• False Equivalence
•  Douglas Murray, Jewish Chronicle. June 24, 2013
• “Can anybody, Jew or non-Jew, address the subject of Islamic anti-Semitism without being accused of Islamophobia?”

We must stop avoiding this discussion

• 
  

Well-wishers look at some of the thousands of tributes left in honour of Lee Rigby, at the scene near Woolwich Barracks (Photo: AP)

Are antisemitism and Islamophobia twin sides of the same coin? Or in any way remotely similar? The none-too-subtle insinuation that they are has become commonplace in our media and politics. Prominent Jewish groups have also fallen for it. But they should know that this is a terrible trap.

It is some years since I first remember speaking at a synagogue in this country and hearing from one self-appointed leader of British Jews that in order to tackle antisemitism we must also tackle Islamophobia.

I can see some political sense in such a pose, certainly. But it makes no other variety of sense. First, because there is no agreed-upon definition of what Islamophobia means and, in the absence of this, the word tends to mean, Alice in Wonderland-like, whatever the speaker wishes it to.

To date, the term is loosely and successfully used against critics of anything said or done in the name of Islam. For instance, highlighting what jihadis say when they carry out acts of violence and highlighting that they claim to be inspired for religious reasons is said to be deeply Islamophobic, as we saw with the coverage of the killers of Drummer Lee Rigby. The fact that the killers were quoting Islamic texts and ideas was something politicians and pundits were squeamish about even acknowledging. Which is why everyone went to such pains to say that the actions were not just a bad interpretation of Islam or an extreme interpretation of Islam but as, David Cameron said, had absolutely no connection to Islam, running, in fact, contrary to Islam. When people are fearful of speaking the truth there is nothing else available for them to speak other than such falsehoods.

Of course, there are good reasons for being careful with our language. The vast majority of Muslims have no connection to extremists such as those who beheaded Drummer Rigby. But it remains the case that there is too much violence of action and speech among Muslims worldwide.

For instance, far too many who condemn the killing of a British soldier on British streets will praise or condone the murder of a British soldier on the streets of Kabul or Basra. Or the killing of a Jewish Israeli soldier or civilian absolutely anywhere. The Istanbul Declaration signed in 2009 by some British Muslim leaders condoned attacks on British sailors if they in any way enforced the blockade on Gaza. What worth is a moderate who condemns the killing of a British soldier while condoning the killing of a British sailor?

Of course most Britons, including most British Jews, are sincerely worried about pointing out such facts. This is perhaps one reason why some British rabbis continue to sit on interfaith groups with imams and other Muslim leaders who signed the Istanbul declaration or have long track records of antisemitic and anti-Israel activity.

Among the reasons people are scared is because they are worried - and it is a perfectly understandable worry - that they will end up tarring all Muslims with the same brush. It does not matter how many times people stress the important fact, and fact it is, that most Muslims have no sympathy with the jihadis. The allegation that some phobia is being displayed is always there. As is the disingenuous accusation that Muslims are the new Jews. They are not. The Jews are still the Jews. But the counter-theme now runs through our public life.

The word "Islamophobia" is a crock. A phobia is an irrational fear. Claustrophobia is irrational because small places tend not to kill you. On the contrary, it is highly rational to be afraid of some, though not all, interpretations of Islam. It is rational to be afraid of a Salafist. It is irrational to be afraid of an Ahmadiyya. But there are far more Salafists in the world today than there are Ahmadiyya.

Still, people tend to avoid even discussing this because the allegation insinuates something. People are scared of the charge because, if you are an Islamophobe, you are probably also a racist. Since most Muslims in Britain are of darker coloured skin than most other Britons there is a legitimate fear behind this. Is this not the latest manifestation or simply the most recently acceptable manifestation of some very old hatreds or suspicions? The answer is no. Racism exists but it is not the same thing as concern about portions of Islam. Besides, to claim that Islamophobia is the equivalent of antisemitism or that Muslims are the new Jews you must keep in mind everything other than the facts.

I have seen Jews and non-Jews attacked for Islamophobia for highlighting the tradition of antisemitism that has existed in significant portions throughout Islamic history. So how can anybody, Jew or non-Jew, address the subject of Islamic antisemitism without being accused of Islamophobic? This is something with real-time consequences and problems.

For instance, how can someone hoping to avoid the trap laid down by accusations of Islamophobia possibly hope to deal with the real-life, real-time antisemitism of genocidal antisemitic groups like Hamas? If you object to the seventh part of the Hamas Charter - which says that the "end times" will not come "until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, and the Jews hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees cry out, Oh Muslims, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him" - are you a phobe? Perhaps not. What if you explain what Hamas explains in its charter, which is that this is a saying of the Hadith of Mohammed? And not just any saying but, as Hamas itself acknowledges, a saying of Mohammed as recorded by Bukhari, which is recognised within Islamic tradition as the most textually accurate collection of Mohammed's sayings.

Now of course there are those who would allege that, because Mohammed said this, it is something that all or most Muslims believe or want to act out, and can be blamed for. It is no such thing. Most Muslims noticeably do not go around massacring anybody and it is wrong as well as rude to pretend otherwise. But the problem does exist. And attempting to ignore it or cover it over simply exacerbates the problem on all sides. It makes life easier for the jihadis and their fellow travellers who want a free pass. And it exacerbates the anger of non-Muslims who recognise that there are problems within Muslim communities that need to be dealt with.

But fearing the accusations of Islamophobia that will come their way if they tackle this, most people increasingly just avoid dealing with these issues. Such avoidance and fear is convenient for the extremists. It is what they hope for and is the best enabler we can give them.

But even if there were not the problem of Islamic antisemitism, how could it be that antisemitism and Islamophobia could be equated? Antisemitism is hatred of the Jews as people. Islamophobia, in so far as there is any definition available, is anything that any person who is Muslim regards as being so. It is one of those post-Macpherson crimes: in the eye of the beholder. And we are collectively highly vulnerable to it.

When an organisation called Tell Mama said, after the murder of Drummer Rigby, that there had been an unprecedented backlash against British Muslims, they got huge public attention. They succeeded in taking attention away from the real story: the decapitation of a soldier in Woolwich. And they pushed a narrative that although Muslims must not be held responsible en masse for such an atrocity, the rest of us are in fact a gang of barbarians just poised for an anti-Muslim pogrom. This is thankfully not the case. But it should not have taken the Sunday Telegraph to expose the fact that more than half of the uncorroborated claims of anti-Muslim assaults highlighted by Tell Mama consisted of unpleasant things said online, not necessarily even from within the UK.

Jews know from the work of the CST and others what actual peaks of antisemitic violence look like, as well as where they come from. This makes Jews perhaps even more vulnerable than most to believing the claims being opportunistically made by some British Muslims.

I sometimes think that, for Jews, there is no way out. They have been attacked for their victories and disasters, their poverty and their wealth, their difference and their sameness. No survey of the history of antisemitism can fail to conclude that it often seems, at least in part, nearly ineradicable as a human sickness.

What is often called Islamophobia, on the other hand, is eminently solvable. Indeed, any real upsurge in suspicion or criticism of Islam can be stopped in an instant. For, if any suspicion of Muslims does exist it comes not because of some phantom but because of the behaviour of Islamic extremists, not least their genocidal and ongoing war against Jews. If Muslims can eradicate the sickness of extremism, such as antisemitism, from their faith then Islamophobia will become not only an unsatisfactory word, but a wholly un-needed one.

Douglas Murray is the author of 'Islamophilia: a very metropolitan malady' (emBooks)

Israel Tries to Game Rouhani By: Ben Caspit for Al-Monitor Israel Pulse Posted on June 21, 2013

Iranian President-elect Hassan Rouhani (2nd R) pays his respects to the grave of the founder of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at his mausoleum in Tehran, June 16, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Fars News/Seyed Hassan Mousavi )

At this point, no one can tell what will happen in Iran in the medium and long term following the election of Hassan Rouhani to the presidency. More is hidden than revealed. The situation is shrouded in mystery, and for any scholarly theory or well-reasoned scenario presented, totally opposite options, no less logically argued, may be suggested. Life and politics have a vitality of their own, as aptly demonstrated in the Middle East over the past two years. 

Rouhani is no reformist. Anyone familiar with the ins and outs of Iranian politics knows it. He is a close associate of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and served as his representative in the National Security Council for 16 consecutive years. In fact, Rouhani is the creation of the ayatollah's regime, its own flesh and blood. At the same time, he is soft-spoken and low-key. His worldview coincides in certain areas with that of the reformists. And he may thus be most accurately characterized as a "former conservative” who has not yet decided which path to follow. Once he makes up his mind, he may find out that it is not going to be a pleasant afternoon stroll. He is currently at a historic crossroads and he must choose his way.

There is one clear conclusion to be drawn from the surprising outcome of the election in Iran: The Western intelligence agencies are still incapable of anticipating moods, trends and undercurrents in other nations. Even the Israeli Mossad and the awesome Intelligence Corps of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including its massive surveillance unit, have been caught off guard in the wake of the Iranian election, notwithstanding the billions invested in recent years in monitoring the goings-on in Iran.

Over the last decade, at least, Mossad chiefs have been consistently explaining to those at the helm of the government that the Iranian people are fed up with its leadership, that the young people in Iran — who make up the majority of the population — loathe the ayatollah's regime, that Khamenei is standing on shaky ground. In practice, however, it turned out to be quite a different story. Faced with the general election, which featured five conservative candidates pitted against one marked as a reformist, no expert — either in Israel or the West — was perceptive enough to come up with the simple observation: Hey, pals — keep an eye on one by the name of Hassan Rouhani. If I am reading the map and the social networks correctly, this guy is going to beat the conservatives walking. The Iranian public is pinning its hopes on him. He is most likely to attract a major part of the electorate. 

The Rouhani phenomenon was marked in red all over the virtual Iranian Facebook wall, but we still lack the tools to interpret it in time. The formula for deciphering social network traffic and translating it into numbers has not been found yet. This is rather strange, since the web provides the various intelligence agencies with truly amazing tools for analyzing moods and trends in populations living under oppressive regimes. However, so far, no real breakthrough has been made in terms of sounding the alarm bells.

The Arab Spring caught us all by surprise, no less so than the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the same holds true for the outcome of Iran's election. The most the Israeli intelligence could do was point to Rouhani or Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf — the current mayor of Tehran, closely associated with the regime — as the more prominent candidates in the race for the presidency. Rouhani won massive support — five times more votes than Ghalibaf — and emerged the victor in the first round. The revulsion of the Iranians to anything that their regime stands for sparked a powerful and impressive chain reaction. 

As to the intelligence forecasts, they have bitterly failed. Indeed, in retrospect, it may be noted that the Iranians would have cast 50.7% of their votes even for a Siamese cat, had it been running against that conservative quintet. The Iranians wanted a change. In the demonstrations of the “purples” held across Iran, the call was loud and clear: “No to Gaza! No to Hezbollah!” The masses in Tehran are sick and tired of the excessive involvement of their country in every regional focal point of fighting. They would rather have the focus on them — the citizens of Iran collapsing under the burden of sanctions.

In Israel, they already miss outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The prevailing assessment among decision-makers and intelligence officials is that Israel has lost a highly significant strategic asset (namely, Ahmadinejad), which was used to demonstrate, time and again, that the Israeli warnings regarding Iran were, in fact, accurate. 

The election of Rouhani will grant the ayatollahs enough time to continue advancing the nuclear program. The dreams of an assault toward the end of the present year have faded into far-fetched wishful thinking. It looks like Rouhani is going to take his time and it will be months before the West can figure him out. This precious time period will be exploited by the Iranians to make further progress. And all too soon, it will be winter once again. As far as Israel is concerned, it is no less than a disaster.

The Israeli defense establishment is confident that, in essence, the international consensus on Iran will not be affected in the long term. “Whatever trick they pull, they will not be able to go on deceiving the world,” said a senior Israeli intelligence official. “The world already knows what's going on there. There is not even one Western leader who is not convinced beyond all shadow of a doubt that a highly advanced and most ambitious military nuclear program is well underway in Iran, and quite likely, already on the verge of completion.”

The leading Western intelligence agencies — those of the United States, Israel, Germany, France and Britain — are synchronized on the Iranian nuclear issue, down to the level of the individual centrifuge. Rouhani will find this difficult to change, though what he may change is the rhetoric. He will speak softly, strive for reconciliation and stop the ranting and raving. He will embark on state visits to a wide range of capitals, probably also in the West, and he will take advantage of the inherent naivety of some of the "Free World" countries. Even US President Barack Obama will not be able to remain indifferent. Obama, who has adopted a policy of “diplomatic soft talk, while holding a small carrot in hand,” will have to blink first, if only for the record. That’s all the Iranians need — nothing more than that.

The first shot in the battle has already been fired the week of June 16, when the Russians hinted that Iran would be willing to suspend uranium enrichment, keeping it at the 20% level. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to respond, saying that such a move would be merely cosmetic, and that nothing short of complete cessation of uranium enrichment, removal of all enriched uranium out of Iran; termination of nuclear facility activities and welcoming the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would provide sufficient guarantee of Iran's willingness to abandon the nuclear program. Needless to say, this will never happen.

Some Israeli experts believe that there are clear indications that, far from being a reformist, Rouhani is a conservative “planted” by Khamenei as a Trojan horse, a wolf in sheep's clothing. If true, this is a brilliant, successfully accomplished plan. Following are its main points: Khamenei is certainly not stupid. He knows his people. He realizes that the masses in Iran are fed up with him, with the ayatollah's regime, the Basij militia and the Revolutionary Guards. He is well aware that he is living on limited time, that he is not infallible and that nothing lasts forever. He is in urgent need of an outlet for draining the simmering anger of the Iranian citizens, so that he may control the unrest. Thus, looking around, he spots Rouhani, whom he himself has reared and nurtured, and assigns him to the task.

Rouhani is designed to serve as the drain for the ire of the masses — the national tranquillizer. Rouhani is supposed to be the "as-if" reformist. The next step is to deliberately dismantle the seemingly oppositional conservative camp, splitting the vote so as to ensure him the best chance. And indeed, Rouhani wins the first round, passing just a fraction of a percent above the 50% barrier — without any need for falsification of the results by the regime. Quite the opposite! The regime hurries to declare the victory on election night, to forestall the danger of a counter shock wave sweeping the streets. After all, experience shows that in the Arab world, such shock waves are liable to evolve into a full-fledged revolution within days. 

Now Khamenei is on the Trojan horse: The president-elect is his close associate, and while he is making sounds of reform, no real change is likely to occur. It will take the Iranian people a few years to realize that they have been cheated. Meanwhile, on the same ticket, the rest of the world is also being fooled. Rouhani will rehabilitate the image of Iran, turn a new page in Tehran’s relations with the international community, win over hearts and raise new hopes. By the time the enlightened — and naive — world realizes that it has been misled, Iran will have in its possession no less than five Shahab missiles with nuclear warheads. And then, it will be an altogether different game.

Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that the above scenario is a conspiracy theory. It may well be that Rouhani is an authentic reformist, and that with time, he will take courage, enlist widespread public support and, who knows, even confront Khamenei. It could be, after all, that Iran is facing a historic change, that there is still hope and that the dim light at the end of the tunnel is not an ominous locomotive rushing on to smash us, but rather an opening to a new reality.

Ben Caspit is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor's Israel Pulse. He is also a senior columnist and political analyst for Israeli newspapers, and has a daily radio show and regular TV shows on politics and Israel.

Speaking Out about “Breaking the Silence"

Jerusalem – The intense international campaign by Breaking the Silence (BtS) resulted in a strong rebuttal (#1 )from an official of the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit:

#1.     IDF spokesman posts Facebook tirade against critical NGO

By RON FRIEDMAN June 22, 2013, 

Officer slams Israeli watchdog group ‘Breaking the Silence’, claims it acts in bad faith; don’t blame us for army failings, retorts NGO

Barak Raz, spokesman for the IDF’s Judea and Samaria Division — the unit responsible for most military activities in the West Bank — used Facebook and Twitter to launch a bitter and emotional attack on Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence for what he said was deliberately seeking to smear the IDF rather than genuinely trying to prevent abuses by the army.

Prefaced by the admission that he had debated with himself over whether to publish the tirade, Raz opted to go public, declaring in the lengthy, English-language post that “While I can stand a lot, ‘I can’t stands (sic) it no more’.”

In the post Friday on his official Facebook page, Raz wrote: “‘Breaking the Silence’ is an organization that engages in nothing, but NOTHING, other than a smear campaign targeting the IDF. This smear campaign has NOTHING to do with rooting out their observed problem. Furthermore, none of their work helps the IDF (or Israel, for that matter) provide a solution.”

Raz blasted the group, which compiles and publishes testimonies by former IDF soldiers about what it claims are abuses of Palestinian civilians, for not bothering to consult with the IDF or ask for its response before publishing its reports, and for not revealing the identities of its sources.

Raz went on: “We at the IDF (commanders, military advocates, military police investigators, and even spokespeople) have called on the organization several times to provide us with the means to respond to their claims – be it by providing us with drafts of their reports prior to publications, or by providing us with more, accountable details. Either of these steps would allow for thorough investigations, possibly leading to the opening of criminal investigations and legal proceedings. “Breaking the Silence” has not answered our (sometimes even public) calls.”

He claimed that “The information used by ‘Breaking the Silence’ by and large seems to derive from two sources – unverifiable hearsay or accounts from anonymous former soldiers who, sometimes, they themselves deserve to be behind bars in military prison for what they did! (That’s right… I said it! And that’s right, if I had the authority to, I would jail them myself!!),” Raz wrote, apparently alluding to his desire to arrest soldiers who commit human right abuses.

Why, Raz asked in the post, don’t the soldiers who tell their stories to the NGO instead “‘break their silence’ to the right authorities?” The soldiers involved should have reported any wrongdoing they witnessed to their commanders, so that the IDF could investigate and publish any illegal behavior, instead of turning to a NGO that he said was determined to tarnish their fellow soldiers and officers.

In the lengthy post, which read like a mix of official positions and personal rage, the captain asserted that in circumventing the formal channels for highlighting alleged abuses, the group and its activists are driven by a pernicious agenda.

He described the IDF as “a military that holds itself to the highest of standards and prides itself on its ability to self-investigate through processes that are NOT subordinate to any military commander. Even the IDF Chief of the General Staff can’t prevent or stop an investigation!”

He acknowledged that “we don’t necessarily see eye to eye on all issues with some of the organizations we are in contact with,” but said the crucial element was that direct contact. “There is a certain level of integrity and accountability on the part of both, the IDF and the organizations who meet with us, that helps each of us do what we feel is right to help solve complex, and sometimes problematic, issues…

“So while I can honor organizations that speak with us, meet with us, share information with us – I cannot say the same for ‘Breaking the Silence,’ which, as I said earlier, is not seeking to be a part of the answer. I can only be left with the understanding that they are, in fact, a part of the problem.

Asked to comment on Raz’s post, the IDF Spokesman’s Office said that while what he wrote on his Facebook page is his own opinion, the IDF agrees with the points that he makes and has issued similar responses to the group’s publications in the past.

“Breaking the Silence’s refusal to bring their complaints to the authorities’ attention, or enable them to respond before they go public, indicates its unfortunate agenda. Clearly, it does not truly wish to bring the matters to light in order to enable a thorough discussion, but rather to generate negative publicity of the IDF and its soldiers,” the Spokesman’s Office said.

Comments By Breaking the Silence Director Yuli Novak:

Breaking the Silence director Yuli Novak said she did not know what in particular sparked the outraged post. The NGO’s latest campaign came out nearly two weeks ago and received modest media attention. It featured video testimonies by four female soldiers describing their daily interactions with Palestinians at West Bank checkpoints and villages and their motivations to come forward and report on them.

The testimonies range from stories of soldiers harassing and humiliating Palestinians to pass the time, to wrongful arrests, collective punishment of villages, thefts from Palestinian homes and the practice of receiving “gifts” from local shopkeepers.

“Instead of taking responsibility for the situation, this IDF spokesman chooses to place the responsibility of rectifying 46 years of occupation at the feet of the soldiers,” said Novak.

Responding to Raz’s critique about the failure to report abuses through formal channels, Novak said that the soldiers know better than to complain to their superiors, many of whom either turn a blind eye or even take part in the alleged harassment and humiliation. “The general atmosphere doesn’t promote coming forward. Many of those who try to [do so] are often shunned and ridiculed by their fellow soldiers.”

“Nine-hundred soldiers who have submitted testimonies to Breaking the Silence consistently tell a story of routine, violence, harassment and intimidation of the Palestinian population. Dozens of soldiers have recorded video testimonies, exposing their names and faces, reporting on their daily actions in the West Bank. Both the IDF and the government know of these videos, which appear open to all on our website, but chose not to deal with the harsh descriptions,” Novak charged. “The military should just tell the truth — there is no pleasant way to control the lives of millions of men women and children. We are tired of them diverting the real discussion on the moral price of the occupation by pointing their finger at us, the soldiers who gave everything and continue to give everything for the country we love.”

Breaking the Silence is a registered non-profit organization. Its donors include the New Israel Fund, the Moriah Fund and various European foundations and governments. Some politicians have attempted to curtail foreign funding of the group.

#2.      NGO Monitor is providing additional background information and analysis on BtS and this issue.http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/breaking_what_silence_a_critical_reading_of_allegations_from_breaking_the_silence_

As shown in NGO Monitor’s detailed research reports, BtS presents a highly distorted perspective, distributing unverifiable “testimonies” by former IDF soldiers. BtS’ framing and context of these testimonies reflects the group’s strong ideology. The NGO ignores the moral complexity of IDF actions in the West Bank, instead presenting Israeli counter-terror operations and procedures as intended to “punish, deter, or tighten control over the Palestinian population” or to create “intimidation, [the] instilling of fear, and indiscriminate punishment of the Palestinian population.”

In contrast to addressing its allegations to the Israeli public, BtS creates external pressure on Israel through presentations and campaigns abroad, contributing to boycott efforts and threats of legal action against Israeli officials (lawfare). In recent years, BtS members have appeared at the Irish Parliament, in the Netherlands, the US (in an event attended by diplomats from Pakistan and the UAE), Germany, Australia, Switzerland and other countries. This is accompanied by a many presentations on US college campuses.

As stated on the BtS website, these activities are enabled by foreign funding, including direct and indirect government support from Spain, Norway, the EU, the Netherlands (via ICCO), and Ireland (via Trócaire). Private funding is provided by the New Israel Fund (NIF) and by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), among others.  In the last financial report made public, 2011, BtS received more than 3 million NIS.

Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, commented, “The NGO’s stated aim is to ‘expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories.’ But as the evidence clearly shows, BtS uses the money it receives from European governments, largely through secret processes, for ideological campaigns outside of Israel. And their allegations ignore the complex moral dilemmas facing IDF soldiers every day. Such behavior of both the NGO officials and their donor enablers led to the sharp criticism from the IDF and many other Israelis.”

“Every violation of the law and of the IDF’s ethics and values is reprehensible and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” continued Steinberg. “However, ‘testifying’ to BtS does not morally or legally absolve former soldiers of any illegal acts, or erase their obligation to report incidents through the proper legal processes. Their campaigns targeting Israel before audiences with no means to verify the allegations are fundamentally immoral.”

• 
  

#3.     BREAKING WHAT SILENCE? A CRITICAL READING OF ALLEGATIONS FROM "BREAKING THE SILENCE"

NGO Monitor

February 01, 2011

“Really, the political significance is the only reason for doing it.” - Mikhael Manekin of Breaking the Silence

Introduction

• Breaking the Silence’s (BtS) compilation Occupation of the Territories-Israeli Soldier testimonies 2000-2010 claims to “describe an offensive policy that includes annexation of territory, terrorizing and tightening the control over the civilian population.”
• Media outlets, including Ha’aretz, The Independent (UK), leading Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, and The New York Review of Books, have uncritically repeated the BtS allegations.
• In the introduction, BtS makes sweeping accusations based on anecdotal, anonymous, and unverifiable accounts of low-level soldiers.
• Only 30 of 183 testimonies could potentially be independently verified based on the details provided. (According to BtS, 101 individuals testified. It is unclear how many of them are responsible for multiple entries.)
• Responses to terror and legitimate security concerns are dismissed as pretenses to “punish, deter, or tighten control over the Palestinian population” and the “intimidation, instilling of fear, and indiscriminate punishment of the Palestinian population.”
• The incidents do not relate to decision-making in the army’s higher echelons, but rather refer entirely to allegations of low-level infractions. Many explicitly note that misconduct was opposed and punished by officers: “I have to point out that the officers were opposed to it, and they tried anyone who was involved in these things. There was a strong opposition.”
• Contrary to BtS’ claim that accusations of abuse are not discussed in Israeli society, alleged instances of Israeli army misconduct are widely reported in the Israeli media.
• Some of the testimonies suggest radical anti-Israel political motivations. One former soldier explained that he participates in “anti-Wall” demonstrations, and another referred to settlers as “the biggest Judeo-Nazis that I have met in my life.”
• The publishing of the compilation in English indicates that the intended audience for BtS’ distorted view is outside Israel. In the words of BtS’ Michael Manekin, “Really, the political significance is the only reason for doing it.” Most of the funding for BtS is provided by European governments.

General Overview

On December 12, 2010, the NGO known as Breaking the Silence (BtS) published a 431-page compilation entitled Occupation of the Territories - Israeli Soldier testimonies 2000-2010. BtS claims to counter the “official Israeli position” that IDF actions are defensive in nature: “The soldiers’ testimonies describe an offensive policy that includes annexation of territory, terrorizing and tightening the control over the civilian population.” 

These highly tendentious conclusions were copied uncritically by media sources such as the New York Review of Books, Ha’aretz, The Independent (UK), leading Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende.   

Contrary to Breaking the Silence’s self-perception as a beleaguered and oppressed group of Israeli dissidents, the NGO is free to publish its allegations without consequence or punishment. Journalists in Ha’aretz and from international papers frequently provide BtS with a platform. The Italian newspaper Il Foglio wrote that members of Breaking the Silence, “risk at the most coming late to their Tel Aviv café.” 

This NGO also receives extensive funding from European governments (details below), enabling officials to artificially amplify their impact within Israel and speak and promote their ideology to international audiences.  

BtS’ Predetermined Conclusions

NGO Monitor analysis reveals systematic problems with the methodology and conclusions of this compilation. All of the testimonies are anonymous and almost all cannot be verified – meaning no specific date, location, or context is given – even by IDF investigators. Soldiers only reported the alleged incidents to their superiors in 16 of 183 testimonies in the book, further highlighting questions regarding reliability and motivation.  

In contrast to the far-reaching allegations, the BtS “testimonies” reflect confusion on the side of single soldiers, junior officers, and low-level units. Higher-ranking officers who could provide concrete information and perspective on general policies are entirely absent from this compilation. The alleged misconduct, while objectionable, if true, rarely amounts to more than nuisance complaints and petty violations. The inflammatory accusation of “an offensive policy that includes annexation of territory, terrorizing and tightening the control over the civilian population” is manufactured by BtS, and remains unproven. 

While most of the testimonies are portrayed as based on personal experiences, almost 25 percent include or are based on hearsay. Additionally, the testimonies were recorded following conversations with BtS staff; details about context or mitigating information, including the role BtS officials played in shaping the testimonies, is not provided.  

Many of the reported incidents have misleading headlines, as in testimony 38 (p.99) : “I shot at an ambulance with a machine gun,” -- potentially a war crime. In the testimony itself, however, the soldier states that there “were terrorists inside” the ambulance. 

Finally, testimonies from the height of the Palestinian mass-terror campaign against Israeli civilians (2000-2005) are grouped together with more recent incidents. The failure to distinguish between or analyze the differing contexts and Israeli security policies over the past decade further reflects BtS’ primary ideological and politicized objectives, which are hidden behind the rhetoric of morality and international law.  

Background on “Breaking the Silence”

Breaking the Silence (BtS) was founded in 2004. It is registered as a Company for Public Benefit.  

BtS is funded by the European Union, UK, Spain, the Netherlands, NDC (funds from Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark), New Israel Fund, Oxfam, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute. In 2009, its total reported budget was 2.2 million NIS.

The political impact of this NGO is greatly amplified through the foreign funding, enabling officials to speak and promote their ideology to audiences outside of Israel, who clearly have less understanding of the situation and complexities, in comparison to Israelis. European appearances by BtS in 2009-2010 included the Netherlands (Dutch Parliament), Ireland (Irish Parliement), Germany, Spain, France, and Norway (meetings with the Foreign Minister and members of parliament). Representatives from BtS also went on a speaking tour of college campuses in the United States; and met with Jewish groups. In December 2010, a BtS official spoke at the Limmud conference at Warwick University (UK).

As journalist Amos Harel noted in Ha’aretz (Gaza testimonies / Diverting the debate from the real issue, July 16, 2009):  

“Breaking the Silence...has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classed as a ‘human rights organization.’ Any organization whose website includes the claim by members to expose the ‘corruption which permeates the military system’ is not a neutral observer. The organization has a clear agenda: to expose the consequences of IDF troops serving in the West Bank and Gaza. This seems more of interest to its members than seeking justice for specific injustices.”  

Chapter Analysis

This compilation is divided into four chapters: “Prevention,” “Separation,” “Fabric of Life” and “Law Enforcement.” According to BtS, these terms are euphemistically used in the Israeli “public discourse” to describe Israeli policy in the West Bank. It appears that the chapter divisions are largely rhetorical and arbitrary, with different sections containing similar allegations.

Chapter 1: Intimidation (“Terrorizing” – literal translation from Hebrew) of the Palestinian Population – “Prevention”

This chapter includes broad assertions about Israel’s anti-terror operations, claiming to “reveal the principles and considerations that guide decision-makers both in the field and at high levels of command.” Interviews with high level commander and government officials, however, are notably absent.

The chapter opens with the claim that beginning in 2000, Israel “develop[ed] new, more aggressive methods of action, which were intended to oppress Palestinian opposition/resistance and prevent thousands of attempted attacks.” Minimizing the murder and injury of thousands of Israeli civilians, BtS asserts (without systematic evidence) that “prevention” of terrorism has simply “become a code-word” for offensive action, and a pretense to “punish, deter, or tighten control over the Palestinian population” and the “intimidation, instilling of fear, and indiscriminate punishment of the Palestinian population.”  

According to BtS, arrests, “assassinations,” “Interrogating [a] passerby,” “sound bombs” and other operational procedures used by the IDF demonstrate that “every member of the Palestinian population” is a “target for intimidation, harassment, and instilling of fear.”  This allegedly shows that “Violence against and collective punishment of a civilian population...are cornerstones of IDF strategy in the Territories.” 

In sharp contrast, however, all of the 67 “testimonies” in this chapter concern the isolated conduct of individual soldiers and low-level units, not a wider policy:

• Only 6 testimonies are potentially verifiable, based on the specific times and places given. For example: Q: “When was this?” A: “In the middle of my service, something like that, March-April. But it was a captain in the paratroopers, it was an incident that made it to the media, to the newspapers. I’m almost sure 101 [a paratroop battalion]” (testimony 33, p. 91).
• 16 testimonies include leading questions from the BtS interviewer: Q: “Have you heard from a company commander or a unit commander something like: ‘I want six bodies today’?” A: “No. Many times **** [one of the brigade commanders] when giving operation orders would say that the objective is maximum kills” (testimony 18, p.68).
• 19 allegations are based on or include hearsay. For example: “In Nablus, another incident that happened with my original team, I wasn’t there but they told me about it afterwards” (testimony 59, p.150). Or: “my friends from the paratroopers would tell me that they would sleep on the roofs in Nablus and shoot at the water tanks to see how they blew up, or that people would steal mini-discs and steal dollars” (testimony 65, p.159).
• In 17 “testimonies”, the former soldiers admit to not knowing key information on the events. Q: “What do you mean “you hope”? You weren’t some little wimpy officer, you served as an army officer for three whole years.” A: “I didn’t know that someone specific was supposed to come out of this village, but it could have been…” Q: “Let’s say that it could have been known by the regional brigade commander?” A: “Could be. I wouldn’t know such things. Could be that the regional brigade commander knew and sent out violent patrols” (testimony 50, p.125).
• Only 5 complaints were filed about the events at issue.
• 47 incidents relate to misconduct by individual soldiers (theft, beatings, noise making etc.), which clearly violate IDF regulations: “We were in some house, the whole company, and below the house, and the owner of the house, he was locked-up in one room too, he had some chickens… one floor was a coop for chickens, pullets. What the guys did, they simply, they wanted to cook a meal so they slaughtered some of his chickens and barbecued them downstairs” (testimony 30, p.86).
• 19 testimonies omit the context or background on the incident. For example, incidents related to Jenin omit the fact that this area was the control center for the Palestinian suicide bombing campaigns.: “I remember that during squad commander training I was in Jenin, let’s say, we were in a ‘Straw Widow’ [a house which soldiers secretly take control of], and everyone who climbs on Israeli APCs or armored vehicles – shoot to kill. And the aim of all this was to have people climb. Because you have APCs under the house all the time. They tell us of course that the aim is to make the wanted men come out. But what wanted man would shoot at an APC just like that? They also say that if they jump on the APC and take the machine guns…shoot to kill” (testimony 13, p.58). In addition to stripping the context of the situation in Jenin, this allegation also omits the IDF decision to institute more rigorous policies following a number of instances of Palestinian efforts to steal machine guns from armored vehicles.

Chapter 2:  Control, Expropriation, and Annexation – “Separation”

The Israeli policies of checkpoints, roadblocks, detour roads, and the security barrier have effectively defended Israeli citizens from terror attacks. In contrast, BtS alleges that Israel implements these tactics for limited political purposes, to deepen “Israeli control of Palestinians” and enforce a policy of “separation.” The policy also “helps the army dispossess Palestinians of their lands, and leads to effective annexation of territories, and de facto expansion of Israel’s sovereignty.”  

The political objective of the BtS publication is reflected in the references to the security barrier solely as a mechanism that “separate[s] human beings from one another;” and “from their lands and livelihood.” In this distorted analysis, the barrier contributes to “direct dispossession of Palestinian land.” The restrictions on the ability of Palestinians to travel on certain roads are “another system of separation between different parts of the West Bank.” The large-scale suicide bombings and terrorist attacks are erased.  

Of the 43 BtS “testimonies” in this chapter, many are from soldiers voicing their political opinions - including one by an ex-soldier who now participates in “anti-Wall” demonstrations (testimony 9, p.194). These soldiers make clear-cut assertions about the absence of military necessity without having access to the necessary information.  

As in the previous chapter, individual cases of personal misconduct are taken as proof of a widespread policy directed by the highest echelons:

• Only 7 testimonies are possibly verifiable giving specific times and places.
• 3 are based on or include hearsay. For example - Q: “And when they disperse the demonstration inside the village?” A: “I was never there, so I don’t want to say. I was almost never at a disturbance of the peace. It was a very strange time, I was almost never present at those things.” Q: “What did the guys who came back from Ni’lin recount?” A: “It’s total chaos, a ton of teargas, stun grenades, at a certain point there were Ruger 22 caliber sport rifles fired” (testimony 10, p.197).
• In 11 testimonies, the former soldiers admit to not knowing all the relevant information on the events.
• 33 testimonies describe the enforcement of closures and confusion or unclear orders surrounding it. For example - A: “The orders there were unclear, it wasn’t black and white. Q: “What would you do? Turn them around?” A: “Yes, but what difference does it make? Even the brigade wasn’t sure of itself” (testimony 26, p.225).
• 12 testimonies describe personal misconduct by soldiers (theft, beatings, noise making etc.) that clearly violate IDF regulations. – A: “So what did the two guys that were with me do? They took the documents and put them in their pocket. A guy without his documents, you can imagine what…” Q: “Why did they put them in their pockets?” A: “Because of their ill will. Just because, he went out for a smoke and they played a prank, they hid it from him” (testimony 14, p.204).
• 5 testimonies include leading questions by the BtS interviewer.

Chapter 3: Administering Palestinian Civilian Life – “Fabric of Life”

This chapter purports to describe the alleged Palestinian dependence on a “complex and convoluted bureaucracy” put in place by Israel and implemented by soldiers at checkpoints and by Civil Administration officers. The authors repeat their claim that Israel “tightened its grip” on the Palestinians.  These conclusions are once again based solely on anecdotal evidence.  

While some of the 42 testimonies show misconduct on the part of a few soldiers, many of the soldiers openly state that these incidents were opposed and punished by junior and senior officers: “I have to point out that the officers were opposed to it, and they tried anyone who was involved in these things. There was a strong opposition” (testimony 18, p.301). This belies allegations of abusive policies at the highest levels of the army.

• 9 testimonies do not mention a specific event. For example - Q: “Yes, but do you remember things like that which happened?” A: “I don’t remember a specific incident – that period was replete – but yes, each incident results in a civilian punishment, there is nothing to do. It’s not a civilian punishment, it’s limiting civilian movement” (testimony 7, p.281).
• In 7 testimonies, the soldiers admit to not knowing all the information surrounding the events.
• 8 testimonies are potentially verifiable based on the details provided.
• 5 testimonies include or are based on hearsay. For example – Q: “You threw out half a sentence earlier about complaints that you could understand.” A: “Yes.” Q: “Like what?” A: “Not to me specifically, but things I heard in the media, I heard about things that happened, about delays, that they didn’t want to allow a pregnant woman to cross, situations which presumably happened” (testimony 9, p.285).
• 21 testimonies describe personal misconduct by soldiers (theft, beatings, noise making etc.).
• 7 testimonies include leading questions by the BtS interviewer. For example - Q: “Are there things that are part of the procedure, like detainments, ‘dry-outs,’ confiscation of keys. Are those things that you recognize?” A: “Ok, yes. Look, at the checkpoint, detaining is the most correct thing to do” (testimony 17, p.297).
• 25 testimonies describe the enforcement of closures and alleged confusion or unclear orders surrounding it.
• Only 5 complaints were filed by soldiers regarding the alleged misconduct. For example, “Someone from our company reported it to the commanders. In the end the issue was covered up legally, but in any case the commander wasn’t sent to the sergeant course that he was promised” (testimony 40, p.341).

Chapter 4: Dual Regime – “Law Enforcement”

The main claim in this chapter is that the Israeli army and the Israelis living in the territories (settlers) are “partners in the military rule of Palestinians.” This is supposedly due to the fact that “soldiers in the Territories receive and carry out the instructions of settlers and security coordinators of settlements.” However, the testimonies in this section belie this allegation. Eleven of 31 testimonies reveal friction, not cooperation. Of the incidents describing Israeli violence towards Palestinians, many describe soldiers intervening and stopping the violence.  

As in previous chapters, some of the testimonies have clear political and ideological agendas, and use demonizing rhetoric. “The people who live in that neighborhood do whatever they want, the soldiers are forced to protect them. They are the biggest Judeo-Nazis that I have met in my life” (testimony 8, p.383). Or: “Why do I as a soldier have to watch out for the bank accounts of the Jordan Valley settlers? No reason in the world. That’s a corrupting occupation at its worst. Pure economic interests” (testimony 29, p.420).  

The chapter also reveals BtS’ profound misunderstanding of army regulations regarding coordination with settlement security officers. In reality, settlement security officials are part of the official army chain of command, and are formally subject to the orders of the local army commander. They are also subject to military justice if they violate the law, abuse their authority, or deviate from operating procedures.

• 14 testimonies are based on or include hearsay: “But there were stories there, it was a relatively sensitive period with respect to the relationship between the IDF and the settlers, because it was after the disengagement and I remember that I heard, I wasn’t there when this happened, that the deputy regional brigade commander of Shomron came to the Passover Seder with a black eye, which he got from a settler” (testimony 21, p.401).
• Only 6 testimonies are potentially verifiable based on the details provided.
• 12 testimonies include leading questions by the BtS interviewer.
• 11 testimonies describe clashes between the IDF and Israeli settlers. For example, “Personally, in Elon Moreh I was on my way to run in the settlement itself, I was hit with spit and calls of ‘a Jew doesn’t expel a Jew’ and the like” (testimony 21, p.402). And, Q: “Do you remember waves of violence? On the part of the settlers towards the people of the administration?” A: “Yes, in Hebron I was hit with rocks, eggs, certainly, of course, why not? Racist comments, everything” (testimony 31, p.429).
• Only 5 complaints were filed by a soldier about the events.

See more NGO Monitor research on Breaking the Silence.

Jewish civil rights and privatization

By Caroline Glick 6-21-13

OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Nitzan Alon has done it again. You may recall that Alon was the “senior military official,” who as commander of the Judea and Samaria Division blamed the massacre of the Fogel family in March 2011 on undefined acts of vandalism in Arab villages allegedly carried out by Israelis.

He also told The New York Times that he disagreed with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s view that Hamas’s takeover of Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal demonstrated that a unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would be reckless in the extreme.

Over the past four months Alon has been criticized for his refusal to take actions to end the massive proliferation of terror attacks against Jews in Judea and Samaria. For months Alon ordered IDF soldiers to stand down as Palestinians hurled rocks and firebombs at them and at civilians. He set rules of engagement that are so restrictive that soldiers are better off running away from Palestinian mobs than defending themselves and Israeli civilians.

After Adele Biton, a three-year-old girl, was critically wounded when her mother’s car was stoned, and as online videos proliferated of IDF soldiers fleeing from assaults, and of Israeli civilians being beaten and assaulted on the roads with firebombs, rocks and bullets, the media finally began reporting on the terror surge. Public pressure mounted for Alon to finally take action or be fired from his post.

You might think that given public scrutiny of his failures Alon would keep a low profile. But he hasn’t.

On Tuesday he spoke to a group of foreign journalists and diplomats and said that in his “professional” opinion, if we don’t start negotiations with the Palestinians soon, we are likely to see an escalation of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis.

Alon’s claims deserve scrutiny because they expose just how deeply his political views impede his ability to understand and competently perform his duties. Alon disclosed that the Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements is the group behind the riots and the attacks on Israeli civilians and military forces. The group, he revealed, is bankrolled by the Palestinian Authority.

According to Alon, out of respect for US Secretary of State John Kerry’s attempts to renew peace talks, the PA suspended the group’s funding. He explained that this PA decision has led to a steep drop in terror attacks.

Alon said that the PA has kept its funding cutoff – like the funding itself – secret. He attributed the PA’s silence to its leaders’ modesty and moderation.

In his words, “They weren’t looking for diplomatic recognition for the move but rather for the territory to quiet down.”

Alon also mentioned that PA security forces are involved in stone and firebomb attacks on Israelis.

He warned that if Kerry’s attempts to start peace talks between Israel and the PLO fail, then Palestinian terror will get worse. In his words, “If, in a few weeks, the attempt of the American involvement will go [away] with nothing, I’m afraid that we will see this trend of escalation even strengthening.”

The implications of Alon’s revelations are obvious.

The supposedly grassroots groups of local rioters – including children – attacking IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians with bullets, firebombs and stones are not at all independent or grassroots.

They are wholly owned and operated franchises of the PA. And the ones leading the attacks are the US-trained Palestinian security services.

Most people would take these two pieces of information and conclude the PA is an enemy entity engaged in a massive and sustained terror campaign against Israeli forces and civilians. But Alon missed this. Alon revealed the secret PA funding of the rioters to prove its moderation by also revealing that the funding was temporarily suspended.

Alon’s strategy for dealing with the violence is not to do his job – deploy forces judiciously to defend the country and its citizens from our enemies.

His strategy is to pressure the government to surrender to all of the PLO’s territorial and political demands.

Because that is Kerry’s peace plan.

Since he entered office in February, Kerry has come here nearly half a dozen times to force Israel to accept all of the PLO’s preconditions for negotiations.

These include an agreement in principle that in the framework of a peace deal, Israel will surrender to the PLO all of Judea, Samaria and northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem and expel the 550,000 Jews living in these areas from their homes. They also include a complete and continuous abrogation of Jewish property rights in Judea, Samaria and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem, and the release of Palestinian terrorists jailed in Israeli prisons.

It ought to go without saying that there is no connection between military affairs and Alon’s positions, and his ideological blindness to basic strategic realities renders him unfit for duty.

But it doesn’t go without saying. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon continues to support Alon despite his ideologically induced incompetence.

Alon is just one – albeit an important one – of many unelected public officials whose actions stand opposed to his responsibilities, to the public interest and to the official policies of the government.

Take Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein. A year ago today, a committee of distinguished jurists led by retired Supreme Court justice Edmond Levy submitted a report to the government on the legal status of construction in Judea and Samaria. The Levy Report was not a radical document. All it did was set out the legal basis for the positions that have been adopted by every Israeli government since 1967. Like every single government since 1967, the Levy Report stated that Judea and Samaria do not fit under the international legal definition of territories under belligerent occupation, and as a consequence, the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply, and Israeli communities in these areas are completely legal and legitimate.

Weinstein is supposed to serve as the legal adviser to the government. But in the case of the Levy Report, and not only in this case, he acted instead as a political commissar. He abused his legal position to intimidate the government not to adopt the findings of a committee it impaneled, and whose recommendations were aligned with its own stated positions.

Post-Zionists like Alon and Weinstein, like their comrades on the Supreme Court and in the media, are intimidating enough on their own.

But their subversive behavior is supported by the US and the EU. Kerry’s obsessive focus on forcing Israeli concessions to the PLO, like the EU’s decision to support of an economic boycott of Israeli exports, strengthens the position of radicals like Alon and Weinstein. They make it all but impossible for the government to implement its own policies.

In many respects, Netanyahu has given in to these pressures. Not only has he overseen the appointment of post-Zionists like Alon and Weinstein.

By appointing Tzipi Livni to serve as justice minister and the minister responsible for negotiations with the PLO, he has ensured that nothing will be done to remedy the phenomenon of radicals being promoted to positions where they can undermine the policies of the government.

Moreover, as Construction and Housing Minister Uri Ariel acknowledged this week, due to the confluence of foreign pressure and the empowerment of post-Zionists in the public sector, the government is not respecting Jewish property rights in Jerusalem. It is banning construction for Jews in the capital by preventing planning committees from convening to approve building plans.

Netanyahu is using similar administrative tools to enact an undeclared freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria.

In taking these actions, Netanyahu is betting – probably correctly – that he will not be forced to surrender Judea and Samaria, because Mahmoud Abbas will never agree to negotiate with Israel.

Under Abbas’s leadership, Palestinian society has been so radicalized that there is no Palestinian constituency that supports peace with Israel. So, too, the Islamic world has become so radicalized since US President Barack Obama came into office that there is no regional support whatsoever for a Palestinian decision to recognize Israel.

While Netanyahu’s policies may allow him to survive Obama’s second term without irrevocably destroying the country, on the ground, the lives of Israel’s citizens are not being defended, and their legal and civil rights are being trampled.

Ariel, like Bayit Yehudi party leader Minister Naftali Bennett, doubtlessly wishes to end this state of affairs. But so far, their efforts in this area have been limited to calling for the government to change its policies. They and like-minded government ministers have the power to fix this situation.

And the time has come for them to act.

The Levy Report provides several recommendations for respecting the legal rights of Jews in Judea and Samaria. There is no reason for the government not to implement these recommendations – even without formally adopting the report.

The report’s main recommendation is to take the government out of the zoning process. The property and civil rights of Jews in Judea and Samaria must be accorded the same respect as those of all Israelis, regardless of the political views of appointed officials or foreign governments.

Local councils and municipalities in Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem’s municipal government, should have the power to approve building plans within their municipal boundaries.

To bring about this, the government must remove the Interior Ministry from the zoning process in Jerusalem. The government should not have the power to convene or block the convention of local planning boards.

As for Judea and Samaria, the sale of private land should not require the approval of the civil administration.

And in accordance with the recommendations of the Levy Report, a land registry should be established and anyone with legal title to land should be required within three to five years to register his holdings or lose his ownership rights.

So, too, in keeping with the Levy Report, Israeli courts should be empowered to adjudicate land ownership disputes in Judea and Samaria. The government’s position on land disputes should be determined only after the disputes are adjudicated in properly constituted courts of law.

Beyond the Levy Committee’s recommendations, to further privatize the field, as is the case in the rest of the country, state land that is within the boundaries of recognized communities should become the property of the communities, not the state.

Since 1967, the Israelis who support Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria based their actions on the assumption that the government is interested in securing Jewish rights. Certainly after the government forcibly expelled the Jews of northern Samaria and Gaza from their homes, this assumption is unjustified. With the empowerment of ideologically driven radicals like Alon and Weinstein to key positions it is downright ridiculous.

Rather than expect the government to act as a partner or a defender, we should simply demand that it serve as a neutral facilitator, and privatize settlement activities. Only by taking the government out of local planning and zoning councils, focusing efforts on buying private land and establishing a land registry for Judea and Samaria, while requiring land disputes to be adjudicated by properly constituted courts, can Israelis secure their property and civil rights.

JEWS SHOULD GET OFFENDED

BY DAVID SUISSA  June 19, 2013

http://www.jewishjournal.com/ david_suissa/article/jews_should_get_offended_by_palestinian_objection/

David Suissa, President

If there’s one thing the Palestinians are great at, it’s saying no. For years now, many peace-loving Jewish heads have been bruised from banging against the brick wall of Palestinian rejectionism.

Well, these Jews and others will now have another wall they can bang their heads against: the Western Wall. 

In case you missed it, the Palestinian Authority announced last week that they are adamantly opposed to Natan Sharansky’s plan to build an egalitarian prayer section at the Kotel. Specifically, they will not permit Israel to change the entrance to the Temple Mount — which adjoins and looks down on the Wall Plaza — in order to expand the area for an egalitarian service.

As Jonathan Tobin writes in Commentary, “The motivation of this veto isn’t pure spite. Just as they have used their power to set off violence and riots to protest even the most harmless alterations to the area in the last 20 years, Palestinian leaders are determined to stop Sharansky’s scheme in its tracks because they regard all of the Old City as not only theirs by right but a place that will be theirs in the event of any peace deal.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has already gone on record as denying a Jewish connection to Jerusalem, and, in a conference in Ramallah this week covered by JPost, he pointedly excluded the Jews when he said:

“The responsibility for defending and restoring Jerusalem and purifying its holy sites is not that of the Palestinians alone, but the entire Arab, Islamic and Christian nation.”

Where does this chutzpah come from?

If you ask me, I think it’s been nourished by the fact that Jews rarely get offended by Palestinian insults that touch the core of our identity.

What does Israel do when its so-called “moderate peace partner” Mahmoud Abbas publicly and brazenly denies any Jewish connection to Jerusalem? Instead of acting insulted, we prefer to act like stoic Zionists.

Given that Israel has let such insults and lies slide by for so long, is it any wonder that the Palestinians are now acting as if the whole Kotel area rightfully belongs to them?

Ever since Israel’s birth 65 years ago, way before any occupation, Israel has been putting up the two fingers of peace and getting a Palestinian middle finger in return.

Those insults haven’t just been about the four times Palestinians have said NO to having their own state — in 1948 with the United Nations partition plan and three times since. It’s more than that.

These rejections are symptoms of something deeper: a contempt for Jews, especially successful Jews who have their own state and claim a deep and historical connection to the Holy Land.

Having failed to express its own contempt for libelous insults, Israel has allowed the emotional narrative to slip away. It’s gotten so bad that there was hardly a peep in the Jewish world last week when Israel received the latest Palestinian middle finger denying the plan to make the Kotel more egalitarian. 

As Evelyn Gordon wrote in the Commentary blog, this might turn out to be a “teachable moment” for liberal American Jewry, who might now better understand that “dealing with the Palestinians isn’t quite so simple as they seem to think it is.”

I would go a step further. I would call this an “offendable” moment, a moment when Jewish groups the world over ought to draw a big, fat, red line and say loudly and clearly: “We are deeply offended that the Palestinian Authority is denying the 3,000-year Jewish connection to Jerusalem, and adamantly opposing our noble effort to add egalitarian prayer at our holiest site.”

Every Jewish group, including J Street, Peace Now and the Zionist Organization of America, should sign that statement. We might have honest disagreements about other areas, but all Jews should unite around this issue.

Jews are extraordinarily good at being offended by other Jews, but when it comes to responding to Arab insults, we clam up. Maybe we feel it’s just not “practical” to get too emotional in public.

But here’s the point — acting insulted when you feel insulted helps your case by making you look more real and more human. The Palestinians learned that lesson a long time ago.

In communication theory, one of the first things you learn is that people react more to emotion than to reason. And if there’s something Jews can get emotional about, it is certainly Jerusalem and the Kotel.

Whether or not the Palestinian objection can kill Sharansky’s plan (and the jury is still out on this), if a Palestinian leader has the chutzpah to tell the world that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem, we have every right to be deeply insulted and to call him on it.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not only the right, but the obligation, to deliver this message to his Palestinian counterpart: “Jerusalem runs through the blood and bone marrow of the Jewish people. It has been that way for more than 3,000 years. When you say that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem, you know it is a lie. But for us it is more than a lie. It is an insult of the highest order and we kindly request an apology.”

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.