Monday, May 30, 2016

The Sham of Iranian Elections: The Supreme Leader Still Reigns Supreme

Reza Parchizadeh is an Iranian-born political theorist and activist. He is the co-editor-in-chief of TahlilRooz, a Persian-language think thank. Reza has authored five books and many articles, both in English and Persian.

With the election of Ahmad Jannati as chairman of the Iranian Assembly of Experts and Ali Larijani as parliament speaker, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei once again proved that it is he who reigns supreme. Jannati and Larijani are both members of his camp, and regarded as part of his inner circle.

The hardline Jannati, 90, secured 51 of the 86 votes cast, and has been a regular member of the Assembly of Experts for the past couple of decades. Furthermore, since 1992, he has chaired the overwhelmingly powerful Guardian Council, the non-elective body whose members are installed by the Supreme Leader in a complex process, and whose task is to vet candidates in all sorts of “elections,” as well as oversee the passage of laws in the Majlis (the parliament) so that they don’t violate the wishes of the Supreme Leader.

In addition to Jannati, Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, another hardliner, became Assembly of Experts first deputy; and Mohammad Hashemi Shahroudi, yet another hardliner, became second deputy. The Assembly of Experts is the political body whose supposed task is to “oversee” the acts of the incumbent Supreme Leader and to “elect” the next one.

On the other hand, Ibrahim Amini, whom the centrist/reformist/moderate bloc had supported for the chairmanship, managed to secure only 21 votes. Amini was not even elected to the board of directors of the Assembly.

It is to be noted that Amini himself is a so-called conservative, and therefore closer to the hardliners. He had indeed been put on the list of their candidates by both the conservatives/hardliners and the centrist/reformist/moderate bloc.

Former president Hashemi, a moderate, advocated on Amini’s behalf — presumably to no avail. Hashemi himself explicitly endorsed the elections by saying that “the election of the board of directors was conducted very properly… It was done fast and in a peaceful environment, clear of any dispute.” However, Hashemi’s unquestioning approval of the results flies in the face of the truth: that Jannati was hand-picked.

Khamenei immediately welcomed Jannati’s election, calling for the Assembly’s “accurate and all-encompassing protection of the Islamic and revolutionary identity of the nation, and management of the intertwined apparatus of the Islamic system.”

Less than a week later, Larijani, yet another conservative, was re-elected to the post that he has continuously held since 2008. Larijani received 173 out of the 281 votes cast. His centrist/reformist/moderate rival, Mohmmad-Reza Aref, only received 103 votes. The reformist, Masoud Pezeshkian, with 154 votes, and the conservative, Mohammad Dehghan, with 136 out of the 279 votes cast, became the first and second deputies of the parliament. The tentative board of directors is also populated with an assortment of major conservative characters.

Larijani, 58, comes from an exceedingly influential clan of conservatives, whose other members also hold high positions in the Islamic Republic. Sadeq is chief justice of Iran and a member of the Assembly of Experts; Mohammad-Javad is a top foreign-affairs adviser to the Supreme Leader; and Bagher and Fazel have held various important posts so far.

Like Amini, Larijani had also been supported by both the hardliners/conservatives and the centrists/reformists/moderates, but he chose to thank only the former after his re-election. These eccentricities all demonstrate the vagaries of the convoluted process of “elections” in a country whose government is an “Islamic Republic.”

As I explained many times prior to and following the February elections, elections in Iran are generally a sham, and these recent elections were in particular a total fraud. There is no difference in principle between the hardliners/conservatives and the centrists/reformists/moderates. The role of the Assembly of Experts in electing the next Supreme Leader is more nominal than real, and the Majlis has absolutely no say in the higher affairs of the state. Therefore, the whole process is only a showcase for the media and the outside world.

However, giving the chair of the Assembly of Experts and the parliament to two individuals close to the Supreme Leader has “symbolic” significance. It shows us that Khamenei is fearful of his future, and therefore has resolved to assign his own men to the high offices of the state. This will lead to more terror, violence and bloodshed. Simply put, it means more executions, more intervention, more “Export of Revolution,” and more “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.”

Sunday, May 29, 2016


 btn_donate_SM.gif USA
Or send checks payable to Ted Belman, Hagdud Haivri #1, Jerusalem, 92344, ISRAEL
Or, if you want a US tax deductible receipt, go to Israel Institute for Strategic Studies and use credit card. Mention "Israpundit"

This is my semi-annual request for financial support.
Please make a donation in support of the work I do.
The issues that have concerned me this year are:
  • Stopping the lone-wolf terror attacks such as stabbings and car rammings.
  • Calling for ending incitement by the Palestinian Authority and its agents.,
  • Fighting the settlement freeze in Jerusalem and J&S
  • Supporting government legislation to strengthen democracy in Israel
  • Supporting government attempts to pass the Jewish Nation law.
  • Fighting the illegal Arab construction in Area C financed by the EU.
  • Explaining the Obama Doctine in the ME
  • Fighting the lifting of the boycott on Gaza
  • Monitoring the war in Syria including the participation in it by Russia, Turkey, Iran, the US and Israel
  • Explaining the threat contained in Muslim migration to Europe and to the US.
Keeping you informed and up to date on these very important issues is a very time consuming job. It is virtually a full time job. 
If you agree with my point of view and value the service I supply free of charge, please make a contribution in support of my efforts.

Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel
972 (0)73 740 8844 --

"Thanks for your continued interest in the news and views Israpundit brings you."


Saturday, May 28, 2016

Robert Kraft's 2016 Yeshiva University Commencement Address    

photo.jpg  YeshivaUniversity Published on May 26, 2016

Robert Kraft, founder, chairman and CEO of The Kraft Group and owner of the New England Patriots, delivers the keynote address and received an honorary doctorate at Yeshiva University’s 85th Commencement Ceremony on May 25, 2016.

 New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft delivered the commencement address for Yeshiva University tat Madison Square Garden: 

After receiving a strong welcoming applause at the beginning of his speech, Kraft joked "that's not the reception I typically get when entering sports arenas in New York" (laughter). 

"One of my father’s favorite teachings was from Pirkei Avot: Ben Zoma taught 'eizehu ashir? hasameach bechelko' -- who is rich? The person who is happy with their portion. What do people want in life? They want to feel connected; to something larger than themselves... That sense of being connected applies to great sports teams like the Patriots and the Minnesota Vikings [owners Zygi & Mark Wilf are on the YU board], it applies to great universities like Yeshiva [University], and it applies to the State of Israel, where so many sacrifice so much that the Jewish homeland can live and be a strong inspiration to the Diaspora."

“The best things we do, the businesses we build, the people we help, the championships we win, the tzedakah (charity) we give, and the communities we strengthen, are truly a gift from God. My father left me an ethical will. In that will he told me something that I think about, literally, every day of my life. He said: ‘At the end of every day, as we lay our head on our pillow, WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES A SIMPLE QUESTION: ARE THE PEOPLE YOU TOUCHED TODAY RICHER AND BETTER FOR HAVING KNOWN YOU?’ 

Go forward from here, my friends, and make people’s lives richer and better because they have known all of you.

The soldier who fired a defense minister End Breadcrumbs
End Content Level 1 Start Content Level 2
Start Article Content

The soldier who fired a defense minister
The goal of the terrorism of the first and second intifadas was to force the IDF to retreat from Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

In 1996, after prime minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, Shimon Peres was asked in an interview: who lost the elections? To which he answered “Us, the Israelis.” When asked who won, he replied: “The Jews.

The Jews defeated the Israelis.”

Peres was wrong. The “Jews” did not exactly win. And the “Israelis” did not lose at all. In the 20 years that have ensued, an ongoing, low-intensity cold war has been waged between the Jews and the Israelis. /6943/Home_Page/Article_Pages/in_read_TOP

On Rosh Hashana 2016, Alexander Levlovitz was murdered by an Arab, signaling the beginning of a new kind of intifada. Every few hours, on average, a lone terrorist would attempt to kill Jews with whatever weapon was at hand.

The goal of the terrorism of the first and second intifadas was to force the IDF to retreat from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It was a “nationalist” struggle. In the new intifada, all the “nationalist” masks have been removed. The goal is simply to kill Jews. The statement these terrorists are making is one we heard 70 years ago: I will kill you no matter how you define yourself; Israeli, secular, Tel-Avivian or New Yorker – you are really just a Jew.

This created a serious problem for Peres’ “Israelis.” When confronted with the new anti-Judaism, they preferred to deny their Jewish identity; there is nothing unique about the Jews and everyone can be a Nazi. /6943/Home_Page/Article_Pages/in_read_middle 

IDF soldiers killed many of the attacking terrorists. This was a healthy, Jewish response. It was the spontaneous reaction of a nation that identifies the monster and has no intention of allowing it to reawaken.

It declares that there is indeed a unique, Jewish identity.

The bullet shot in Hebron by soldier Elor Azariah into a neutralized terrorist turned the cold war between the Jews and the Israelis into an overt war that is getting hotter all the time.

It obligated the “Israelis” to stand up and defend their right to blur their identity. The entire justice system, media and other power resources in the hands of the Old Israel – Ashkenazi, leftist, secular, hegemonic – activated an orchestrated campaign to delegitimize his act.

But a frightening surprise was waiting for Old Israel. Social media allowed the New Israel – Mizrahi, traditional, far-removed from power – to stand up for the soldier. The division was very clear: the Israeli minority will do all in its power to convict the soldier, while the Jewish majority supports him.

The war intensified. The many local protests for the soldier melded into a major rally in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square, boycotted and scorned by the media and political establishment.

Old Israel fought back. At the Holocaust memorial ceremony on Remembrance Day, deputy chief of staff Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan hinted that Elor Azariah and his supporters are Israel’s fascists. The prime minister condemned the speech, But defense minister Moshe Ya’alon supported Golan unreservedly.

The judge’s suggested compromise during Azariah’s trial was rejected by the military prosecution. After all, this is not a private case: it is a war between Israelis and Jews. Elor has become a symbol and Old Israel has no intention of giving up.

And then the war escalated to a new, much more frightening phase.

A Haaretz article titled “The First Jewish Military Coup” seemed to implicitly call upon the IDF to impose the will of the Israeli minority upon the Jewish majority. The defense minister again praised the scandalous speech of Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan and even encouraged every soldier to learn from him and follow in his footsteps. It was a military coup in the making, with the defense minister as the Left’s point man.

When Ya’alon was ousted, journalist Yigal Sarna wrote that “the ouster is a civilian putsch against the army.” The radical Left, despairing of ever winning democratic elections, turned to the IDF to save its ideology.

Now it decries the “putsch” carried out by the citizens against the army.

Who will win this war? The Jews, or the Israelis? Just like the elections of 1996, the Jews will win on the tactical plane.

But again just like those elections, on the strategic plane the Israelis will win. For the Jews to really win, they need leadership that can create a completely new strategy, informed by its Jewish identity.

To create real change, the new defense minister must say: “The security strategy of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel is ‘Kill those who come to kill you – first.’ Any soldier who does not accept this principle should remove his uniform and release the IDF from the attitudes that are preventing it from doing its job.”

Obviously, that will not happen.

Netanyahu will never face off directly against Old Israel. The IDF will continue to clone its senior commanders according to the values of the radical Left. All of us will continue to be perceived as the new Nazis of the world, Israel’s legitimacy and diplomatic and security options will continue to contract – until the Jews realize that they must do more than win the elections: they must also lead the nation according to their values.

And what about the soldier, Elor Azariah? Has this entire episode brought us nothing more than a meaningless change of personnel in the defense ministry? Not exactly – nobody in the media will say this, but the undeniable fact is that immediately following the shooting in Hebron, the new intifada disappeared into thin air.

It is impossible to know how much time will pass until the monster rears its head once again. But one thing is clear: with the one moral bullet that Azariah shot into reality, he has – at least temporarily – neutralized the venom of the new anti-Judaism.

And that is a lot more than Netanyahu, Ya’alon, the IDF and its generals managed to do in an entire half-year of violent terrorism.

Former MK and deputy speaker of the Knesset Moshe Feiglin is chairman of the Zehut political party, dedicated to providing Israel with authentic Jewish leadership based on Jewish identity and liberty.

Friday, May 27, 2016

The ‘National Security’ Excuse Lets Terror Sponsors Go Unpunished

STEPHEN M. FLATOW  5-26-16 – Ever wonder why it is that Congress passes so many strongly pro-Israel bills, yet they never seem to be implemented?
For example, a bill was passed to move the Embassy of the United States in Israel to Jerusalem — but the embassy was never moved. Legislation was passed to restrict US aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) — but it was never restricted. Now a bill has been passed to permit families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia — but in fact, it will actually block such lawsuits.
What all three of these laws have in common is a deceptive little tactic called a “national security waiver.”
The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act was passed by Congress way back in 1995. Its author was Sen. Bob Dole. The bill required the president to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Yet here we are, 21 years later, and it’s still in Tel Aviv.
The reason is because the Bill Clinton administration strongly opposed the bill. The White House demanded that a clause be added to permit the president to waive the embassy relocation requirement if he determined that moving the embassy would endanger America’s national security. How would it harm national security? Well, it might anger the Arab world, so apparently that constitutes a danger to our security.
Major pro-Israel organizations were afraid of clashing with Clinton, so they urged Dole to add the national security waiver. He did so. And every six months since 1995, the president has issued a statement invoking the waiver.
Maybe Clinton would have vetoed the Embassy Relocation Act if it had no such waiver. And maybe Congressional supporters of the legislation would not have had enough votes to override the veto. But it would have been better to have no such bill, than to have this fraud, in which the pro-Israel community pretends that it achieved some kind of victory, when in fact it suffered a total defeat.
Something very similar happened with the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act (MEPFA), which was first enacted following the 1993 Oslo Accords, in order to authorize US government funding to the PA.
Some Zionist organizations lobbied to include a clause making the aid conditional on the PA’s compliance with the provisions of the Oslo agreement. Sen. Arlen Specter added that clause. But then the Clinton administration demanded the addition of language to neuter Specter’s amendment. Once again, pro-Israel organizations went along with the administration’s demand. And so Specter consented to adding a stipulation that if the president certifies that the PA is compliance, the aid goes through.
So every six months, the president lies: He claims the PA is in compliance, even though it has consistently violated every major provision of the accords (such as incitement, sheltering terrorists, and refusing to extradite fugitive terrorists — to cite just three of the most glaring examples).

Claiming that MEPFA “increased restrictions” on the aid or “held [Yasser] Arafat’s feet to the fire” might sound good in a fund-raising appeal. But such bragging masks the sad reality that aid to the PA continues to flow, and American Jewish organizations have not stopped it. Maybe Clinton would have vetoed MEPFA without the “certification” clause. And maybe Congress would not have been able to override it. But having no bill would have been better than pretending that something was actually done to restrict US aid to the PA.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Adjusting the Moral Compass, Part II
By Vic Rosenthal, ABU YEHUDA

…European universalist ethics no longer promotes the survival of cultures that espouse it in the environment that is present-day Europe. We certainly see in present-day Europe all of the above responses to this pressure: adaptation, migration and cultural failure. – Part I

This is even more true for Israel. A nation-state whose moral code is based on the idea that all men are brothers will not survive in the Middle East. It needs to operate according to more tribalistic moral principles, in which the welfare of its own culture and people are given priority over others.

What are the practical implications of such a change to our moral principles?

The case of Elor Azaria provides a starting point. Azaria shot dead an already ‘neutralized’ Palestinian terrorist. This was a violation of standing orders as expressed in the IDFs code of ethics, which explicitly forbids harming prisoners of war.

In his defense Azaria argued that he believed the terrorist may have been wearing a suicide vest. But the military prosecutor, the Defense Minister and other officials apparently did not believe him.

When he was indicted for manslaughter, there were large demonstrations in various parts of the country calling for him to be freed. I suspect that many of the participants didn’t believe him either, but nevertheless they felt strongly that he was not guilty of a crime in any event. I believe they were thinking something like this:

Here is a 19 year-old soldier whom we have entrusted with protecting us, and whose job makes him a target at all times, even when he’s waiting for a bus. We send him into combat in places like Gaza or Lebanon where our tactics of doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties put him at great risk of becoming a casualty himself.

Palestinian terrorists have been murdering Jews on our streets at random, and this one has just stabbed and tried to murder his fellow soldier. The terrorist will receive medical treatment and be incarcerated in a safe and relatively comfortable prison with other terrorists, until he is released in exchange for a hostage or because the PLO has told the American president that freeing terrorists will lead to ‘peace’ negotiations.

Meanwhile, our soldiers will continue to be targets and have to operate among restrictions designed to protect terrorists.

Perhaps Azaria violated orders. But in a larger sense, what he did was not wrong. The position we place our soldiers in is wrong.

This is a perfect example of the tension between the concern for the ‘other’ – in this case a deadly enemy – that is built into what I called ‘European universalist morality’, and our own need to protect ourselves. There are several asymmetries here: Palestinian terrorists are not bound to obey rules protecting civilians or prisoners; indeed, they prefer soft targets when possible. When they are caught they are treated well and often released to continue their activities. They act according to a genocidal ideology in which every Jew is a target for murder, while our soldiers are required to behave like policemen and ‘detain’ a ‘suspect’ who has ‘rights’ that must be protected.

In this case, not only was the shooter, Azaria, charged with a crime, but several IDF officers at the scene were reprimanded for failing to provide prompt medical care for the wounded terrorist.

It isn’t just the army. The mission statement of Magen David Adom, the Israeli organization affiliated with the International Red Cross, calls for care to be given to “any individual in need, avoiding discrimination based on nationality, religion, gender, age, class, political affiliation or ideology.” This has been consistently interpreted to mean that care should be given in an order based on severity of injury, regardless of whether the patient is a terrorist or his victim. A badly injured terrorist, in other words, is expected to be treated first! Whether this happens in actual situations is another matter, which illustrates the moral conflict inherent in the attempt to maintain a universalist morality in a tribal region like the Middle East.

The psychological consequences of our European-style ‘fairness’ on our tribal enemies are also counterproductive. They understand our ‘goodness’ as weakness, and take maximum advantage of it. It does not make them admire us or wish for peace; rather, it generates contempt and encourages them to continue using violent tactics.

What is true of our rules for warfare and counterterrorism also applies to our public diplomacy and other areas. Our leaders express an understanding of the supposed Palestinian need for a state and desire to sit down with them and negotiate a peace deal, while the Arabs publish maps on which Israel does not appear and educate their children to love martyrdom above all. We provide surgery in our best hospitals to the relatives of leaders of Hamas and the PLO, while they encourage their people to pick up a knife and stab a Jew.

The universalist approach to conflict is to look for technical solutions. Hamas can’t stop firing missiles at us? Develop a way to shoot the missiles down, but don’t hurt anybody. No choice but to bomb Hamas targets? Develop a way to warn civilians (and incidentally, Hamas fighters). The PLO has impossible demands, designed to destroy our state? Try to compromise. Arabs stabbing Jews in the streets? Try to arrest them; only shoot to kill as a last resort.

One of the implications of a universalist morality is that there is no such thing as anenemy in the traditional sense. If anyone should be considered an enemy it would be the leaders of Hamas and the PLO; yet our doctors save the lives of their relatives. In this view even terrorists have rights, and the people of Gaza and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria shouldn’t be punished collectively for what their leaders do. After all, everyone is an individual and everyone has human rights.

Israelis have taken this European approach even further. Because of our (historically inappropriate) guilt complex toward the Palestinians, we might say that “everyone has human rights especially the Palestinians.”

But what if we realign our moral system to see the conflict in tribal terms?

This is war and the Palestinians are the enemy. Who speaks like this in Israel today?

When we confront a terrorist, we should shoot to kill, just like in a firefight in Bint Jubail. The terrorist Sgt. Azaria shot probably shouldn’t have been alive in the first place. No, we shouldn’t shoot prisoners of war, but we don’t need to provide medical treatment to enemy casualties either, at least until all of ours are taken care of. Non-uniformed terrorist operatives are unlawful combatants, and can be tried for murder or terrorism if they survive. Needless to say, there should be an option to apply the death penalty in these cases, and it should be applied liberally.

You don’t supply water, electricity, food and cement to an enemy population, especially one which has no desire to overthrow its leadership. And the Palestinians, both in Gaza and Judea/Samaria have defined themselves as an enemy, by their choice of leaders, by what they teach in their schools and say in their official and social media, and in their popular support and enthusiastic participation in terrorism against Jews.

Collective punishment? Of course they should be punished collectively, because their guilt as an aggressor is collective.

If it is determined that he had no good reason to fear the wounded terrorist, Sgt. Azaria will have violated a standing order and should be punished for doing so. But his punishment should be minimal. We put him in an untenable situation and expect him to behave like, pardon the expression, Jesus Christ.

A Palestinian terrorist who tried to murder a Jew ended up dead. It’s war. Stuff happens in war. Get over it.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Breaking the Silence: Sabotaging Israel from within

Dr. Alex Grobman  5-23-16

“Why do so many Israelis hate Breaking the Silence?” asks Haggai Matar, an Israeli journalist and political activist, who focuses on the Israeli “occupation.” According to the group’s website, Breaking the Silence (BtS) “is an organization of veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada and have taken it upon themselves to expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories. We endeavor to stimulate public debate about the price paid for a reality in which young soldiers face a civilian population on a daily basis, and are engaged in the control of that population’s everyday life. Our work aims to bring an end to the occupation.” [1]
Matar sees BtS as a legitimate way to force Israelis to examine their country’s role in Judea and Samaria. For that reason, BtS should not be under relentless attack from the Israeli Right, since the organization does not support BDS, advocate Israeli officers be tried for war crimes, urge Israelis to refuse army service, or excuse Arab violence. Only Israeli political leaders should be held accountable, he opines. [2]
When BtS published a 242 page report in May 2015 entitled “This is How We Fought in Gaza, Soldiers testimonies and photographs from Operation Protective Edge ̋ (2014),” it generated major headlines in Britain, the U.S. and much of Europe. The headline in The Washington Post set the negative tone against Israel: “New report details how Israeli soldiers killed civilians in Gaza: “There were no rules.” [3] 
The report contained testimonies from more than 60 IDF active and reserve soldiers who participated in Operation “Protective Edge” in the Gaza Strip, approximately a quarter of whom are officers ranging up to the rank of major.
A key allegation:
 “The guiding military principle of  ‘minimum  risk  to our  forces,  even  at  the  cost  of  harming  innocent  civilians,’alongside  efforts  to  deter  and  intimidate  the  Palestinians,  led  to  massive  and unprecedented  harm to the population and the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. Policymakers could have predicted these results prior to the operation and were surely aware of them throughout.”  [4] 
Questions about BtS tactics, methodology, motivations, funding, disproportionate media attention, and the certainty of future clashes with Hamas, ensures continued scrutiny and discussion.
Gerald M. Steinberg, the founder and president of NGO Monitor, that documents questionable funding and actions of many NGO's that support Israel-based reporters, explained how BtS operates. With approximately 10 staff members, BtS issues unnamed and unsubstantiated testimonies from Israeli soldiers claiming to have witnessed fellow soldiers committing war crimes. BtS representatives repeat these false allegations in European parliaments, before UN agencies, on university campuses and in the media. [5] They even met with members of the White House National Security Council at the offices of an American nonprofit in the capital. A separate meeting was held with senior officials at the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [6]
Those with no combat experience in dealing with terror groups are moved by these disturbing and highly emotional reports. [7] Audiences are left with the impression that the alleged, “errant act of one solider, proven or not, is indicative of the ethos and the norms of the I.D.F. entire. This is false and libelous,” asserts Ron Ben-Yishai, a retired Lt. Colonel in the IDF paratroopers division and a journalist for over 46 years. Of particular concern is the fallacious perception promoted on American college campuses. [8]

Those with no combat experience in dealing with terror groups are moved by these disturbing and highly emotional reports.
The report, is “one of the biggest [pieces of] propaganda … that you might find,” former Israeli national security adviser Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror declared. Amidror, who also directed the Israel Defense Forces military intelligence research department under Prime Minister Netanyahu, described the report as “evil,” and charged that the goal of BtS “is to destroy Israel, for sure.” [9]
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon viewed the accusations against the IDF as “a struggle between the overwhelming majority of Israeli citizens who seek to live normal lives, and the minority that is trying to drag us into the abyss. This is not a battle between left and right, because … all the sane forces in Israeli society, from all sides of the political map, must be united.” [10] 
Israel, he said, is “fighting for the country’s image and its values,” which is why these attacks are more damaging than “another truck filled with missiles making its way from Syria to Lebanon. It’s worse than the terror of knives and car-rammings, and it threatens us no less, and possibly even more, than Iran’s nuclear program.” [11]
Benny Ziffer, an Israeli author and Haaretz journalist, also took issue with BtS’ destructive approach. Though he has “boundless admiration for the conscience and high morality of Israel Defense Forces soldiers who testify to criminal acts,” he was angry that BtS uses these testimonies to influence individuals and groups outside the country who exploit them “to vilify Israel and strengthen its enemies.” [12]
Ziffer recognized that treating “the testimonies of these exceptions as objective reality is simply misleading. Especially when the testimonies are presented abroad, to people who aren’t familiar with the Israeli reality….There are no innocent testimonies – a fact well known to everyone who is even slightly acquainted with the theory of narrative. Every story is in large measure a fiction, or at least a fictitious arrangement of reality. And when Breaking the Silence sells us ostensibly primary testimonies that is misleading.”[13]
Addressing a special session of the Knesset committee on global anti-Semitism and the delegitimization of Israel, Jewish Agency chairman and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky charged that the organization “is not a human rights organization but a BDS organization.” He urged institutions involved in public diplomacy “to fight against those who try to use the flag of human rights to slander the State of Israel.” [14]
Sharansky and other Israeli leaders are concerned that a number of groups have been persuaded by BDS supporters that one cannot advocate for women's rights, academic freedom or oppose racism without recognizing Israel's suppression of Palestinian Arabs. [15]
Not surprisingly, the editorial board of Haaretz had a different position. They viewed BtS as “a legitimate organization,” whose “activities should be encouraged, not silenced,” since apparently it is “one of the few groups that considers the IDFs’ Defense morality as a priority.”  Rather than the information being used to discredit Israel, Haaretz asserted the evidence helps the IDF “maintain its moral character, which is being eroded by the occupation.” [16]
BtS goes beyond human rights to classified information
After Israeli TV Channel 2 aired a segment in which BtS activists were caught interviewing soldiers no longer serving on active duty about “classified tactical and operational procedures” that were clearly not relevant to human rights issues, Ya’alon ordered an investigation to determine if any laws had been violated.
Among the questions Ron Zaidel, the chief investigator for BtS asked, were: “The mortar detachments are they positioned, like, inside the checkpoint compound?” and “The company deployed there, are they, like, not a part of the security detail around the fence?” He also asked a soldier: “What were the missions in the sector?”
Zaidel also wondered: “What kind of tunnel work do you mean?” referring to Hamas tunnels used to infiltrate Israel, and whether Israel’s activities to detect the tunnels are “operational or experimental?”
Zaidel tried to assure the interviewer that no red lines had been crossed. “The things we ask,” he claimed, “it’s like for our own knowledge. It’s just, you know, for our professional knowledge and for … Things that sometimes have significance that’s a little hard to see, questions that may appear irrelevant,” he said.
The investigation concluded that while some of the information was classified, it was at the comparatively low level of “confidential.” [17] Why BtS needs to know about IDF’s military capabilities, including the type of equipment it employs, field security and ammunition has not been answered. [18]
One woman revealed that she enlisted into the IDF’s Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria specifically to obtain information, since she had been in touch with BtS before she joined. [19] Avi Dichter, a former head of the Shin Bet and a Likud MK, said the footage “looked like information-gathering by the handlers of an agent. I didn’t hear a word about Palestinians or Gazans.” One female revealed to an agent that she enlisted into the IDF’s Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria specifically to obtain information, since she had been in touch with BtS before she joined.  [20]
Unexpected Defense of BtS
Former Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin, a harsh critic of Netanyahu, [21] countered that although he opposes the activities of NGOs and journalists “who don’t love their country…,” Diskin is convinced “their contribution is very important and helps us to maintain the required vigilance about the most sensitive human issues.”  This is true “even if they are aggravating, even if they are often inaccurate and don’t always do their work properly from a professional perspective.” [22] 
Others who joined Diskin in supporting BtS, included former Shin Bet security service director and navy commander Maj. Gen. (res.), Ami Ayalon, retired Northern District police chief Deputy Commissioner (ret.), Elik Ron and Amiram Levin, Head of the IDF Northern Command, commander of the elite Sayeret Matkal unit and deputy director of Mossad. Levin added: “The IDF must encourage ‘Breaking the Silence’ and those like them, to speak out without fear in the IDF and in Israeli society.”[23]
This defense of BtS is confusing.  If IDF soldiers do not have appropriate means to air their grievances, why weren’t procedures initiated or suggested by these members of Israel’s military and security elite? If they attempted to institute these measures, did they fail? If so, why? And why support an organization that maligns their country? Aren’t there better ways to affect change in the IDF than to provide ammunition to those seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state?  Is the problem so urgent that no other means exists?
Journalist Matti Friedman’s Response
Israeli-Canadian journalist Matti Friedman, the former Jerusalem bureau reporter for the Associated Press, whose articles exposed the media’s bias against Israel, [24] cautioned that the authors of the report are not “journalists, and their report is intended not to explain but to shock. It’s propaganda. That’s fine if you understand what you’re reading, but I suspect most people don’t.”[25]
He urged journalists reviewing these unverified statements from unnamed soldiers ask how IDF procedures compare to those of other armies: “open-fire regulations, which are lax – compared to what? Civilian casualty rates are high – compared to what? Compared to the U.S. in Fallujah? The British in Northern Ireland? The Canadians in Helmand Province? ‘Lax’ and ‘high’ are relative terms.” How is Israel being judged? Unless we know the comparable circumstances and criteria, the criticism has no meaning and is irresponsible.” Of course, he knew the journalists would not invest the time or energy to find answers to these questions. [26]
Friedman does not question that some of the incidents described in the report occurred. Others did not. From his own experiences, he found that infantrymen, who are at the low end of the chain of command, “often don’t understand what they’re seeing, or the reasons for what they’re doing.” What makes little or no sense to a private, sergeant or a lieutenant sometimes-- but not always--is clear to those further up in the hierarchy. Young soldiers frequently do not understand the rationale behind the plan of attack, especially during combat or thereafter. [27]
Despite the severe criticism in the report, he noted the soldiers openly discussed the procedures they were required to perform to prevent harming civilians including: “warning leaflets, ‘roof-knocking’ rockets, phone calls, warning shells, warning shots, lists of protected sites like U.N. facilities, and drones vetting targets for civilians before an airstrike.” All of the action occurred in areas where the IDF had warned Gazan civilians and Hamas terrorists that soldiers were on their way. These constraints were taken for granted, as if they were standard practices of every army, when “in fact many are unique to Israeli military practice.” Furthermore, many, if not most of the soldiers, probably did not entirely understand with whom they were talking or how their testimony would be used outside of Israel. [28]
Analysis by Leading International Military Experts and Political Leaders
To provide additional insight into IDF conduct, it is instructive to examine the conclusions reached by Richard Kemp, the former commander of Britain’s military forces in Afghanistan, and leading world military experts and political leaders. In practically every Israeli conflict, the IDF is accused of using disproportional use of force to subdue their enemy. [29]
“Proportionality is not… a relationship between the numbers of casualties on either side in a conflict,” notes Kemp, “but a calculation that considers whether the incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated in an attack. I know that their commanders place great emphasis on adherence to the laws of armed conflict. This includes the principle of proportionality, which is set out in Israel’s manual of military law and is recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross.” [30]
There was “no other realistic and effective means of suppressing an aggressor’s missile fire than the methods used by the IDF,” he said, “namely precision air and artillery strikes against the command and control structures, the fighters and the munitions of Hamas and the other groups in Gaza. Nor have I heard any other military expert from any country propose a viable alternative means of Defence against such aggression.” [31]
With regard to the Laws of armed conflict and minimizing civilian casualties in Gaza, he found the IDF took exceptional measures to avoid them. Though many politicians, U.N. officials, human rights groups and NGOs demanded Israel do more to minimize civilian fatalities, not one of them advised how this might be accomplished. Kemp claimed “Israel to be world leaders in actions to minimise civilian casualties; and this is borne out by the efforts made by the US Army, the most sophisticated and powerful in the world, to learn from the IDF on this issue.” [32]
U.S. Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed with Kemp, when he said, "I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties.” He added, "In this kind of conflict, where you are held to a standard that your enemy is not held to, you're going to be criticized for civilian casualties….The IDF is not interested in creating civilian casualties. They're interested in stopping the shooting of rockets and missiles out of the Gaza Strip and into Israel."[33]
Dempsey revealed that three months earlier, the Pentagon sent a "lessons-learned team" of senior officers and non-commissioned officers to consult with the IDF to determine what could be learned, including “the measures they took to prevent civilian casualties and what they did with tunneling." [34]

While on duty at a checkpoint between Israel and Judea and Shomron, an 18 year-old woman in labor arrived yelling in pain. Rather than let the ambulance into Israel without being examined, Lital decided to have the vehicle checked. She found an explosive hidden under the seat.
Other military leaders reached the same conclusion. From May 18-22, 2015, the High Level International Military Group, composed of 11 former chiefs of staff, generals, senior officers, political leaders and officials from the U.S., Germany, the United Kingdom, Holland, Spain, Italy, Australia and Colombia visited Israel to study the 2014 Gaza conflict. Their report stated that, “We agree with…General Martin Dempsey.”[35]
Furthermore, “Our overall findings are that…in the air, on the ground and at sea, Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard. We saw clear evidence of this from the upper to the lower levels of command. A measure of the seriousness with which Israel took its moral duties and its responsibilities under the laws of armed conflict is that in some cases Israel’s scrupulous adherence to the laws of war cost Israeli soldiers’ and civilians’ lives.” [36]
A task force of former senior U.S. military leaders commissioned to evaluate Hamas’s strategy and Israel’s response found that Hamas used Israel’s citizen’s “aversion to excessive or unjustified casualties” in an attempt to undermine the war effort by describing the IDF’s tactics as “indiscriminate and disproportional.” [37]
Furthermore, “Contrary to accusations of widespread unlawful military conduct,” the Task Force “observed that Israel systemically applied established rules of conduct that adhered to or exceeded the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) in a virtually unprecedented effort to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, even when doing so would have been lawfully permitted, and to satisfy the concerns of critics. However… Israel’s military restraint unintentionally empowered Hamas to distort both the law and facts for their own purposes to the ultimate detriment of civilians’ safety, for which Hamas bears sole responsibility.” [38]
Significantly, the Task Force opposed this level of Israel’s restraint, which they said should not become the standard of U.S. armed forces. “The ever-increasing level of restraint implemented by the IDF reflects the inherent risk in conflating law and policy,” they concluded. “Unless there is a clear demarcation between law and policy-based restraints on the use of combat power, raising standards in one instance – even if done as a matter of national policy and not as the result of legal obligation – risks creating a precedent to which military forces will likely be expected to adhere in the future. The result will not only be a greater danger to national security, but also an increased risk to civilians, since unconventional enemies will (like Hamas) deliberately seek to instigate civilian casualties in order to portray them, usually erroneously, as the result of unlawful attacks by their opponents.” [39] 
Determining What Constitutes Legitimate Self-defense
The rejection of Israel’s level of restraint by some of the military experts raises the question of how should the IDF respond to enemies that no longer recognize the principle of distinguishing between civilians and combatants. This moral dilemma was posed to Tel-Aviv University professor Asa Kasher, an Israeli philosopher and linguist, who authored the IDF's Code of Ethics.
The first problem is that though the Arabs glorify death; the Israelis venerate life. “We must free ourselves from the attitude that regards others’ lives with fear and trembling while holding the lives of our own combat soldiers in complete contempt,” Kasher advised. “International law wants to impose a position on us whereby soldiers are a consumable resource and that the lives of enemy civilians must be protected more than the lives of our own combat troops. Bandages are a consumable resource. Water is a consumable resource. Human beings are not.”
“If we warned the terrorists’ neighbors to leave the area…why are they staying? Because they choose to be human shields for terrorists,” Kasher concluded.  “I do not want to kill a human being only because he is a human shield, if he is not a threat to me. But should a soldier of mine risk himself for him? Is the blood of a human shield any redder than the blood of my soldier? A soldier has no choice other than to be in Gaza, in that alleyway. But to be sent inside — why? In the battle in Jenin, in the middle of Operation Defensive Shield, the IDF knew that the refugee camp was booby-trapped. But they still insisted on not bombing from the air in order to keep from harming civilians, and they suffered terrible losses. That was a mistake. They should have made an effort to get the civilian population out of the terrorist environment, and then there would have been no need to send in the infantry.” [40]
In other words, Kasher asserts, “Israel cannot forfeit its ability to protect its citizens against attacks simply because terrorists hide behind non-combatants. If it did so, it would be giving up any right to self-defense.” One must remember that most of the IDF soldiers, especially in the army and navy, “are conscripts. As citizens in military uniform, they are entitled to ask the state, as well as the IDF and its commanders, whether they are being placed in greater jeopardy to save the lives of enemy non-combatants who have been repeatedly warned to leave the scene of battle. An affirmative answer to this question would be morally unacceptable.” [41]
The Need for Transparency
If the Breaking the Silence genuinely expects the allegations to be taken seriously, they should provide the soldier’s names to the IDF Fact Finding Assessment Mechanism (FFAM) assets Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. and now Foreign Ministry director-general. FFAM, directed by a major-general and comprised of operational and legal experts, was created during Operation Protective Edge. [42]
One soldier who came forward is Nadav Weiman, who served in the sniper team of the reconnaissance unit of the Nahal Brigade from 2005-2008 and is an active member of Breaking the Silence. Weiman claims that by “sharing our experiences,” the members want to generate “genuine public debate on the way we fight in Gaza, and the moral price we pay for ongoing military control over the occupied territories.” [43]
By using the terms “military control” and “occupied territories” Weiman reveals his ignorance of the issues and his biases.  Since 1993, the Palestinian Authority has had jurisdiction over the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Hamas has jurisdiction over the entire Gaza. Thus most Palestinian Arabs are not subject to the Israeli military administration or Israeli law.  Their laws, courts, police, prisons, taxes are under Palestinian Arab jurisdiction, not Israeli. [44]
If the Palestinian Arabs sincerely want peace, their leader must have the authority to sign an agreement with Israel. Neither Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas nor any other Arab leader has such a mandate. Acknowledging the Jewish connection to the land of Israel and Israel’s right to live as a Jewish state is a sine qua non. Educating their people that the Western Wall has no religious status to Jews, but is a holy Muslim site, that Jews commit “war crimes” and genocide guarantees hostile views toward Israel will continue. [45]
Funding of BtS
Funding of BtS is another issue. According to Gerald Steinberg, the donors are involved in anti-Israel activities in Ireland, Britain and the Netherlands, and actively subsidize and work with organizations promoting BDS. Tens of millions of dollars are donated directly or indirectly. The amount donated to Breaking the Silence depends on the number of damaging statements that could be used. The Dutch church organization ICCO, for example, insisted on a minimum 90 highly critical interviews, while Oxfam (which claims to foster a humanitarian program) required "as many interviews as possible" regarding "immoral activities." These requirements clearly illustrate the significant financial incentive they had to record as many harmful testimonies as possible. [46] 
BtS is one of approximately 20 comparable organizations that were established by the New Israel Fund. [47] The goal is to “bolster attempts to bring charges against Israeli officials at the International Criminal Court.”[48] 
After interviewing members of BtS, English journalist Jake Wallis Simons, a features writer for The Telegraph, concluded that if “the goal of Breaking the Silence was simply to clean up the Israeli military, it wouldn’t be such a problem. Instead, the aim is to ‘end the occupation,’ and on this basis it secured its funding. It appeared, therefore, that these former soldiers, some of whom draw salaries from Breaking the Silence, were motivated by financial and political concerns to further a pro-Palestinian agenda. They weren’t merely telling the truth about their experiences. They were under pressure to perform.” [49]
Friedman added to the list of funders, none of which are Israeli: the Danish Lutheran organization Dan Church Aid, the French Catholic group CCFD-Terre Solidaire, the governments of Norway and Switzerland, and many others. None of the financial backers are Israeli. He asked whether Norwegian citizens support an organization that presses British soldiers to expose British army misconduct to the international media. Or does the Swiss government encourage Hamas soldiers to reveal what acts they have committed in the war? [50] 
In June 2015, the Kukturhaus Helferei, Zurich, hosted an event with BtS consisting of an exhibit and testimonies from former Israeli soldiers alleging that the IDF carried out excessive killings of Palestinian Arabs. According to the brochure for the event, the Department of Finance of the City of Zurich is listed as a sponsor, which the city justified because it was open to a large audience in Zurich. [51] 
At the Capital Fringe Festival 2015 in Washington, D.C., "It's What We Do:": A Play about the Occupation,” the performance received the best production award. Written and directed by U.S. playwright Pamela Nice, the play is based on Our Harsh Logic, published in 2013 by BtS. Characters in the show, which dramatizes the experiences of three IDF soldiers—two male and one female-reply to questions raised by members of the audience. ” [52]
“I think the scenes are important because Americans don’t really know what the occupation looks like. It’s just a word in the media to most of us,” Nice told Haaretz in a phone interview. “The play gives a picture of this reality, and many who have lived in the West Bank and seen the production say we have recreated that reality in a chilling way.”  [53] 
Haaretz journalist Yair Ashkenazi commented that this experience makes “the entire space feel like an interrogation room.” Due to popular demand, the number of performances had to be extended. BtS avowed no connection to the production, stating that “all the testimonials provided by the organization are published on our website and are open to the public to use as it wishes.” [54] 
Countering the Lies
To counter the lies about Israel and the IDF, soldiers like Eldad and Lital, tour the country to tell the issues they encounter. Lital, who studied economics and management at Ben Gurion University, is part of COGAT (Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories. [55] The official mission of COGAT “is to promote and implement the policy of the Israeli Government in civilian matters, to facilitate humanitarian issues and economic and infrastructure projects in Judea and Samaria and in the Gaza. In addition, the unit leads the coordination and liaison with the Palestinian Authority and with the Palestinian population in the 'West Bank' and Gaza.”[56]
While on duty at a checkpoint between Israel and Judea and Shomron, an 18 year-old woman in labor arrived yelling in pain. Rather than let the ambulance into Israel without being examined, Lital decided to have the vehicle checked. She found an explosive hidden under the seat.

Ron Ben-Yishai, military journalist, asserts that “the very name, Breaking the Silence is a deliberate, wanton misnomer.” Israel is an open society where substantive grievances are reviewed and investigated.
On campuses they encountered student groups claiming to be "pro-Palestinian" when their real goal is to defame Israel. Engaging in a serious dialogue is of no interest. All they want is to holler their message, and stage a "walk-out." Eldad and Lital wanted to inform people about the conflict, since they believe dialogue is the only approach to achieve peace in the region. “We were dismayed,” they said, “that some of the worst anti-Israel activists were Jewish and Israeli; two other soldiers experienced this at Washington University in St. Louis from Jewish Voice for Peace.” [57]
A number of veteran soldiers have publicly repudiated the attempts to slander the reputation of the IDF. Ron Ben-Yishai asserts that “the very name, Breaking the Silence is a deliberate, wanton misnomer.” Israel is an open society where substantive grievances are reviewed and investigated. Normally these complaints are handled by the Military Advocate General’s Corps. (M.A.G.), an organization that is largely independent from the chain of command; especially with regard to conduct, ethics and the laws of warfare. The M.A.G. Corps commonly presents the results of its investigations to leading foreign legal authorities. [58]    
Michael Maoz, a major in the reserves who commands a patrol division in the Artillery Corps, said he did not have to join BtS to report any injustice. Whenever he witnessed violations of military behavior, he reported the abuses, which were immediately resolved. [59] 
His examples included a noncommissioned officer who demeaned passengers in a car he had stopped for inspection; a soldier who accepted a beverage offered to him by the driver whose documents he had been checking at the time; a military driver who tried to beat a detainee after he had been neutralized and handcuffed, and more. The NCO was tried, imprisoned and dismissed from the battalion; the beverage was returned to the driver along with an apology; and the military driver, a reservist, was tried and confined to his base. He added, “The IDF does not order its soldiers to be cruel to a civilian populations for the sake of satisfying some sadistic urge. And when morally questionable orders are given, there is always someone to turn to who can rectify the situation in real time -- this I know from experience.” [60]
A group IDF officers and combat soldiers, who proclaimed war on "Breaking the Silence," joined Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid in a press in December 2015 to announce new attempts to thwart the organization.  Lapid pledged to introduce legislation to prevent pro-BDS organizations from funding Israeli non-profits that smear the Jewish state abroad.
"I stand here surrounded by the representatives of 600 IDF officers and soldiers, the best of our sons, including company and battalion commanders who represent what the IDF stands for - values and leadership," Lapid asserted. "They are standing here to defend those values. The IDF defends those values."
"Criticism builds us as a society, but there is a fundamental difference between criticism and the vilification abroad of IDF soldiers and officers," he asserted. "This is not criticism but an erosion under the foundation of the state. Organizations like Breaking the Silence have crossed the red line between criticism and sabotage," Lapid declared. [61]
Moshe Arens, who served three times as Israeli Defense Minister and once as Minister of Foreign Affairs, asked if these “self-appointed do-gooders” believe that without their vigilance, the Israeli public would be ignorant of these “infractions.”  This is in country where Haaretz provides relentless attacks against the IDF and its soldiers.
The proof that Israel’s enemies recognize IDF high moral standards and its determination to minimize civilian fatalities is Hamas and Hezbollah’s strategy of positioning their command centers among the Palestinian Arab civilian population, hospitals and schools knowing Israel’s reluctance to attack these targets. “This is unprecedented in the annals of warfare,” Arens argues. “Armies in past wars saw no use in hiding behind civilians, knowing well that both sides to the conflict had little concern for civilian casualties.”[62]
The ‘NGO transparency’ Bill
Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked responded to the interference by NGOs in Israeli politics by introducing legislation seeking to tax or eliminate foreign funds donated to NGOs that are involved in the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict. She denounced the “blatant intervention in internal Israeli affairs,” by foreign governments. [63] Approximately 70 NGOs either from the European Union or individual governments, including Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Norway, she said, are “eroding the legitimacy of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.’”[64]  
Opponents accuse the legislation of being undemocratic, “McCarthyite,” and an effort to stigmatize left-wing groups. NGO representatives equate the legislation to the restrictions used by Russia’s Vladimir Putin Russia and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Representatives receiving more than half of their funding from foreign governments will be required to wear tags with the name the organization they represent while conducting business in the Knesset, just as Knesset lobbyists are expected to do.[65] 
Documents submitted by nonprofit groups must identify their foreign donors or be fined. [66]  The level of attacks against the legislation and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked have reached a dangerous level of vilification.[67] 
The EU views the proposed law a part of a “worrying trend of naming and shaming certain NGOs, especially in the area of human rights, which could contribute to a general decline of the appreciation for human rights as a universal and fundamental value in public discourse.” [68]
After meeting a meeting between U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and Shaked in January 2016,   the U.S. embassy issued “a highly irregular” statement about the Shapiro-Shaked meeting: “The Ambassador noted that Israel is a strong and vibrant democracy, which gives substantial voice to all points of view and promotes a thriving, transparent civil society.  He reiterated the United States’ view that such a free and functioning civil society is an essential element of a healthy democracy, and that governments must protect free expression and peaceful dissent and create an atmosphere where all voices can be heard.”
Shaked acknowledged America’s sincere concern, but assured them it was unnecessary. “Israel is a strong democracy and as such there is no need for other nations to intervene in internal legislation. Our door is open to dialogue with friends.”
Shaked noted that an EU fund had recently transferred €30,000 to B'Tselem to oppose the proposed legislation. "It is the right of any organization in Israel to object to any legislation," she said. "But it is very strange to me that foreign governments extend their long arms into internal legislation processes." [69] 
She could have added that dissenting statements about the legislation from the Union for Reform Jews, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Congress were also unwelcome interference. [70] 
Gerald Steinberg rejected the comparison and concerns raised by opponents of the legislation. He remarked that the proposal will not restrict debate within Israel or criticism of the IDF, no matter what the consequences. The objective is to address the external threat from NGO campaigns of demonization and boycotts, which will further intensify. “Legislation on ‘foreign agent’ restrictions may soon come to pass. European-funded campaigns attacking the country’s moral standing and exploiting the language of human rights” are crossing too many red lines for Israel. “The dangers of being turned into a pariah state through these international campaigns outweigh the costs of stigmatizing NGOs and limiting their travel.” [71]
Financing BtS and other NGOs by foreign states is viewed as an assault on Israel’s national sovereignty, a very sensitive issue among Israelis. This has prompted centrist politicians to join in denouncing BtS and its European-state donors, increasing the support for the Shaked bill or other legislation which support even stricter restrictions.[72]
Denis MacEoin, a lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies, asked why it is a threat to liberal ideals if Israel decides to “exercise some degree of control over the rights of its citizens not to be exposed to such unrelenting disinformation, hatred and ruin. No other country in the world would stand for it; why should Israel? Israel, a beacon for human rights in a region of war, prejudice, denial of free speech and opposition to democracy, should be singled out for its humanitarian commitment to these values.” [73]
Israel is not the only country trying to protect herself from outside influences.  On February 25, 2015, the Austrian parliament passed a law that reforms Austria’s century-old Islam Law (Islamgesetz), regulating the status of Muslims in the country.  Most importantly, Paragraph 6.2 of the new statue seeks to decrease external interference--presumably Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states-- by barring foreign underwriting of mosques, imams and Muslim organizations in Austria.
According to the University of Vienna, the Muslim population in Austria now surpasses 574,000 (or approximately 7 percent of the total population), an increase from an estimated 340,000 (or 4.25%) in 2001 and 150,000 (or 2 percent) in 1990.
Austria's Minister for Integration and Foreign Affairs, Sebastian Kurz, explained the justification for the change in the law, which dates back to 1912: "What we want is to reduce the political influence and control from abroad and we want to give Islam the chance to develop freely within our society and in line with our common European values." [74]
[2]Haggai Matar, “Why do so many Israelis hate Breaking the Silence?” +972 (December 14, 2015).
[3] William Booth, “New report details how Israeli soldiers killed civilians in Gaza: “There were no rules,” The Washington Post (May 4, 2015); Adam Levick, “Matti Friedman comments on Breaking the Silence report,” The Guardian (May 5, 2015); David Shulman, “Gaza: Killing Gets Easier,”New York Review of Books (May 29, 2015); Robert Tait, “Israeli soldiers describe 'losing their sense of morality' during the Gaza conflict,” The Telegraph (May 4, 2015); Neve Gordon, “The Day After,” The London Review of Books (May 4, 2015); Matti Friedman,” The Latest "Breaking the Silence" Report Isn't Journalism. It's Propaganda,” Mosaic (May 14, 2015). 
[4]This is How We Fought in Gaza, Soldiers testimonies and photographs from Operation Protective Edge ̋ (2014),”16,; “License to Kill,” +972 (May 9 2016); Friedman,” The Latest "Breaking the Silence" Report Isn't Journalism. It's Propaganda, op.cit.
[5] Gerald M. Steinberg, “An Irresponsible Civil Society Harms Israel,” The Wall Street Journal (December 23, 2015).
[6] Ilan Lior, “Breaking the Silence: Why take the message abroad?” Haaretz (December 18, 2015); Barak Ravid, “Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence meets Obama aides in Washington,” Haaretz (June 5, 2015); Times of Israel Staff, “In first, US officials meet with IDF whistle-blowing group,” The Times of Israel (June 5, 2015).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Benjamin Anthony, “Breaking the Silence abroad: A statement by Our Soldiers Speak and Ron Ben-Yishai,” The Times of Israel (December 22, 2015). By the time these accounts are proven false, significant political damage has resulted. Steinberg, “An Irresponsible Civil Society Harms Israel,” op.cit; Roz Rothstein and Yitzhak Santis, “How ‘Breaking the Silence’ fails Israel,” Mabat Israel (April 18th, 2016).
[9] Eliezer Sherman, “Former Israeli National Security Adviser Calls on Breaking the Silence Soldiers to Reveal Identities,” the Algemeiner (June 9, 2015).
[10] Gili Cohen, “Former Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin Defends Breaking the Silence,” Haaretz (December 16, 2015).
[11] Ibid; Marissa Newman, “Ya’alon bans Breaking the Silence NGO from engaging soldiers,” The Times of Israel (December 14, 2015).
[12] Benny Ziffer, “The problem with Breaking the Silence,” Haaretz (June 26, 2015).
[14] Judy Maltz, “Sharansky blasts Breaking the Silence as a ‘BDS organization,’” Haaretz (December 29, 2015). 
[15] Jared Samilow, “This is what happens when BDS infiltrates social causes that have nothing to do with Israel,” Haaretz (December 29, 2015); Judy Maltz, “Sharansky blasts Breaking the Silence as a ‘BDS organization,’” Haaretz (December 29, 2015).
[16] Haaretz Editorial, “Breaking the Silence is a legitimate group that should be encouraged, not silenced,” Haaretz (July 28, 2015); Ariel David, “WATCH: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out Against Rules of Engagement in Gaza,” Haaretz (May 13, 2015); Tal Niv, “Breaking the Silence is a legitimate outlet for Israeli military whistle-blowers,” Haaretz (March 20, 2016).
[17] Gili Cohen, “Probe into Breaking the Silence finds it only low-level classified information,” Haaretz (March 25, 2016); Gili Cohen, “Breaking the Silence Accuses Israeli Politicians of Incitement,” Haaretz (March 27, 2016); Zeev Sternhell, “Human rights groups must demonstrate solidarity with Breaking the Silence,” Haaretz (March 24, 2016); Haaretz “Backtracking, Minister Ya'alon says Breaking the Silence isn't committing treason,”Haaretz (March 24, 2016). 
[18] Aaron Lerner, “NGO Breaking the Silence collected info on IDF tunnel discovery operations not related to human rights,” IMRA (March 18, 2016).
[19]Gil Ronen, “Shock: Video shows Breaking the Silence apparently spying on IDF,” Israel National News (March 18, 2016).
[20] “Left-wing group probed for quizzing Israeli soldiers on secrets,” JTA (March 18, 2016).
[21] Jodi Rudoren, “Former Israeli Security Chief Calls Netanyahu a Poor Leader,” The New York Times (January 4, 2013).
[22] Cohen,” Former Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin Defends Breaking the Silence,” op.cit; Gideon Levy, “Hooray for the snitches of Breaking the Silence,” Haaretz (December 16, 2015); Anshel Pfeffer, “Why Breaking the Silence Became the Most Hated Group in Israel,” Haaretz (December 17, 2015); Mira Sucharov, “Left-wing NGOs in Israel: Wear your 'badge of shame' with pride,” Haaretz (December 31, 2015); Ari Shavit, “Why I broke my silence,” Haaretz (December 16, 2015).
[23] Times of Israel staff,   “Ex-IDF general takes out ad to support Breaking the Silence,” The Times of Israel (December 18, 2015); Times of Israel staff, “Ex-Shin Bet chief, -top cop support Breaking the Silence,” The Times of Israel (December 22, 2015); Marissa Newman, “PM, opposition chief spar over Breaking the Silence, anti-Rivlin comments,” The Times of Israel (December 16, 2015); see also Haaretz Editorial, “Israel needs Breaking the Silence,” Haaretz (March 20, 2016).
[24] Matti Friedman, “An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth,” Tablet (August 26, 2014); Matti Friedman, “What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel,” The Atlantic (November 30, 2014).
[25] Friedman, “The Latest "Breaking the Silence" Report Isn't Journalism. It's Propaganda,” op.cit.
[26] Levick, op.cit; Dan Smith, “Assessing The UN's OCHA “Gaza Crisis Atlas 2014″ Report,” Israellycool (August 24, 2014); Two examples of blaming Israel without historical background or perspective, Alice Su, 'Gaza Is Hell,'” The Atlantic (May 2, 2015); Ari Yashar, “Abbas's Fatah Brags of Terror Attacks in Gaza Operation,” Israel National News (September 16, 2014).
[27] Levick, op.cit.
[28] Friedman,” The Latest "Breaking the Silence" Report Isn't Journalism. It's Propaganda,” op.cit; for a description of what the IDF to limit civilian casualties, see Lt. Col. (res.) David Benjamin, “Israel, Gaza and Humanitarian Law: Efforts to Limit Civilian Casualties,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (2014); Elad and Lital, “Why I Tour The U.S. As An Israeli Soldier,” The Jewish Week (May 15, 2015); Adam Taylor, “‘Roof knocking': The Israeli military’s tactic of phoning Palestinians it is about to bomb,” The Washington Post (July 9, 2014).
[29] Marvin Kalb and Carol Saivetz, "The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict," Shorenstein Center John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (February 18, 2007): 10-11; Margaret Sullivan, “The Conflict and the Coverage,” The New York Times (November 22, 2014).
[29] Colonel Richard Kemp CBE, “Submission to the United Nation Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict,” (February 21, 2015); Pnina Sharvit Baruch, “Operation Protective Edge: The Legal Angle,” Antat Kurz and Shlomo Brom, Eds. “The Lessons of Operation Protective Edge,” (Tel-Aviv: The Institute for National Security Studies, 2014), 66-70; Ami Ayalon, “Israel’s Response Is Proportionate to Hamas’s Threat,” The New York Times (July 23, 2014); Janina Dill, “Applying the Principle of Proportionality in Combat Operations,” Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, University of Oxford, (December 2010),; Eric H. Yoffie, “The Bizarre Moral Criticism Against Israel – What Does It Mean to Say that Casualties Are ‘Disproportionate’?” TIME (July 14, 2014); Stephanie Gutmann, “The Body-Count Cliché – The Victim-Loving Western Media Have a Weakness for Palestinians,” National Review (July 11, 2014).
[30] Kemp, “Submission to the United Nation Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict,” op.cit.
[31] Ibid.
[32]David Alexander, “Israel tried to limit civilian casualties in Gaza: U.S. military chief,” Reuters (November 6, 2014).
[33] Reuters, “Dempsey: Israel Went to 'Extraordinary Length' to Avoid Civilian Casualties in Gaza,” Haaretz (November 7, 2014).
[34] “Key Preliminary Findings of the High Level International Military Group on the Gaza Conflict,” Human Rights Council (June 12, 2015).
[35] Ibid.
[36] “2014 Gaza War Assessment: The New Face of Conflict: A report by the JINSA-commissioned Gaza Conflict Task Force,” (March 2015): 7. 8, 10, 32-33.
[37] Ibid. 7.
[38] Ibid. 12.
[39] Emily Amrousi, 'We do not sanctify death,'” Israel Hayom (June 22, 2012).
[40] Asa Kasher, “The Ethics of Protective Edge,” Jewish Review of Books (Fall 2014).
[41] Dore Gold, “New “Breaking the Silence” Report Maliciously Defames Israel,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (May 5, 2015); Sherman, op.cit.
[42]Nadav Weiman, “Why I Broke the Silence,” Haaretz (June 30, 2015).
[43] Robbie Sabel, “The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheid,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (2009); Hi Matar, “Why do so many Israelis hate Breaking the Silence?’ op.cit.
[44] Alex Grobman, “Recognizing Israel as the Jewish State: Part I,” Israel National News (May 8, 2016); Khaled Abu Toameh, “Why Palestinians Cannot Make Peace with Israel,” Gatestone Institute (July 13, 2015); Chloé Valdary “An Unwelcome Palestinian Reformer,” The Wall Street Journal(July 29, 2015); Khaled Abu Toameh, “Who Is Destroying the Palestinian Dream?” Gatestone Institute (August 3, 2015).
[45] “Gerald Steinberg, “Publication of Israeli soldiers' accounts clouded by political agenda,” Sydney Morning Herald (May 9, 2015); “Breaking the Silence: Details of European Government Funding,” NGO Monitor (December 20, 2015).
[46] Steinberg, “An Irresponsible Civil Society Harms Israel,” op.cit.
[48] “Europe to Breaking the Silence: Bring Us As Many Incriminating Testimonies As Possible,” NGO Monitor (May 4, 2015); Jake Wallis Simons, “Why are European powers (and Oxfam) funding a radical Israeli group?” The Telegraph (December 17, 2013);Breaking the Silence (Shovrim Shtika) NGO Monitor (March 15, 2015); Lori Lowenthal Marcus, “Behind Breaking the Silence: Foreign Funding, Bounty Hunting, and Hypocrisy,”The Jewish Press (May 11, 2015); “Watchdog: ‘Breaking the Silence’ was Paid to Incriminate IDF,” The Tower (May 6, 2015); see also, “Analysis: I Don’t Trust the AP’s Report on Civilian Deaths in Gaza and Neither Should You,” the Algemeiner (February 14, 2015); “Investigate Israel’s political leadership over civilian deaths in Gaza,” Haaretz (May 6, 2015); Booth, “New report details how Israeli soldiers killed civilians in Gaza,” op.cit; Peter Beaumont, “Israeli soldiers cast doubt on legality of Gaza military tactics,” The Guardian (May 4, 2105).
[49]Jake Wallis Simons, “Why are European powers (and Oxfam) funding a radical Israeli group?” The Telegraph (December 17, 2013).
[50] Friedman, “The Latest ‘Breaking the Silence’ Report,” op.cit; (
[51] “Correspondence Between NGO Monitor and Zurich Municipality Regarding Breaking the Silence, NGO Monitor (May 20, 2015); http: //; David Daoud, “Public Funding for Swiss ‘Breaking the Silence’ Event Stuns Local Jewish Community,” the Algemeiner (May 20, 2015).
[52] Yair Ashkenazi, “Breaking the Silence in Israel by treading the boards in Washington,” Haaretz (August 3, 2015);
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55]Elad and Lital, “Why I Tour The U.S. As An Israeli Soldier,” op.cit.
[56] The Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Unit (COGAT) (
[57] Elad and Lital, op.cit.
[58] Anthony, “Breaking the Silence abroad: A statement by Our Soldiers Speak and Ron Ben-Yishai,” op.cit.
[59] Michael Maoz, “No need to break the silence,” Israel Hayom (December 24, 2015).
[60] Ibid; see also Yoni Kempinski, “'The IDF is the most moral army in the world,'” Israel National News (December 21, 2015).
[61] Yoni Kempinski, “'Breaking the Silence has crossed the line into sabotage,'” Israel National News (December 20, 2015).
[62] Moshe Arens, “Breaking the Silence's smear campaign only serves Israel's enemies,” Haaretz (January 18, 2016).
[63] Raphael Ahren, “Why does Europe fund left-wing Israeli groups?” The Times of Israel (January 7, 2016).
[64] Raphael Ahren, “Why does Europe fund left-wing Israeli groups?” The Times of Israel (January 7, 2016).
[65] Haaretz editorial, “NGO bill: Assault on democracy or legitimate effort to guard against foreign intervention?” Haaretz (December 27, 2015); Allison Kaplan Sommer, “When John Kerry Was the Soldier 'Breaking the Silence',” Haaretz (December 21, 2015); Steven Klein, “Labeling Jews: Left-wing NGOs, wear a yellow star in the Knesset,” Haaretz (December 30, 2015); Asa Fitch, “Israeli Measure Would Require Disclosure From Foreign-Funded Nonprofits,” The Wall Street Journal (December 27, 2015); Washington Post Editorial Board “A danger to Israeli democracy,” The Washington Post  (January 2, 2016); Uri Keidar, “Calling out the two liberals who can stop Israel's NGO bill,” Haaretz (January 11, 2016); Barak Ravid, “Ambassador Shapiro tells Minister Shaked: U.S. concerned by 'NGO transparency bill,'” Haaretz (January 11, 2016).
[66] Steinberg, “An Irresponsible Civil Society Harms Israel,” op.cit; Jonathan Lis, “Israeli ministers to vote on bill seeking to out foreign-funded NGOs,” Haaretz (December 24, 2015).
[67] Henry Siegman, “Does America really "share values" with today’s Israel?” Haaretz (December 30, 2015); Don Futterman, “Defame, don't engage: The witch hunt against Breaking the Silence,” Haaretz (December 20, 2015); Jonathan Lis and Sharon Pulwer, “Justice Minister Shaked is 'Neo-Nazi scum,' says Hebrew University professor,” Haaretz (December 28, 2015).
[68] Ahrens, op.cit.
[69] Barak Ravid, “Minister Shaked to U.S.: Israel is a strong democracy, do not intervene in our legislation,” Haaretz (January 11, 2016); Herb Keinon, “EU-linked group gives B’Tselem 30,000 euros to fight ‘NGO transparency’ bill,” The Jerusalem Post (January 10, 2016).
[70] “URJ President: We're Opposed to Israeli Legislation on NGOs,” Union for Reform Judaism (January 12, 2016); Cynthia Blank, “ADL joins chorus of US 'concern' over NGO Transparency Law,” Israel National News (January 12, 2016); AJC Statement on Proposed Israeli NGO Law,” AJC Global Jewish Advocacy (January 5, 2016).
[71] Steinberg, “An Irresponsible Civil Society Harms Israel,” op.cit.
[72] Ibid; Gerald Steinberg, “The Issues Behind Israel's NGO Law,” (January 6, 2015).
[73] MacEoin, op.cit; “New legislation targets Israeli NGOs,” op.cit.

               [74] Soeren Kern, “Austria Passes Reforms to 1912 Islam Law,” Gatestone (February 27, 20