and more important) story

The behavior of the Government of Israel has made the jobs of anti-Semites and blood libelers much easier. I am not referring to its policies on the Palestinian issue, to the monstrous beliefs and actions of right-wing Jewish fundamentalists, nor to the medieval theocrats who increasingly govern the personal lives of Israelis of all persuasions. I am referring to a political class, unable to deal coherently with the country’s core problems, which has made demagoguery, disguised as ”defense of the Jewish people,” a primary weapon in its communications arsenal.

A government that truly cared about defending Jews from anti-Semitism would have  reacted to the Aftonbladet op-ed by publishing Prof. Hiss’ confession on its own, in the same paper and within a short period of time. That way, it would have remained a Swedish tabloid flap and not fueled an un-extinguishable global debate. Embarrassing but not dangerous.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Instead, either incompetently or maliciously, Netanyahu and Lieberman used it to show their mettle in standing-up to the pro-Palestinian Europeans, with the Israeli neoconservative chorus, like Dore Gold and Gerald Steinberg, enthusiastically cheering. End result: Much of the world became aware of Aftonbladet allegation and now has also heard that someone exposed an Israeli admitting that it was true. That is how modern communications works, as Netanyahu, the self-proclaimed hasbara expert, should know. The damage is not limited to this specific libel, because it contributes to the perception that, as a matter of course, Israelis lie until caught.

One does not have too look far for proof that this behavior is pathological (and I don’t mean that as a pun.) Last Thursday, (December 17 2009) the Arbeit Macht Frei sign was stolen from Auschwitz. No self-respecting Israeli politician lost even a moment in decrying the anti-Semitism/neo-Nazism behind the incident. Sunday is cabinet meeting day. From the first morning radio newscast to the late-night TV news wrap Ministers tried to outdo each other in sanctimony and pathos. Then, this evening (December 22 2009,) some very minor reporting that it was theft-on-order for a collector (I am aware that the fact that he is Swedish may well keep the anti-semitic conspiracy alive. But I think readers get my point.) Tomorrow is another day, which might very well bring another incident to give these addicts their polemic fix.

When I was younger, progressives here expressed their humanistic worldview by saying that they were Israelis before they were Jews. I don’t think that works any more.

Channel Two TV News, Ulpan Shishi [Friday Newsmagazine], December 18 2009

Narrator Yair Lapid: For years it has been rumored that dark things were happening in the National Center for Forensic Medicine [popularly known as the Forensic Institute] in Abu-Kabir that must not happen.  Courageous doctors who worked in the autopsy cellars occasionally tried to break through the wall of silence and alert the media of what was really going on there, but when their testimonies were published, others denied them.  This evening, Ulpan Shishi will air the facts for the first time.  A small tape with the recorded voice of Prof. Yehuda Hiss, the institute director, where he reveals how — ceaselessly, for almost a decade — organs were harvested there without the knowledge of the victims’ families.  Yifat Glick has the story.

Hiss [on tape]: My name is Hiss, Yehuda Hiss.  I am a forensic expert.  Here, we are dealing with forensic medicine and anatomic pathology.  I am qualified in both.

Glick: Hiss never sounded like this before: free of politically-correct constraints, uninhibited, almost transparent.  Speaking for 57 minutes on a secret tape that was recorded in the summer of 2000, Prof Hiss, the national pathologist and one of the most controversial figures in the Israeli health establishment, did not stop.  He spoke eloquently, full of conviction, and cold as usual.

In his recorded remarks, which he probably assumed would never reach the media, he sheds light for the first time on the way he managed one of the darkest institutions in the State of Israel, describing secret events that took place there between the late 1980′s and the year 2000.

In 1988, Hiss assumed post as director of the Forensic Institute in the neighborhood of Abu-Kabir, on the border between Yafo and Tel Aviv.  Over the years, the institute issued not only tragic death announcements, but also news about organs that were transplanted and saved the lives of hundreds.  Here, however, is where the problem lies.  In the early 1990′s, few in Israel were aware of the benefits of organ transplants.  Prof Hiss decided to do something about it.  He employed a simple and cheap process that lasted only a few minutes.  Hiss or one of his subordinate doctors would examine a corpse that arrived in the institute and quickly remove corneas that were to be transplanted.

Unidentified speaker: I attended more than 1,000 autopsies.  I took notes.  I did not understand a thing, but I kept everything on record.  Someone would approach a body and do something with its eyes.  I did not know what it was, but I logged it.

Hiss: We removed just the corneas.  We did not like removing the entire eyeball.  When I was an intern, we used to remove the entire eyeball, but later we learned that it is better to…, and we closed the eyelids with glue and covered the place, so that there was no need to open the eye.

Prof. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Berkeley: So there was no way of knowing…

Hiss: There was no way of knowing.

Glick: According to the Anatomy and Pathology Act, the Forensic Institute must first contact the family of the deceased and let it know that they intend to remove organs from his body, which are to be transplanted.  If the family objected, the institute physicians were not allowed to harvest organs.

Hiss: We started harvesting corneas for several Israeli hospitals.  Initially, we did that for the Tel Hashomer Hospital, of course, because I had friends there who knew me well.  They did not pay us for this, but we did receive some donations.  For example, after 3 or 4 years of collaboration with Tel Hashomer, they gave us a microscope.  The Hadassah Hospital gave us a VCR for our own use.  We did everything off the record, highly informal.  We never asked the for the families’ permission.

Glick: The parties involved in the organ harvest affair simply interpreted the law as their saw fit.  They considered the families consent to an autopsy for legal purposes as implied consent to harvest the organs of their loved ones for transplantation purposes.

Hiss: In the 1990′s, we did the same thing with long bones.  Then, we were asked to do the same with heart valves.

Scheper-Hughes: Yes, I was asking about that….

Hiss: We did very few heart valves.

Scheper-Hughes: And the families did not know?

Hiss: That is correct.

Glick: Still, not only heart valves and bones were harvested from corpses without the families consent.

Scheper-Hughes: Legally — according to the law that is now a new Israeli law — is that permissible?

Hiss: It was not clear.  I believe that in 1981, they issued an amendment according to which, you had to ask for the family’s consent, and so on.

Scheper-Hughes: I see.  OK.

Hiss: This, all of this… it was not done.  I mean, once the next of kin gave his consent for an autopsy, we felt that we may.  So we took only skin off the back, but not corneas, when we knew that the families of the deceased would open their eyelids to…

Scheper-Hughes: What kind of families are we speaking about?

Hiss: There are religious Muslims who throw sand into the open casket.

Dr. Avi Weinberg ["plastic surgery expert who served with the IDF reserves in the Forensic Institute in the 1990's"]: We did not completely remove the skin.  We only took a thin layer of skin from the back side of the body so that during burial, when the body lies on the back, you could not see a thing.

Glick: In 1996, the Skin Bank was established in Jerusalem’s Hadassah Hospital.  The bank, that was meant to help treating hundreds of people who suffered burns, was established jointly by the IDF and the Health Ministry.  Dr. Arie Eldad, today a National Union MK, was a senior officer with the Chief Medical Officer’s command and one of those who headed the bank project.  The IDF asked the Forensic Institute to supply skin tissue.

Eldad: In the State of Israel, skin may be taken from bodies that can be harvested for skin or other organs, based on the Anatomy and Pathology Act.  That act explicitly says that if an organ is needed to save a living person’s life, and if that organ must be harvested, the family of the deceased must be notified and, if they do not object, they may take skin.

Glick: Are you saying that you asked for the families’ permission every time you harvested skin?

Eldad: Those were the instructions.

Glick: The IDF established a special unit of doctors that were called up for reserve duty with the Forensic Institute.

Weinberg: I did not read the law, and I was not… I was….

Glick: These were the instructions you were given?

Weinberg: These were the instructions, and so I was told.

Glick: In June 1992, an expert professor, who served his reserves duty with the institute, wrote a letter to the chief IDF medical officer.  [Quotes from the letter]: “In a meeting with the unit’s physicians, Lieutenant Colonel Arie Eldad told us that whenever we are asked to remove skin from a dead body, there will be a court order that authorizes the operation, and the family will give its consent to harvesting skin.

“While serving in Abu-Kabir, I realized that the information that Dr. Eldad gave us was incorrect.  Families were not notified that skin was harvested, not even in a single case.”

The fact is, that in the 1990′s organs were harvested without the families’ consent, were they not?

Eldad: I don’t know what you are talking about.  I do say, however, that we have always followed the law precisely, in letter and in spirit.  What you are doing here is blood libel against a specific interviewee.  At this stage, I am terminating this interview.  Thank you.

Glick: In 1999, the Ha’ir weekly carried complaints by doctors who served in the reserves with the Forensic Institute, who claimed that families of the deceased were not aware of the fact that skin was harvested.  Hiss provided a laconic reply saying, of course:  “Everything you said is most inaccurate, but you are the free press, so you will say whatever you want.”  In the audiotape we have here, however, Hiss sounds very different.

Hiss: They used to send a plastic surgeon here every week.  Instead of sending him to serve with a military unit, they would come here and their only task was to harvest skin for the Bank Skin in Hadassah.  This lasted for years.  More than 12 or 13 years, I think; since 1987 or 1988 until almost 1998.

Glick: When Hiss was asked, on tape, why was that skin deal terminated in the late 1990s, he angrily recalled a scandal that broke out then and was known as the Buzaglo affair.

The late Sergeant Zeev Buzaglo of the Golani Brigade was killed in a training accident in April 1997.  His father, Dr Haim Buzaglo, a pediatrician, came to see the body.

Buzaglo: When they opened the casket, I saw he was harmed.  I saw they practiced on him.  I saw they sliced his neck and that his corneas were removed.  My wife, who is not a physician, looked at him, all broken up as she was, and said to me: Haim, what happened to his eyes?  I said: It is because of the refrigeration.  I just answered something because that was not the time to talk, but I realized something was happening there.  It is not that they did not ask us and just believed we consented.  We signed a document.  They have our signature.

Glick: Saying that you were against that?

Buzaglo: Of course.

Glick: You were against any kind of autopsy?

Buzaglo: Sure.  We did not want him touched at all.  Furthermore, I wrote there, using my pen, warning them not to touch his eyes.  I had this intuition.

Yedioth Ahronoth correspondent Ronen Bergman: Hiss denies it all.  He denied everything.

Glick: Are you saying that research was conducted and that organs were harvested?

Bergman: Yes, and he denies the research, and the perjury, and the organ harvest.  He denies everything.  He said it was all done in agreement and by law, and that families consented to harvest for transplantation.  No organs were taken for studies, he said, none at all.

Glick: In the end, the system decided not to press criminal charges against Prof. Hiss in this affair, but Dr. Buzaglo decided to file a civil suit against the institute director, the IDF, and the Health Ministry.

Prof. Hiss was taped by Prof. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, a professor of medical anthropology from the Berkeley University, a world expert on cultures attitudes to death.  She arrived at the Forensic Institute while conducting a research, watched Prof Hiss at work, and interviewed him.  The tape of the interview collected dust in her office for 10 years, until she heard the news of the scandal that was created in the wake of a Swedish journalist’s report from which some people mistakenly gathered that Israel is murdering Palestinians to harvest their organs.

Scheper-Hughes is convinced, as the Swedish journalist eventually admitted, that Israel never murdered Palestinians to harvest their organs and transplant them.  She argued, however, that organs were harvested from bodies that happened to arrive in the institute, to their misfortune, including Palestinians.

Scheper-Hughes [in English]: It was not exclusively Palestinians or bodies of terrorists.  It included all kinds of people, but the symbolism, you know, of taking skin from a population that is considered to be the enemy and using it, the skin, for the military….  That is something that, just in terms of its symbolic weight, has to be reconsidered.

Glick: For a decade, skin, corneas, heart valves, and bones were harvested from bodies of Israeli citizens and soldiers, Palestinians, and foreign laborers.  In many of those cases, no one had notified the families or asked for their permission.  It took a very long time before someone put an end to this covert operation, which was conducted on the dead bodies.

Lapid: Over their dead bodies, literally.  The Health Ministry’s reaction this evening is very strange — for lack of a better word — and full of contradictions.  [reading the response]  “We were aware of the organ harvesting operations and it was done with our authorization.  At the time, procedures were not clear.”  Here, however, the ministry added a sentence that completely contradicts everything it said before.  “As a rule, organs for transplantation are harvested from people who agreed to donate their organs when they were still alive.  No use was made of such organs without consent.”  The ministry added that, “in the past, a discussion was held in the attorney general’s office, and he established that no training should be conducted on bodies without the families’ consent.  Having examined every aspect of that activity, the Israel Police decided not to start any legal proceedings against anyone involved.  For more than a decade now, work in the Institute is conducted according to the law and under the rules of ethics, morality, and the Halacha.”

Prof. Yehuda Hiss of the Forensic Institute, and the Asaf Harofe Medical Center or Hospital wrote us this evening, saying in reaction that the story we just aired “addresses incidents that took place a long time ago, long before the Asaf Harofe Medical Center assumed responsibility for the institute.  Committees that examined the issues you mentioned found only administrative faults and, as a direct result of their findings, Prof. Hiss lost his position as institute director, and it is now managed by the Asaf Harofe Medical Center.

“Prof. Hiss kept his position as chief forensic physician in the institute.  At the same time, clear procedures were drafted regarding every field of activity in the Forensic Institute and ever since then, every activity there is conducted in accordance with these procedures.”  Let us hope so, because the past was very different.

We also received the reaction of the IDF spokesperson, who established that these operations were terminated a decade ago and are no longer practiced.