Yachad: “together” with intellectual dishonesty?

The Coalition Agreement which forms the basis of the new Israeli government includes the possibility for Prime Minister Netanyahu to proceed – with US blessing and as part of the new US peace proposal, plus a host of other conditions – with the ‘annexation’ (or ‘application of sovereignty’, however one chooses to call it) of parts of the West Bank/Judea & Samaria.

This has caused controversy both in Israel and among Diaspora Jews – even among staunch Zionists.  Yachad (Hebrew for ‘together’ – a group of hard-left British-Jewish activists who proclaim themselves as ‘pro-Israel’ but rarely, if ever, have anything positive to say about the Jewish state) has been particularly vocal in the campaign against ‘annexation’.  So far – so legitimate; nothing wrong with that.

But legitimacy – along with credibility and respect – evaporates when exposed to crass intellectual dishonesty.

One doesn’t need to lie in order to oppose ‘annexation’; one can campaign – even campaign passionately – without trying to deceive.  Passion is not a licence to cheat.

Yachad’s misleading newsletter

On 28 May 2020, Yachad’s Director sent a newsletter to the group’s list of contacts.  This is what she wrote, among other things:

Netanyahu is right, annexation is not democratic.
In an interview published today, Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted that Israel will not “apply sovereignty” and give citizenship to Palestinians living in West Bank areas which Israel intends to annex. “They will remain Palestinian subjects if you like,” he said. According to the Israeli Prime Minister’s plan, Palestinians living in annexed areas will live “under [Israel’s] security control” but will not be equal citizens.

Now, let’s go to the interview that Yachad refers to.  Here’s the question and Netanyahu’s response, which the newspaper even provides with the subtitle “A Palestinian enclave”:

Q: Nevertheless, several thousand Palestinians live in the Jordan Valley. Does that mean they will receive Israeli citizenship?
[Netanyahu]: “No. They will remain a Palestinian enclave. You’re not annexing Jericho. There’s a cluster or two. You don’t need to apply sovereignty over them, they will remain Palestinian subjects if you will. But security control also applies to these places.”

Clearly, Netanyahu talks about areas (such as the city of Jericho) that will not be annexed by Israel.  The US ‘Peace to Prosperity’ Plan describes such Palestinian enclaves – areas of Palestinian sovereignty connected to the envisaged State of Palestine by access roads.  Since they live in areas earmarked for the future State of Palestine, the inhabitants of these enclaves are Palestinian citizens, not Israeli citizens.  Conversely, there are also Israeli enclaves in the midst of the Palestinian state; these are connected to Israel through access roads and their inhabitants are citizens of Israel.  Here is the exact wording of the Plan:

The Palestinian population located in enclaves that remain inside contiguous Israeli territory but that are part of the State of Palestine shall become citizens of the State of Palestine and shall have the option to remain in place unless they choose otherwise. They will have access routes connecting them to the State of Palestine. They will be subject to Palestinian civilian administration, including zoning and planning, within the interior of such Palestinian enclaves. They will not be discriminated against and will have appropriate security protection. Such enclaves and access routes will be subject to Israeli security responsibility.

The Israeli population located in enclaves that remain inside contiguous Palestinian territory but that are part of the State of Israel shall have the option to remain in place unless they choose otherwise, and maintain their existing Israeli citizenship. They will have access routes connecting them to the State of Israel. They will be subject to Israeli civilian administration, including zoning and planning, within the interior of such Israeli enclaves. They will not be discriminated against and will have appropriate security protection. Such enclaves and access routes will be subject to Israeli security responsibility.

So let’s summarise: Netanyahu said (emphasis mine)

You’re not annexing Jericho. There’s a cluster or two. You don’t need to apply sovereignty over them, they will remain Palestinian subjects if you will.

Yachad says (emphasis mine)

Netanyahu admitted that Israel will not “apply sovereignty” and give citizenship to Palestinians living in West Bank areas which Israel intends to annex.

Netanyahu clearly talks about territory that Israel will not annex; Yachad says he referred to areas that Israel will annex.  This, without the shadow of a doubt, is twisting Netanyahu’s words.  It’s horribly misleading.  But, worse, I believe it is a deliberate misinterpretation, an attempt to deceive.  Here is why:

1. The Yachad’s Newsletter does in fact include a link to the text of Netanyahu’s interview. But that link is placed at the bottom of the email, where most readers are likely to ignore it.  In addition, the link is to the Hebrew version of the interview.  But it is reasonable to assume that most of Yachad's audience (British Jews) typically do not read modern Hebrew – or not well enough to fully understand the meaning of what was said.  It would have been honest to place a link to the English translation of the interview (published in the same newspaper) in the actual paragraph.  For instance, by making the word 'interview' itself a link, as I did above, which would have allowed readers to easily access that interview and check for themselves.  
2. Alterntively, Yachad could at least have quoted the short passage from Netanyahu’s interview, in English translation, just as I did above. Instead, they chose to (mis)‘interpret’ it, cutting and pasting small bits in a way that changed the meaning.  The question is – why?
3. Yachad knows the situation in the West Bank – they’ve been organising ‘educational’ tours (read: indoctrination field trips) there for years. The city of Jericho and its hinterland are Area A – the part of the West Bank that, since the Oslo Accords, is under the complete control of the Palestinian Authority – with Israel allowed to intervene only in cases of severe security breaches.  Yachad knows very well that the ‘annexation’ refers to parts of Area C, the part of the West Bank where Israel was granted complete control.  I’ve heard the same Director of Yachad delivering a presentation on Oslo and Areas A, B and C.  Much as I’d like to, I cannot believe that she missed the reference to Jericho and its significance.
4. Yachad are neither stupid nor newcomers to the intricacies of the US Peace Plan – they campaigned against it; they are familiar with Israeli politics and with the positions of the main personalities – certainly Netanyahu. They heard, not so long ago, Mark Regev, Israel’s Ambassador to London explaining that Israel will indeed offer citizenship to Palestinians inhabiting areas ‘annexed’ by Israel – just as she did when it ‘annexed’ the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.  At the very least, that knowledge should have made Yachad circumspect in reading and ‘interpreting’ that part of Netanyahu’s interview.

Netanyahu has previously explained the extent of his planned Jordan Valley ‘annexation’. The orange patch in the thicker part of the blue area is the Jericho area. This is part of Area A and is not included in the planned ‘annexation’. {Youtube screen capture}

Yachad may point to some Israeli journalists (notably Ha’aretz) who made the same dishonest claim.  But two liars don’t make a truth.  At least Ha’aretz published the original fragment from Netanyahu’s interview, allowing people to judge for themselves, to spot the spin.

Yachad’s Director now has a last-ditch opportunity to be a mensch: she can write to the group’s contacts, apologising – without reservations, without ‘hochmes’, without trying to squeeze further dishonest propaganda from what she will say is an honest mistake.  She should furthermore publish her apology in the Jewish News and Jewish Chronicle – the same newspapers the group often uses to convey their other messages.  She should apologise in situ for the equally misleading social media posts.

If she chooses not to do all that, then the verdict is inevitable.  This is not about ‘annexation’ or Israel – we can agree or disagree on that.  It’s about ethics; it’s about salvaging a remnant of credibility.

Intellectual dishonesty is always off-putting.  But it is never more appalling than when employed by the self-righteous, by those who seek to cover themselves in the noble mantle of morality.  Lies and deceit make shaky rungs on a ladder leading not to high moral ground – but to the depths of moral turpitude.

Note: a previous version of this article mistakenly stated that no link to the interview was provided in Yachad's email.  It was – though the link was to the text in Hebrew (a language most British Jews do not speak) and it was included in the 'Read more' section at the bottom of the message, where most people would probably ignore it, as I did initially.

Gaza, Daniel and The Hatchet Job

According to Hamas officials, on Monday 14 May 2018 Israel Defence Forces have killed 62 Palestinians – all of them during peaceful protests at the border with Gaza Strip.

Most Western media outlets attributed the flare-up (either expressly or implicitly) to that pair of right-wing extremists: Trump and Netanyahu.  Who, we are led to believe, had engineered that dastardly act of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  For instance, under the inspired title ‘What happened in Gaza on Tuesday [sic!’], the BBC writes:

“Monday also marked the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem, a move that has incensed Palestinians.”

It is not clear to me whether the distinguished BBC journalists are affected by superficiality, by amnesia or by sheer stupidity. Leaving aside the fact that ‘The Great March of Return’ has been going on for weeks, those of us who are not BBC journalists may wonder why is it that the Palestinians in Gaza were so much more “incensed” than those in the West Bank?  And – if we are to impute the 62 fatalities to Trump’s arsonism, then are we also to blame the circa 2,000 Palestinian deaths of the 2014 conflagration to… Obama’s pacifism?

It wasn’t just the media; Israel’s brave Western European allies queued up to deliver kicks in the Jewish state’s shin.  The severity of those “diplomatic” rebukes varied – but in my view the record of silliness was broken by Theresa May: the British Prime Minister chose to chastise Israel while standing alongside President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.  The Turkish dictator has a less-than-brilliant record of dealing with popular protests: during the 2013 demonstrations in Istanbul, 22 unarmed Turks were killed under his enlightened leadership.  More recently (January-March 2018), Erdoğan has ordered the Turkish army to ‘exercise legitimate defence of the country’s borders by… first bombing and ultimately conquering the Afrin province in Syria; at the cost, one should add, of between 290 and 500 Syrian civilians (since they were mostly Syrian Kurds, rather than Palestinians, people didn’t seem to count so precisely).

Breaking the world record of chutzpah

Meanwhile, a Hamas official has admitted (it is, after all, a matter of pride and Iranian subsidies for them) that 50 out of the 62 ‘peaceful protesters’ were members of his ‘illustrious’ organisation; we are still waiting for Islamic Jihad and the other, smaller ‘factions’ in Gaza to claim their own share of ‘martyrs’.

Naïves may argue that quite a few journalists, diplomats and politicians owe Israel some very humble apologies; but I’m not holding my breath…

What annoyed me more was the reaction of some Diaspora Jews.  And I’m not talking about the usual suspects like J-Street, New Israel Fund and Yachad UK; I’ve long written them off, along with their ‘pro-Israel’ pretences.  No, I am talking about the likes of Daniel Sugarman, a staff reporter with Jewish Chronicle. Daniel unequivocally declares himself a Zionist – and I believe him. (I also thank the Almighty that not all Zionists are as timid as good ol’ Dan; otherwise the State of Israel would probably encompass three tables in Golders Green’s Delisserie Restaurant. The ones closest to the toilets, I think).

On Tuesday morning, the IDF troops perched on the berm facing Gaza were grabbing their rifles; Mr. Sugarman also reached for the tool of his trade: no, not the pen – the hatchet!

Israel, declared Daniel off the pages of the venerable Jewish newspaper, “should be ashamed today”.

True, he adds

“the protests have been violent. Non-violent protestors do not throw rocks and Molotov cocktails. They do not launch flaming kites aimed at Israel with swastikas painted on them. The Hamas Prime Minister, Yahya Sinwar, described the stated aim of the attempts to breach the border as follows: ‘We will take down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies.’”

But Daniel’s problem is not so much with Palestinian violence; or, indeed, with Palestinian violence masquerading as ‘peaceful protest’.  No, his problem is Israel’s counter-violence.  As he so poetically puts it:

“… the response from Israel has been death. Death and mutilation. A cloud of tear gas and a hail of bullets. Over fifty Palestinians were killed at the border yesterday, and well over a thousand wounded. Today, those numbers will likely be surpassed.”

Err… no, they were not.  In fact, Tuesday was a relatively calm day.  And so was Wednesday.

But while Daniel might not be very good at predicting the future, he seems to be knowledgeable about the past.  And understanding, too:

“I know that Hamas has orchestrated these attempts to breach the barrier. I know that Hamas has offered stipends to the families of those killed or wounded in these protests, in the same way that it gives stipends to the families of those who have died while carrying out terror attacks against Israelis. I understand why Israel cannot allow these protestors to cross the border.”

All those facts don’t matter much, though.  Because

“But every bullet Israel fires, every life Israel takes, makes this situation worse. There are ways to disperse crowds which do not include live fire. But the IDF has made an active choice to fire live rounds and kill scores of people.”

Now, I am rather familiar with “ways to disperse crowds”, from my days as an IDF soldier in the time of the intifada.  And if you don’t want to rely on my memory (admittedly, it isn’t that good anymore!), Wikipedia lists them as

“tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and electric tasers”.

On Monday, IDF has used copious amounts of tear gas, including in rather innovative ways – for instance sprayed from drones.

Thousands of non-lethal (but also not very effective) rubber bullets have been fired.

To the best of my knowledge, just the two other means (pepper spray and tasers) have not been used – and only because they only work at very short distance and are certainly not effective against large numbers of  'protesters'.

My understanding is that tear gas and rubber bullets were used, however – and used massively; and that live fire was employed because non-lethal means failed to stop attempts to breach the border.  But… “There are ways to disperse crowds which do not include live fire.” If Daniel Sugarman has discovered such “ways”, I urge him to call as soon as possible Lieutenant General Gadi Eizenkot, IDF’s Chief of Staff.  I’ll be happy to give you his mobile number, Daniel – he is very eager to learn those mysterious “ways”.  You might also want to offer your services as a consultant to all the police forces in the free world.  Trust me, they will pay top sterling for your “ways”.  But before all that, would you mind just updating that obsolete Wikipedia page – to avoid deceiving people like me?

In truth, it may seem that Daniel has achieved a humongous journalistic scoop.  After all, did he not reveal that

“IDF has made an active choice to fire live rounds and kill scores of people.” ?

I’d be so very grateful, however, if he could indicate the source of that riveting scoop.  (My friend Gadi Eizenkot knows nothing about such IDF decision – I checked).  I mean, I hope Daniel has a source – and a credible one at that.  Because otherwise, what he did was to libel a whole lot of people, by declaring them – off the pages of the Jewish Chronicle – war criminals.

Unfortunately, this does seem to be a case of libel.  Because, in his next sentence, Mr. Sugarman appears to call upon a rather unreliable witness: his own ‘logic’:

“You cannot tell me that Israel, a land of technological miracles which have to be seen to be truly believed, is incapable of coming up with a way of incapacitating protestors that does not include gunning dozens of them down.”

Oh, that sublime mixture of arrogance and ignorance – should we invent a new term for it?  How about ‘arrgnorance’??  Don’t you just looove it when a shallow schmuck says “you cannot tell me”?

Well, I can and I shall tell him a thing or two.  True, for a tiny country with lots of things on its collective plate, Israel has achieved some very impressive technological successes.  But they were not achieved by snapping fingers – not even the fingers that Sugarman stuck at it.

Daniel may have watched too much StarTrek; the amazing crew of the ‘Starship Enterprise’ had, I seem to remember, phasers that could be set on ‘stun’.

But in the real world…  It took more than a decade to find a (great, though still not perfect) solution to the threat of rockets launched from Gaza; more than 3 years passed before Israeli scientists devised a way to detect terror tunnels.

Attempting to breach the border fence with thousands of ‘protesters’ is a new Hamas tactic; we can only hope that Israeli wunderkids will soon devise (no doubt at the behest of Daniel Sugarman and using his generous donations) “a way of incapacitating protestors that does not include gunning dozens of them down”.  Though that might have to wait until the knowledge contained in those 100,000 pages of Iranian nuclear experiments is read and absorbed.

“You cannot tell me”…  Oh, but I can!  When they occur, Daniel my boy, “technological miracles” are an achievement to be admired – but not a duty to be demanded.  In bashing Israel for not coming up with miracles-on-order, you have just joined a long and very ignoble queue of individuals and organisations who hold the Jewish state to a different standard from that applied to everybody else.

You have entitled your piece, Daniel

“I love Israel – that’s why I’m criticising it today”

This reminds me of an abuser who, when confronted by the police officer, declared – hand on his heart and sanctimonious look in his eyes: ‘I love my wife; I only beat her when she does not live up to my expectations – so she can improve’.

I can and shall tell you, Daniel, that love should not hurt.

As a Jew and an “ardent Zionist”, Daniel Sugarman, you have no doubt often felt pride at Israel’s unusual achievements.  But one Tuesday morning you woke up embarrassed: the world was once again kicking the Quintessential Jew in the shin and it seemed to you, Daniel, that Israel’s behaviour reflected poorly on your good self.  And for that reason, on that Tuesday morning, you performed a hatchet job on my country, on the army I served in; on our children in khaki drill.  You called us all murderers.  But hey – I’m sure you felt like a good, moral, superior human being once you wrote that article.  And that’s what’s important after all, ‘innit?

Well done, Daniel, you’re the man!  May you grow up and become a mensch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE

Good news!  The man has become a mensch.  I published the blog above on Wednesday evening, in response to Daniel Sugarman’s Tuesday article.  But – lo and behold – on Thursday Daniel wrote an apology – published on the Jewish Chronicle, the same newspaper that printed his initial article.  It is worth reading it in its entirety, but here are some salient parts:

“But the criticism I paid more attention to was from people who pointed out that it was absurd to deal in hypotheticals. I’d said that surely there must be a way the protestors could be stopped without shooting live ammunition at them – that Israel, with its incredible technological capabilities, must be capable of developing a way. That was a cry of anguish, but it was not an argument. If no such technology currently exists, then it was absurd of me to blame the IDF for not magically willing it into existence. The traditional crowd stopping technology would not have worked effectively. Rubber bullets are only short range. The same with water cannons. And with tens of thousands of people rushing the border, this would have been extremely unlikely to work effectively. The border would have been broken through. And then, without much of a doubt, a lot of people in Israel would have died.  That was, after all, Hamas’s stated aim.
But what really affected me the most was yesterday, when a Hamas operative went on television and claimed that, of the 62 people killed in the last two days, fifty were Hamas operatives. Islamic Jihad claimed three more, meaning that over 80 percent of the people who were killed while trying to breach the border were members of terrorist organisations whose direct aim is to bring death and suffering into Israel.
And I opened my eyes and saw what I had done.

[…]

I said that Israel should be ashamed of its actions. But today I am the one ashamed.”

We all make mistakes.  But we are not all equipped with hearts and balls big enough to admit those mistakes.

I forgive you, Daniel Sugarman.  And I respect you.  Shalom, brother!

Breaking the Silent?

It’s December 2015 and, as I have done for the past 4 years, I attend the Limmud Conference, this time in Birmingham, UK.  It brings together circa 3,000 people (mostly British, but also American, Israeli and French Jews, and even a few non-Jews), who want to learn about Jewishness, Judaism, Zionism and humanism in general.

I am one of circa 100 people who came to listen to a representative from Breaking the Silence (BtS) – a group of former Israeli soldiers who claim that the IDF systematically and deliberately commits a whole series of wrongful acts, ranging from unethical behaviour to war crimes.

I am a very unusual member of that audience: I have served in the IDF, including (extensively) in the West Bank during two Intifadas.  I am, therefore, able to critically dissect the BtS narrative, gauging how it stacks up against my direct, personal experience.  The rest of the audience is made up, mostly, of British Jews.  Very few of them (if any) have served in the army – any army; they never had to take a weapon in their hands; they’ve never been in Gaza or the West Bank – let alone in Iraq or Afghanistan.  For most of them, this talk by Breaking the Silence is the first time they ever listened to a former Israeli soldier.  Or to any former soldier.

And that particular former soldier is telling them things that make them very uncomfortable: Israeli troops, he implies, systematically burst into peaceful, random Palestinian homes – for no reason other than to oppress; they destroy property for the sake of destruction; they beat people up; they even shoot innocent Palestinians for no good reason.  The IDF this guy describes is not an army conscripted to defend the country; it’s a pogrom mob.

The highlight of the BtS presentation is a short video.  In it, a soldier in IDF uniform and gear is shown beating Palestinian men at a military checkpoint. He even boasts and philosophises about it, attempting to justify his acts.

Stunned, the audience draws its collective breath.  This time, it’s not just a narrative, but a video.  No longer can they deny that things like these truly happened – not even to themselves; it’s all there, straight from the horse’s mouth.

No, the Breaking the Silence chap isn’t lying – that beating did indeed take place. He isn’t technically lying but – I’d strongly suggest – he is engaging in deceit.  Because this video has not been recorded by Breaking the Silence, but by… the IDF’s own Education Corps. There is no ‘silence’ to break: the deed hasn’t been covered up; this video has actually been used by the IDF for training purposes – to teach other soldiers how not to behave. As for the offending soldier in the video, he has been apprehended, tried and sent to prison for his wrongdoing.

In fairness, the BtS guy did mention those facts. But he did so quickly and in passing, after showing the video and not before. And I wonder: how many people, in that stunned, shocked audience, have picked up those rather key details?

During the short Q & A session that followed, I challenge the BtS guy: did his unit really burst into random Palestinian homes, with no reason?  No, his unit didn’t – but other units did.  Did he see those ‘other units’ with his own eyes?  No, he didn’t – but he heard about it…  I want to keep on challenging him, but the ‘fixer’ (a British Jew from a well-known ‘pro-Israel’ – ahem! – organisation) intervenes to shut me up: they have to move on, other people also want a chance to ask…  I have apparently asked the wrong questions; questions that might ‘spoil the effect’ from the ‘pro-Israel’ fixer’s point of view.

I’ve been reminded of all that recently, when I was offered – by the virtual television channel J-TV – a chance to debate with a Breaking the Silence spokesman, a chap called Avner Gvaryahu.  (The short video of that debate can be viewed here or here).

Avner Gvaryahu speaking on J-TV

Fair disclosure: I despise Breaking the Silence.  It’s not that they hold opinions that are very different from mine; frankly [sigh], a lot of people hold opinions very different from mine!  Much as I disagree with them, these BtS chaps are entitled to their opinion; they are even entitled to promote those opinions and try to persuade others.  But the way they go about it is, in my view, thoroughly anti-democratic and intellectually dishonest.

‘The only narrative in town’

Upon reaching the J-TV studio, I learn – to my huge surprise – that the BtS spokesman has refused to be interviewed concurrently with me.  I say ‘huge surprise’ because Avner Gvaryahu does not know me from Adam!  Yet not confronting this unknown individual (me!) is so important to him that he carefully ascertains with the producer that he’d be speaking unopposed – before assenting to be interviewed.  So, rather than a debate, the video had to take the odd format of two separate interviews: first Avner will have his say; only when they’ll finish with him will I be allowed to react.  But why?  I am not a notorious terrorist (or even a not-so-notorious one!)  I do not incite to violence and strife.  Why not share the stage with me?

Well, it turns out (regretfully) that this isn’t about me at all – as mentioned I am not that famous.  It’s just that speaking unopposed and largely unchallenged is what Breaking the Silence activists like to do outside Israel.  And if, by chance, someone like me happens to be in the audience, then that someone is quickly silenced.  Only Breaking the Silence is allowed to… well, break the silence!  It’s the old ‘freedom of speech for me, not for you’.

On some level, it’s understandable: as I mentioned in the interview, Gvaryahu’s own comrades, those who served with him in the same unit,accuse him of lying.  They did so not anonymously, but openly.  And this may be an unpleasant experience, were it to happen face-to-face.

Breaking Israel’s arm

On their website, Breaking the Silence define the group’s aim as

“to expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories.”

To a naïve foreigner, this might sound logical.  To an Israeli, it sounds a bit weird.  After all, most Israelis – men and women – have served in the army.  And pretty much everybody who did, has at some point (during their regular service – 3 years for boys, 2 for girls – and/or during their annual reserve duty) served in the ‘Occupied Territories’.  They have manned checkpoints, stood guard in sensitive places, patrolled the area and confronted violent riots.  That is, trust me, a lot of ‘reality‘ and plenty of ‘exposure’.  What can Breaking the Silence add to that?

Still, there is nothing wrong with “expos[ing] the Israeli public” to any kind of “reality”.  The only problem is… that’s not what BtS does at all!

Unless one believes that, in order to “expose the Israeli public to the reality”, BtS activists have to travel to Sydney and Cape Town, to Berlin, Brussels and San Diego.  Because that is where the group is most active – abroad.  BtS activists have become true globetrotters: in the past three years or so, they have delivered many dozens of presentations, speeches and interviews not just in North America and Europe, but in places as remote as Australia and South Africa.  Even the BtS ‘guided’ tours of Hebron and East Jerusalem target as a rule foreign visitors, not Israelis.  Hopefully, Avner Gdalyahu still uses Hebrew in conversations with his family and friends; as for his ‘silence’, it is almost always broken in English!

Globetrotters: map of Breaking the Silence international activities (not including interviews, newspaper articles, tours of the West Bank, etc.), September 2012- June 2015. No lecture in Greenland yet, but watch this space! 

Let me be clear: much as I disagree with their narrative, I would find nothing wrong with BtS promoting it in Israel; after all, trying to persuade one’s countrymen is what democracy is all about.  Most Israelis see control over parts of West Bank not as ‘good’ in itself, but as ‘the lesser evil’.  So, if BtS has found a way to relinquish that control without critically endangering the Jewish state (a way that has somehow escaped everybody else’s scrutiny), then they are very welcome to suggest it.  But, as mentioned, that’s not what they are doing.

Avner Gvaryahu was – to put it mildly – liberal with the truth during the interview, when he tried to present BtS overseas activities as ‘occasional’ or ‘opportunistic’:

“I’m here [in the US] to pursue my Master’s [degree], that’s what brought me here.  Breaking the Silence does not have an office in New York  […]  But what we try to do when we have an opportunity like this when I’m here in the States or when we have a representative visiting the UK, for example, then we always try to reach out to communities we believe are crucial for this discourse…”

I do not know who pays for Avner’s academic studies; I do know that he is listed on the group’s website as the Breaking the Silence ‘Diaspora Programming Coordinator U.S.A’.  As for the BtS representative I heard at the Limmud Conference back in December, he wasn’t just “visiting the UK” to do some Christmas shopping!

Unfortunately, their activity abroad reveals the group’s ‘mission statement’ as a naked lie: Breaking the Silence strives not “to expose the Israeli public to the reality”, but to indoctrinate foreigners who know little about that reality.  BtS works “to expose the Israeli public” alright; only not “to the reality”, but to external pressure.  Their chosen tool is not persuasion, but anti-democratic coercion.

In passing, let me remark that, from Breaking the Silence’ point of view, the recourse to external coercion is an admission of failure.  Those who command compelling arguments have no need to twist arms.  Having miserably failed to persuade Israelis – i.e. those who actually serve in the IDF and know the situation on the ground – BtS is now attempting to bully them, by raising the spectre of ‘diplomatic’ and undiplomatic external pressure.

Breaking the deafening noise

One does not need to read as far as the ‘mission statement’ to find deceit.  It is actually blatant even in the group’s name.  Which insidiously suggests that there’s some kind of (imposed, conspiratorial or just ignorant) ‘silence’ around the issue of ‘occupation’; or around IDF ethics.

Is there really a ‘silence’ that needs to be ‘broken’ by some courageous activists endowed with superior moral backbone?  To test that hypothesis, I have performed the following simple experiment: in a Google search box, I have typed the Hebrew words “הכיבוש הישראלי” (“the Israeli occupation”) within quote marks.  Then I hit ‘Enter’.  Wonders of technology: the search took all of 0.32 seconds to return no less than 52,900 hits.  That’s a rather roaring ‘silence’!  And I’m not talking about obscure publications, either: among the top results I noticed articles published on Walla (one of Israel’s top Internet portals) and Ynet (a popular news portal owned by a group that also operates one of Israel’s leading printed newspapers).

As for IDF ethics, just Google “אלאור אזריה” (El’or ‘Azaria, the name of the IDF soldier who shot dead an already wounded and apparently incapacitated Palestinian terrorist).  I did; this time, Google returned… 571,000 hits in just under a second!

But that’s in Israel.  What about global coverage?  Is the world silent about ‘the Occupation’?  A search for the terms BBC, Israel and “West Bank” took 0.36 seconds to return 519,000 hits.  I confess I did not read them all; but the top pages contained links to BBC news items referring to Israel’s occupation of the ‘Palestinian territory’.  By the way, changing the search terms to BBC, Turkey and “North Cyprus” produced only 24,000 hits…

There is no ‘silence’.  It’s a lie.  What BtS wants to ‘break’ is not a non-existent ‘silence’, but those very audible opinions they disagree with.

Breaking the truth

More on Breaking the Silence’ tenuous relationship with the truth:

Part and parcel of the group’s narrative is the systematic attempt to suggest (subliminally at least) that that narrative is dominant, that it is general, typical or prevailing.  As usual, I’ll start from the group’s own website.  It states:

“Breaking the Silence is an organization of veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada […]
Soldiers who serve in the Territories witness and participate in military actions which change them immensely.  Cases of abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property have been the norm for years, but are still explained as extreme and unique cases.  Our testimonies portray a different, and much grimmer picture in which deterioration of moral standards finds expression in the character of orders and the rules of engagement, and are justified in the name of Israel’s security. While this reality is known to Israeli soldiers and commanders, Israeli society continues to turn a blind eye, and to deny that what is done in its name.  Discharged soldiers returning to civilian life discover the gap between the reality they encountered in the Territories, and the silence about this reality they encounter at home. In order to become civilians again, soldiers are forced to ignore what they have seen and done. We strive to make heard the voices of these soldiers, pushing Israeli society to face the reality whose creation it has enabled.”

Note the loose language: BtS appears to speak generally in the name of“[s]oldiers who serve in the Territories”, rather than in their own name – a small number of “veteran combatants” (indeed, a negligible minority, considering the IDF headcount)!  In other words – Sancta Chutzpah!! – they presume to speak also in my name (I have served in an IDF fighter unit for many years – as a regular soldier and reservist; may I call myself a “veteran combatant”?).

Note also the attempt to draw a boundary (drive a wedge?) between“Israeli soldiers and commanders” on one hand and “Israeli society” on the other.  But, as I mentioned already, the majority of the “Israeli society” has served in the army; and most have served, at some point at least, in “the Territories”.  How, exactly, is that large majority “forced to ignore what they have seen and done”??

In a democracy, minority opinions are legitimate; but pretending to represent the majority view is simply dishonest.  Nor is that dishonesty deployed unknowingly – it’s deliberate.  Since the group’s most rewarding targets are people who know little about IDF and “the Israeli society”, part of the BtS tactic is to cast as large a shadow as possible.  Hence the term “veteran combatants”, rather than just ‘former soldiers’; hence the refusal to be interviewed together with other “veteran combatants”; and hence the pretence of speaking on behalf of a majority oppressed by some sort of ‘societal’ conspiracy.

‘National crimes’

But such dishonesty – however fundamental – is just the tip of a very large iceberg.  It would take months and tonnes of ink to unravel the entire web of dangerous lies smuggled in among innocuous truths, the character-murdering innuendo, the subliminal rather than obvious deceit.  I’m afraid that my donors, foreign or not (I have none) aren’t paying for all that time and ink.  But let me at least point out a couple of the more insidious lies.

One of the most morally reprehensible parts of the group’s ‘method’ is the sweeping generalisation.  It starts with an unverifiable ‘testimony’; it always ends with that one very shaky ‘data point’ being not just ‘enriched’ beyond recognition, but also declared – evidence be damned – as ‘the way Israel behaves’.

In October 2013, Iran’s Press TV channel broadcast a video starring Avner Gvaryahu.  Press TV’s running commentary explained:

“Avner Gvaryahu, leader of a group called Breaking the Silence, was invited to the United Nations to speak about war crimes he had participated in and witnessed as an Israeli soldier.”

The video than shows Gvaryahu stating, in front of the UN audience:

“When I was a soldier in the West Bank in 2004-2007, the orders we got… any encounters with Palestinians holding a weapon… we shoot to kill.  You can go and seek through our testimonies at different times and in different years… it was someone holding a weapon… sometimes it was enough for someone in a balcony to hold a binocular, or cell phone… or standing on a rooftop…”

Firstly, note the ‘smooth transition’ from the ‘personal testimony’ (“the orders we got…”) to generalised hearsay (“at different times and in different years…”).  Few people listening to Avner’s words would have picked up that subtle shift.  Yet there is a huge difference in the ‘quality of testimony’ between the two.  As there is, of course, morally speaking, between shooting “Palestinians holding a weapon” and those “hold[ing] a binocular, or cell phone… or standing on a rooftop”.

In passing, let me mention that even the ‘personal’ part of that testimony sounds very much like a lie: in my circa 20 years of regular and reserve service (including during the intifadas) I have never heard such an order.  Quite the opposite: we were instructed in IDF’s Open Fire Standard Operating Procedure – the gist of it is that live fire is permitted only when in real and immediate danger to life and limb.  I remember that SOP well – it was drummed into us every time we went out on duty.

Avner Gvaryahu is not the only ‘silence breaker’ who uses sweeping generalisation.  Let me give you another example.

I have already referred to the case of IDF soldier El’or Azaria.  On March 24, 2016, in Hebron on the West Bank, two Palestinian men attacked and stabbed an Israeli soldier.  Both attackers were shot by other troops; one of them apparently survived, though seriously wounded.  Azaria arrived at the scene three minutes later, along with other soldiers present in the area.  He proceeded to shoot the surviving Palestinian attacker, who was lying on the ground, and killed him.  This scene (though not the preceding attack) was captured on camera by a Palestinian working for the BtS ‘sister organisation’ B’tselem – and the group promptly publicised it as yet another example of ‘Israeli crimes’.

Within ten minutes of the shooting, however, the ranking IDF officer on the scene had questioned Azaria and had reported the incident up the chain of command.  Even before B’tselem’s video had been published, a decision was made to open a Military Police investigation.  Azaria was soon indicted for manslaughter and is currently being tried in a military court.  He pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed that the wounded attacker had suddenly moved, causing him to suspect that he might either detonate a suicide vest, or reach for the knife.

The incident has caused a great deal of public debate in Israel, with politicians and even high-ranking officers weighing in.  Opinions are divided – in the sense that some tend to believe Azaria’s version of events, while others believe he is lying.  What nobody actually claims is that it is permissible to shoot even a terrorist, once he is ‘hors de combat’.

Whether Azaria is guilty of manslaughter or not boils down to whether he had reason to believe the attacker was still a threat – and that’s a matter for the court to establish.  But a couple of facts are not disputed:

• Nobody ordered Azaria to open fire; he made the decision himself and acted before anyone could stop him.
• There was no attempt to cover up the deed – it was reported according to procedure.

But the facts above were not enough to stop Breaking the Silence Executive Director Yuli Novak from turning the incident into an indictment not of El’or Azaria – but of the entire IDF, plus Israel’s political leadership and the Israeli society as a whole.  The kind of en-masse accusation that can never be debated in court; the kind of collective indictment which, had it been uttered by an Israeli against Palestinians, would have been called ‘racist’ by Yuli Novak herself – first and foremost.

From BtS to BDS: placing “all of Israeli society” in the dock

No doubt in order to “expose the Israeli public to the reality of occupation”, Ms. Novak (who, I can assure you, speaks excellent Hebrew) has proffered that all-encompassing accusation in an article she published in English, on a far-left portal.

There, she perorates:

“Azaria exposes, in his testimony, the untruthfulness in that Pavlovian reaction, and in his line of defense, he hits back. No, he accuses: ‘you are willful hypocrites, because this is far from an unusual occurrence. This is what we do there. This is how you have taught me to act. The violence, the light finger on the trigger, the disregard for human life, the use of force and the oppression – that is the policy, that is the worldview held by you and me, that is the reality being upheld over there in the West Bank. So if I am tried in court, you all are culpable.’In this sense, Azaria joins those soldiers who have broken their silence. He places a mirror before us, the public, and lets us see our real face, the true face of the occupation. And in this respect he is correct: not only he should face trial, everyone should. We all should. All those who support the occupation, the hatred, the violence, the racism, and the settlements; not to mention all those who believe the occupation must be ended yet divert their gaze from the destruction it wreaks upon Israeli society.”

Note how the alleged testimony of one soldier indicted for manslaughter – and hence, in all likelihood, willing to say anything it takes to avoid conviction – is leveraged to lift a huge crimson brush and paint with it not just his hundreds of thousands of colleagues, but an entire people.  The act of one soldier who (at worst) has unlawfully killed an attempted killer is elevated to the level of horrendous ‘national crime’.

Incidentally, note also the secondary quotation marks (from “you are willful hypocrites…” to “you all are culpable”); those quote marks are there in the original.  Most reasonable people seeing quotation marks will conclude that this is exactly that: a quote, i.e. an exact rendition of Azaria’s words.  But, although I have spent a couple of hours researching, I can find no other source quoting that passage.  Nor is such argument consistent with Azaria’s line of defence, which – as mentioned – is actually based on his perception of threat from the wounded attacker.  I twitted BtS to enquire whether that was an exact quote – but received no reply.

I did find, however, the Hebrew version of the article, published on the popular portal Walla about a fortnight before the English version.  Interestingly, the Hebrew article omitted the quote marks.  Why were they added in English?  Did El’or Azaria actually say the words Ms Novak attributes to him?  Or is this not a quote at all, but rather Yuli Novak’s interpretation of his testimony, words she puts in Azaria’s mouth to help her make her point?  If the latter, then that would constitute yet another attempt at deceit.  Perhaps Ms. Novak would care to elucidate the mystery, by providing the source of her quote?

BtS Executive Director Yuli Novak:
IDF is "a bunch of people who blindly, uncaringly... Who just want to conquer..."

Lies, damn lies and testimonies

But what about the elephant in the room – you’ll ask?  What about the ‘soldiers’ testimonies’ that BtS collects and publishes?  Everything else notwithstanding, do they not point to a problem?

Well, I’ve read those testimonies.  I mean, I’ve read the actual text, not just the sensationalist titles, which often bear little resemblance to the story.  What I read in those anonymous ‘testimonies’ is a lot of hearsay, a lot of innuendo, posturing, bluster, plenty of (generalised, of course) accusations of ‘criminal thinking’, ‘criminal speaking’ and ‘criminal attitude’, but few instances of actual, severe misconduct.  Occasionally – very occasionally! – one finds an instance which (if true!) actually would constitute a crime and would deserve severe punishment.  Of course, one finds things like that (and worse, much worse) in every army.  Which doesn’t mean that they should be tolerated in IDF; and we wouldn’t – given a chance to investigate them.  But of course, that chance is denied when anonymous ‘testimonies’ are used only to denigrate en-masse, rather than scrutinise and correct.

The BtS database includes a total of 590 ‘testimonies’, covering 17 years: from 1997 to 2014.  The current IDF headcount is circa 620,000 (175,000 regular troops and 445,000 reservists).  Tens of thousands of young men and women join the army every year, while others leave and become ‘ex-soldiers’.  Even assuming that all testimonies are genuine (which one has to take on trust, as BtS refuses to produce any verifiable evidence), 590 is a minuscule sample.  But is it even a random (let alone representative) sample?

To figure that out, one should ask: why are all testimonies negative?  Why do they all (100% of them, as far as I can see) paint a negative – and only negative – picture?  How likely is it that hundreds of thousands of people – conscripted from all walks of life, from widely dissimilar social strata, encompassing a broad spectrum of ideological and political views, etc., had nothing positive to say about how they and their colleagues behaved in the army?  How likely is it that they all seem to agree with Breaking the Silence?  Let me tell you: extremely unlikely!  Look at the huge spectrum of opinions one finds in the Israeli media and in the country’s political discourse.  Look at the number of political parties.  Finally, look at Israelis’ voting patterns.

So how come that all the testimonies Breaking the Silence publishes appear to support Breaking the Silence views?  Let me put it bluntly: it looks like the ‘testimonies’ (if indeed they are real!) are cherry-picked.  It looks like they are carefully selected.  Were the BtS ‘interviewees’ pre-selected?  How?  By which criteria?  Are ‘testimonies’ post-selected?  How and why?

In the recent J-TV interview, Avner Gvaryahu appears to claim  there's no foul-play:

“It’s silly to think that we have to… err… get specific kind of testimony in order to do our work – we just have to listen to the soldiers…”

Well, I’m an ex-soldier, just like the BtS interviewees allegedly are.  May I testify?  Will BtS ‘listen’ to me, will it publish my testimony?  Or is mine the ‘wrong type’ of testimony, i.e. not the type their donors are willing to pay for?

I’m afraid that Avner’s version is contradicted by several testimonies by former soldiers who were approached by BtS.  For instance, that of Josh Levitan (I have selected this testimony because the UK-born Josh delivered it in English).  Mr. Levitan, who has served during the latest conflagration in Gaza (2014), remembers how he was later approached by a Breaking the Silence activist:

“He wanted to hear that I’ve done something wrong, or maybe there was something that I’ve seen or done, or been part of – that I wasn’t happy about… you know, something that I feel like I shouldn’t have done and perhaps the reason I’ve done it, maybe not because of… through my own choice, maybe I feel I was forced into, something that I didn’t choose to do.”

Josh felt that he was being tricked into saying something he did not actually mean, which is why he ends his video with a warning to other soldiers that might fall victim to BtS tactics.

Nevertheless, ex-soldier Joshua Levitan was interviewed by Breaking the Silence.  He testified that he did nothing wrong – nor was he ordered to.  But if you look for Josh’s testimony among the 590 that BtS has published (including in their latest report entitled ‘This is how we fought in Gaza’)… well, you’re looking in vain.  Breaking the Silence has obviously decided that Josh’s testimony told the ‘wrong story’ – so they did not include it in the report.  How many other such testimonies were discarded because they did not fit the ‘desired narrative’?  This is not honest research, but (at best) cherry-picking data points that support a pre-determined conclusion.  Unsurprising: the five (government-funded) ‘Non-Governmental Organisations’ that paid BtS big money for this report are all ultra-critical of Israel.  Had the research led to the conclusion that the vast majority of IDF soldiers agree with Josh – this would have been the last report they ordered from BtS.

Listen to [which] soldiers?

But let us come back to Avner Gvaryahu’s J-TV interview.  He went on to claim:

“… And if you guys, back in the UK, or my government back in Israel would just listen to the soldiers… we believe we could move forward…”

Sounds grand – but it’s just cheap demagoguery.

In Israel, soldiers (and most of us are or have been soldiers) put their life on the line every time they don the IDF uniform.  They deserve to be heard.  The problem is, Avner’s words are just more deceit aimed at creating the impression that most soldiers agree with him.  We don’t.  If we did, he wouldn’t have to travel abroad to find naïve supporters.

Why would a government (most of whose members have themselves been soldiers) “listen to [a fringe minority of ex-]soldiers”, rather than to the will of the electorate – as governments are supposed to do in parliamentary democracies?

And why would “you guys, back in the UK […] listen to [a tiny minority of ‘specially selected’ former] soldiers”, rather than to the majority of Israelis – who also happen to be ex-soldiers?

Do “listen to the soldiers”, by all means! Just don’t ignore us. Our story may be less newsworthy – you won’t read it in The Guardian.  We are less visible: not paid to ‘break the silence’, we have to earn our bread ‘by the sweat of our brow’.  We are the silent majority; don’t let them break us!

Of German Bishops and Jewish Pawns

I ended a recent article by turning the spotlight on the multitude of foreign-sponsored Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) operating in Israel; at the time, I promised to address the issue in more detail.  So here it is.

Despite the pretence, the ‘Israeli NGOs’ are neither ‘Israeli’ nor ‘Non-Governmental’: although operating in Israel, they depend on foreign funding, including directly and indirectly by foreign governments – especially those from the European Union.  In short, they are not ‘Israeli NGOs’, but Foreign Political Subversion Groups (FPSG) – and this is how I’ll refer to them henceforth.

There are tens if not hundreds of ‘Israeli’ FPSGs – more than in any other part of the world and certainly more than anywhere else in the Middle East.  Saudi Arabia practises a particularly abhorrent form of gender apartheid; it currently occupies Bahrein and is systematically bombing neighbouring Yemen (which committed no act of aggression against Saudi Arabia), causing many hundreds of civilian victims.  Yet it is not the Saudi absolute monarchy, but the Israeli democracy that European money is trying to undermine.

In a previous piece, I described ICAHD, Jeff Halper’s neo-Marxist groupuscule, which proposes to dissolve the State of Israel into a ‘regional entity’ to include also the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.  But let’s take this time a different (or, on second thought, not that different!) example: an FPSG called ‘Zochrot’.  Its website claims that the organisation militates for

“Return of the Palestinian refugees [and descendants thereof, in perpetuity] to their country on the basis of acknowledgement and accountability, coupled with a joint Jewish-Palestinian process of restitution founded on the principles of transitional justice.”

The website makes it clear (as if it were necessary) that the “joint Jewish-Palestinian process” is really a one-way street: “acknowledgement”, “accountability” and “restitution” are due only from Jews to Palestinians.

What that would imply is described by the founders of Zochrot in the following terms:

“Jews relinquish sovereignty, exclusive control over the country, the guaranteed Jewish majority.  After more than 100 years of socialization to Zionism, that will require courage and daring.  When the refugees return, Jews will become a minority in the country.  Israel as a Jewish state will change radically, and it will no longer be defined as such.  Jews will no longer be able to determine their future, and that of the Palestinians, by themselves.  They will have rights as a minority in a democracy, but also many constraints.”

"A minority in a democracy"...  Oh, so quite unlike the Yazidis in Iraq, the Baha'i and the Sunnis in Iran, the Shi'a in Saudi Arabia, the Alawites in Syria, the Kurds in Iraq, or indeed the Christians and the Jews themselves all over the Arab Middle East!

And what will the Palestinians have to do to make that heavenly dream come true?  Why, they will also be required to make a huge sacrifice: they’ll have to agree to live together with Jews!  Or, as Zochrot's founders put it:

“Palestinians, for their part, will have to relinquish the materialization of their dream of a lost paradise.  The mythological Palestine, in which all was wonderful, will never return, and will exist only in the world of memory and yearning.  For Palestinians, living with Jews means living with the occupier, with those who expelled most of their countrymen.  This is a tremendous challenge for someone whose land was occupied, and who would certainly have preferred the occupier to simply disappear, evaporate.  That won’t happen.”

But, lest the Palestinians should worry too much about “living with the occupier” who won't "simply disappear, evaporate", Zochrot’s founders are quick to re-assure them: ‘don’t worry, not all Jews will stay’:

“There may be Jews, most of them of European origin, who won’t be able to adjust to a non-Zionist reality, and prefer to use their other passport to move elsewhere, but many will remain – among them those who simply have nowhere else to go, or don’t have the resources to leave.”

A heaven-on-earth inhabited by 'Palestinian refugees' (the vast majority born, bred and educated in Arab countries for 2-3 generations) and Jews who "have nowhere else to go".  All living together in angelic harmony, just like different peoples do in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Sudan...

One of Zochrot’s ‘partners’ (‘accomplices’ may be a better description) has produced a disturbing Youtube video entitled ‘The Holocaust’s Visit to Yad Vashem’.  In it, she plays the role of a personified Holocaust.  Addressing the Jews, ‘the Holocaust’ berates them:

“I am the Holocaust… the best thing that ever happened to whom?... to you.  […]  Thanks to me you have a country… Thanks to me and only me you have an army…There is no one more responsible for your success than whom?…than me.  [… touching her nether parts]  This is the cunt that dropped you into Palestine!”

The video was produced with the ‘generous collaboration’ of Zochrot: the outfit’s founder played one of the characters, while another Zochrot member acted as cameraman and editor.

But, standards of sanity and normal behaviour notwithstanding, Zochrot’s mercenaries are certainly not starving.  In fact, the group is funded by a number of foreign organisations – some of them (unsurprisingly?) German.  Among them is Misereor, which introduces itself as ‘the German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for Development Cooperation’.  It is hard to understand what ‘development’ opportunity have the good bishops identified in Zochrot; what persuaded them to ‘charitably’ give it EUR 115,000 in the first quarter of 2015 alone.  But it is not so difficult to track the source of the money: as Misereor proudly boasts on its website, two thirds of its budget comes from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, which

“every year […] provides it with considerable sums of tax monies”.

The same website further informs us that

“This cooperation [between the Federal Ministry and Misereor] is based on mutual trust, and two principles: The German Development Ministry has pledged not to tie these monies to political conditionalities.  At the same time it must be ensured that no pastoral or missionary measures, which in any case are not included in MISEREOR’s mandate, are promoted with public funds.”

It seems that portraying today’s Jews as demonic creatures spawned by the Holocaust violates no “political conditionality”; nor does it qualify as “pastoral or missionary”.  So why wouldn’t the German taxpayer fund such worthy endevour??

Karl Marx famously argued that ‘religion is the opium of the people’.  But modern European far-leftists often find opium – and just about anything that gets you high – of great help.  Hence, it is perhaps no surprise to find alongside ‘the German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for Development Cooperation’ a think-tank called ‘Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung’, belonging to the far-left German political coalition ‘Die Linke’.  Yes, Die Linke – the political successor of the communist party which ruled East Germany in the good ol' days of the Berlin Wall.  The think-tank sees itself as

“part of the intellectual current of democratic socialism”

As democratic, we would opine, as the Deutsche Demokratische Republik and as ‘socialist’ as the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

The National… err… excuse me… the Democrat Socialists have only made a small financial contribution to the ‘cause’: they provided Zochrot with a rather meagre quarterly handout worth 20,000 Israeli Shekels.

But do not worry, folks – no Jew-hater shall be left to starve.  And since the Germans fell short of keeping Zochrot in the style they've become accustomed to, in stepped the British charity Oxfam; after all, this is an organisation which purports to help the poor!  Oxfam assures its donors that

“For every £1 you give to Oxfam, 82p goes directly to emergency, development and campaigning work”.

I am left wondering whether paying off self-hating Jews falls under ‘development’ or ‘campaigning’.  It’s certainly not ‘emergency’; I’m sure that the 25,000 Israeli shekels given by Oxfam to Zochrot in 2014 will be sorely missed in Nepal, Syria and a hundred other places.  In case you wonder where the money came from, I can tell you that in 2013/2014 almost half of Oxfam’s income (roughly £400 million) were supplied by the British taxpayer, through Her Majesty’s Government and other public authorities.  Oxfam, by the way, spent in the same year less than £270 million on ‘charitable activities’.  Which according to my – admittedly poor – knowledge of non-Oxfamian arithmetics is less than 70p in every £1; not 82, then, but hey-ho…

Zochrot is not the only outfit that benefits from Her Majesty’s Government’s largesse (or, rather, from the hard-earned money of the British taxpayer).  Plenty of FPSGs do.  Sometimes the funds are paid directly by British governmental agencies; at other times indirectly, through the ‘good offices’ of various charities.  Some FPSGs overtly proclaim their ludicrous aims; others (think B’tselem, Gisha, Ir Amim, etc. etc.) are somewhat more skilled at camouflaging it under a layer of ‘humanitarian’ buzzwords.  But, however proficient at concealing the source of funding and their true aims, all FPSGs share some common ‘DNA’.

Firstly, they focus primarily – and obsessively – on the Arab-Israeli conflict (and especially on relations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs), expounding positions ranging from extreme anti-Zionism to just-short-of Zionism; in consequence, they are harshly critical of Israel’s government (or rather of Israeli governments – left, right and centre) and often also of Israel as a country.  They tend to be driven by far-left or extreme-left ideologies.

Secondly, they operate outside the normal framework of the Israeli political life.  Since they command the allegiance of much less than 1% of the Israeli electorate, they stand no chance of being represented in the country’s 120-strong parliament.  Incapable of generating support for their ‘causes’ among the Israeli populace (beyond a tiny number of activists), these outfits have, in practice, given up on trying to democratically persuade their countrymen.  It is not the Israeli public opinion that they are trying to influence; rather, their purpose (sometimes openly declared, otherwise just obvious from their activity) is to persuade foreigners.  In their twisted world, it is foreigners – people who do not live, do not pay taxes and do not vote in Israel – that should determine the country’s future, by ‘applying pressure’ on the Israeli government – i.e. the government elected by those who live, pay taxes and vote in Israel.  If you think that is stridently anti-democratic – I certainly can’t blame you!

The FPSGs share also a very particular modus operandi: their ‘activity’ (directed, as explained above, at foreign audiences) consists of writing ‘reports’ (quickly translated into English, of course), providing press releases and interviews to gullible and/or biased foreign journalists, delivering presentations, organising 'field tours' and providing other types of ammunition to anti-Israel foreign audiences.

All of the above, of course, needs to be harshly critical of Israel; the more over-the-top the criticism – the better the chances of continued and ‘upgraded’ funding.  After all, if foreign meddlers are to be persuaded to throw big money at the Israeli problem – it better be a big problem!

A friend once asked me, astounded: “How come that there are so many Jews and even Israeli Jews who take the side of Israel’s enemies?”

To start with, they are not ‘many’ at all.  In fact, they are a tiny – if noisy – minority, inhabiting the remote fringes of Jewish and Israeli public opinion.  The reason that there are so many FPSGs is simply extreme fragmentation: each small groupuscule typically establishes its own ‘organisation’, claiming to focus on one particular issue: house demolitions, freedom of access to Gaza, ‘settlements’ in East Jerusalem, etc. etc.  Not only does this create the illusion of ‘many’ voices, but – as these mercenary ‘activists’ have learned – it enables them to attract more foreign funding.  Often, ‘career activists’ migrate from one FPSG to another, following the smell of foreign money: several of Gisha’s leading activists, for instance, have previously done a stint with B’tselem…

But, ‘many’ or not, how come that such opinions exist among Jews and Israelis?  Well, why should that come as any surprise?  There will always be – among Gentiles as well as Jews – odd people who say and do strange things.  There were Africans who sold their brethren into slavery; there were (few, but there were) black Americans who opposed the abolition of slavery; a few South-African blacks supported the apartheid; a handful of Brits vied for Hitler; there was even an Italian Jew among the founders of Mussolini’s fascist movement.  In democratic, open-to-the-point-of-foolishness Israel, even aberrations are free to exist and express themselves unhindered.

A better question is: why do European governments fund FPSGs?  Why do they foment sedition against the elected government of a fellow democracy?  Why is it, for instance, that the British government pays money to fringe political causes in a foreign country – especially one endowed with its own sturdy democratic institutions?

According to NGO Monitor, an organisation led by Gerald Steinberg, Professor of Political Science, and founder of the Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation:

“The British government provides millions of pounds annually, through direct and indirect funding processes, to highly politicized NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that operate in the UK, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

NGO Monitor has written to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, enquiring about the British involvement.  In its response, the FCO claimed that

“The UK Government does not support the BDS movement, [...] we have been very clear that the boycotts movement is not productive [...] it could be deeply corrosive.”

But NGO Monitor notes that, despite its statement

“[…] the British government partners with and supports NGOs that undermine peace efforts and increase tensions. For instance, some UK-funded organizations pursue partisan and divisive agendas, are heavily involved in ‘lawfare’ and BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaigns, and employ the rhetoric accusing Israel of ‘apartheid’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, and ‘war crimes’.”

NGO Monitor further complains about lack of transparency:

“Information on projects funded by the Department for International Development (DFID – ‘UK Aid’) is available in a projects database.  However, local NGO recipients, which receive UK funds via international organizations, appear anonymously as ‘civil society organizations / NGOs’ (‘Supplier Name Withheld’)”.

‘Supplier Name Withheld’??  Why the secrecy?  NGO Monitor has eventually gained access to some of the information, but only through a decision of the UK Information Commisioner’s Office (ICO), after the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) refused to honour a Freedom of Information request.

It should come as no surprise that the FCO is less than willing to reveal its financial dealings in Israel; they are not exactly ‘kosher’.  The British government would not dream of funding pro-Basque or pro-Catalan political activities in Spain; it does not even dare criticise the blatant anti-Roma policies of fellow European governments.  Her Majesty’s Government (and, quite rightly, Her Majesty’s subjects) would take a very dim view of Israel, if it were to – say – fund the SNP, or the Scottish ‘Yes Campaign’; yet the same government allocates money to radical political movements in Israel!

And if you are naïve enough to believe that the money comes with no strings attached, let me assure you that quite the opposite is true: in order to partake of the European ‘generosity’, the FPSGs are required to sign contracts, committing themselves to rendering certain ‘services’; which include (nay, consist of) bashing the Israeli government, the Israeli Army, the Israeli Courts of Law and Israel in general.

Take, for instance, an FPSG called ‘Breaking the Silence’.  It presents itself as

“an organization of veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military”,

the implication being that they are patriots.  Yet among its ‘partners’ one finds good ol’ ICAHD – the FPSG that wants to dissolve the State of Israel and replace it with an Arab-majority ‘regional entity’…

‘Breaking the Silence’ is paid not to perform unbiased, honest research, but specifically to obtain and provide ‘negative testimonies’ from (anonymous!) Israeli soldiers who (so ‘Breaking the Silence’purports) participated in military operations in Gaza.

According to Deloitte, which audited its finances, the ‘Breaking the Silence’ signed an agreement with Oxfam UK, committing to interview ”as many soldiers as possible”; but not just any ol’ soldiers, no.  Apparently, Oxfam is only interested in soldiers that testify regarding “immoral actions” that violate human rights.  Oxfam has zero interest in soldiers (the vast, overwhelming majority) who testify about moral behaviour by the IDF; such testimonies won’t satisfy Oxfam and, hence, won’t earn ‘Breaking the Silence’ any money.

The purpose of bashing Israel is even clearer when the funds are channeled through Palestinian organisations.  Thus, in August 2014, the Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (a Palestinian organisation jointly funded by Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands) contracted nine FPSGs – including Breaking the Silence and B’tselem – to document “human rights and international humanitarian law violations during the course of Israel’s ongoing military offensive on the Gaza Strip.”

In the case of B’tselem, by the way, the Palestinians are not just paymasters; they also perform the actual work of ‘documenting’ Israel’s ‘violations’.  Indeed, a visit to the FPSG's website reveals that all its ‘field researchers’ are… Palestinians; on the other hand, all three B’tselem activists engaged in ‘International Relations’ have Jewish names.  The same is true, for instance of Yesh Din – yet another FPSG.  Thus, B’tselem’s and Yesh Din's ‘reports’ are paid by Palestinians, concocted by Palestinians and only ‘packaged’ as ‘Israeli’ for the benefit of naïve ‘internationals’.  If you think that this is unethical and stinks rather strongly of collaboration with the enemy, I can’t fault either your moral compass or your sense of smell.  Had some Palestinians behaved in a remotely similar fashion, they would have been executed as ‘collaborators’; but in the gullible, biased and ideologically-ossified minds that populate the likes of BBC and The Guardian, Israeli collaborators assume the role of ‘Israel’s conscience’!

As a democracy, Israel should be (and very much is!) open to criticism; but it should not be a push-over.  The very meaning of democracy is, after all, that it is the people that make the decisions.  ‘The people’ as in ‘those who live, pay taxes and vote in that country’.  To preserve that basic tenet, a democracy has the right (nay, has the duty!) to defend itself – not just against the overt enemies who want to physically overwhelm it, but also against the false friends that attempt to insidiously undermine it.  It is high time Israel told Europeans, in no uncertain terms, to mind their own bloody business.  And their own (literally!) bloody conscience.