Journalists on media coverage of Israel

In Gershom Gorenberg and Nicholas Lemann, we have two top-notch liberal journalists. Gorenberg, a kippa-wearing American oleh who resides in Jerusalem, has been increasingly sharp in his writing and blogging regarding Israel.

Long associated with The Jerusalem Report and now with The American Prospect, Gorenberg is currently in New York as a visiting professor of Israel and Jewish Studies at Columbia University. Nicholas Lemann was a correspondent for The New Yorker and is now the dean of Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism.

Lemann chatted amiably with Gorenberg before a modest-sized audience at Columbia's J School on the evening of Feb. 22. Since the event was also sponsored by the department of Israel and Jewish Studies, Lemann felt it appropriate to point to the large portrait of Joseph Pulitzer behind them, to riff on Pulitzer's Jewishness: How Jewish was he? "More Jewish than he owned up to." And he went on to explain that he was "too Jewish" for the Columbia University trustees to name the journalism school's building after; but since the prize is in his name, he got the better part of the deal.

Here's a key observation made by Gorenberg: that when covering a story (doing "the first draft of history"), a journalist often doesn't know what's behind the news because he doesn't have access to the relevant sources at the time. He illustrated this by way of the following: In researching his book on the post-1967 settlements, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, he learned from archival documents--which he had to sue to gain access to--that in contrast to what everyone had believed until then, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol used the pressure of nationalists as cover to reestablish Kfar Etzion, a kibbutz destroyed in the 1948 war, which he had intended to resettle anyway.

Gorenberg mentioned that for the first few decades of Israel's history, journalism was mostly in the service of political ends, because most newspapers were affiliated with political parties. It was not until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War that Israel's press began to be skeptical or cynical of government statements. By the 1990s, the era of party newspapers was basically over and most of Israel's media was commercially owned.

When asked how "objectivity" is regarded in Israeli journalism, he said that it's an ideal that's hard to obtain because of the emotional intensity of Israel's conflicts and because Israel is so small that it's hard not to have a personal connection to your stories. He stated this in an exaggerated way, that Israelis all "know everybody."

It is partly for this reason that when asked (in an index card I submitted) about Ethan Bronner--the New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief who recently was the subject of controversy because his son has joined the Israel Defense Forces--he responded that it was a trivial matter. Lemann agreed but I was unconvinced. I'm with Clark Hoyt, the New York Times "public editor," that Bronner should be reassigned---not because he did anything wrong, but because the appearance of potential bias is a legitimate concern.

Gorenberg does know some Israeli journalists (whom he did not name) who do not show their political biases in their news writing. He regards this as a good thing, as do I.

Gorenberg also reflected on two unfortunate truths about Israel:
1. Since--unlike most other immigrant groups--most American Jews really don't have an "Old Country" (because of the Holocaust), Israel has been forced to fill this role for American Jews. This sentimentalizes Israel, making it hard for Jews to view it as a real country.
2. Since Jews have a place in Western Civilization that is "mythic," things having to do with Jews have an extra emotional charge; hence Israel is a "world celebrity" that gets outsized coverage and outsized criticism. Gorenberg's half-joking illustration: a minor demonstration may be covered in Jerusalem while a civil war somewhere else is missed.

Israel's real 'existential threat'

In today's HaAretz newspaper, Aluf Benn has written an important column on a looming and entirely internal threat to Israel's society---the lack of integration of two rapidly growing population groups:

... In the current school year, 47.5 percent of first-graders are either Arabs or Haredim (ultra-Orthodox). The growth rate of the Haredi school system is 39 times greater than that of the state secular schools, and that of the Arab school system is 13 times greater. These are not demographic forecasts, which can turn out to be false; these are children who have already been born and are awaiting their turn in the education system. This is reality.

... A different, multicultural society is developing here --- a trinational state of secular Jews, Haredim and Arabs, with a small minority of religious Zionists.

... These three communities have different narratives and lack a common, unifying national ethos. Cohabitation has been imposed on them. Even worse, the ultra-Orthodox and the Arabs are not obliged to serve in the army, and most Haredi men and Arab women do not work. If this situation continues, who will protect the state, and who will pay for the growing population of welfare recipients?

"The gaps in military service create a sense of injustice, but the problem of employment is really existential," a senior government economist warned. "We have about 15 years to resolve this. If we fail, Israel will not be able to sustain itself: For every worker, we will have four people not working."

It is hard to exaggerate the severity of the situation, or the complexity of the challenge. The Arabs want to work, but are finding it difficult to break the walls of isolation and discrimination erected by the Jewish majority. Among the Haredim, a social norm has taken root that prefers Torah study to work. Both communities are non-Zionist and are suspicious of and hostile toward the authorities. ...

Still, Mr. Benn holds out the hope that these two groups can be successfully integrated into Israeli society. Click here to read the entire column.

Should George Mitchell 'go home'?

While not actually agreeing with "Re-Think the Middle East" blogger Michael Lame on this, I enjoyed reading his post. I fear that if Obama's special envoy to Israel and the Palestinians terminated his mission, this would register as but another defeat for a presidential administration that's reeling on the edge of a free fall. So, if for no other reason, I'd want Sen. Mitchell to stay. I also still harbor the hope, however unlikely, that he may yet pull something off. What do you think?--R. Seliger

Bring George Mitchell Home by Michael Lame

It’s time for President Obama to bring George Mitchell home. No, Mitchell shouldn’t be fired, nor should he resign, as Stephen Walt recently suggested in Foreign Policy. Rather, I would encourage Obama to reassign the former Senate majority leader to duty in the White House.

I advocate this for two reasons. First, the likelihood of success in his current position is small and getting smaller. Second, he is needed more at home than abroad to help address a matter of national importance which is even more pressing than Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ... Read the rest online.

Daniel Levy: 'bolder steps are called for'

Telling it like it is. I encourage everyone to read Daniel Levy's piece from Ha'Aretz.--Lilly

A retractionist-retentionist discourse By Daniel Levy

In his keynote address at last week's Herzliya Conference, Ehud Barak summoned up the most dramatic case for changing the status quo: "If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic ... If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don't, it is an apartheid state."

This quote is particularly remarkable for the specific wording chosen by Israel's defense minister: He (perhaps unintentionally) suggested that the existing situation could already be described as apartheid.

Considering the Labor Party's collapse, one may dismiss its leader's comments, but Barak's speech does matter, not because of its author, but because it articulates the core narrative of the centrist-pragmatic trend in Israeli-Jewish politics---from Likud realists like ministers Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan, to Kadima and the remnants of Labor and Meretz. Let's call it the "retractionist camp"---ready to support a withdrawal from the occupied territories that meets the minimum necessary requirement for the creation of a dignified and viable sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel, and therefore a sustainable two-state solution.

They show realist tendencies, but there is a powerful disconnect (one that was pervasive in Barak's speech) between most of this camp's diagnosis of the situation (an "end of the world as we know it" threat of apartheid or binationalism) and their prescription for addressing it: resume negotiations, blame the Palestinians, more of the same. It's like telling someone they have life-threatening yet treatable cancer and prescribing two aspirins a day.

If the situation is so dire, then bolder steps are surely called for. There are any number of game-changing options to consider. ... Read this entire article at the HaAretz website.

J Street on Main Street

Journalist Doug Chandler has provided the following longer version of his article published in the current issue of New York's Jewish Week. In this version, I'm quoted and Meretz USA's involvement is mentioned---as we are enthusiastic supporters of J Street. This version also provides some additional context on the alleged contention between being "pro-Israel" and "pro-peace" or "left" that unfortunately divides Jews about J Street's credibility as a pro-Israel group. I see J Street as providing a "big tent," in good faith, for Jews with a variety of views about Israel and Zionism, but not for people who see themselves as anti-Israel.--R. Seliger

J Street Goes To Main Street by Doug Chandler

In the midst of a renewed, and often nasty, debate between left-wing Jews and those on the right over what it means to be pro-Israel, one of the Jewish community’s newest groups, the thriving and politically progressive J Street, is rolling out local branches across the country.

The 2-year-old organization sponsored gatherings in Manhattan and 20 other locations February 4, each of which launched a new J Street “local.” More than 300 people attended the Manhattan event, where they kicked off J Street NYC with talks by local leaders and with smaller, breakout sessions to discuss the various aspects of organizing the branch, like advocacy, media and communications, and community outreach.

They also heard from J Street’s executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, who addressed J Street supporters across the country through a video hook-up from Philadelphia, where he helped launch that city’s local.

The evening represented “a new chapter in the struggle for tzedek v’shalom — justice and peace — in the Middle East,” Ben-Ami told his audience, estimated at about 2,000 by J Street leaders. “It’s a struggle for the heart and soul of the Jewish people, a struggle over the type of country that Israel … will be, and about the application of our community’s most basic values and principles to the real-world politics of the 21st century.”

Ben-Ami also outlined J Street’s objectives, saying that his organization believes in the State of Israel, which it considers “the national home of the Jewish people,” and is an advocate for Israel’s “security and survival,” as well as its democracy. The organization also supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which Ben-Ami suggested is the only course that would guarantee those goals.

Many of the organization’s branches, established in such places as Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland and San Francisco, are designed to cover specific Congressional districts, pointing to J Street’s nature as a lobbying organization. Its slogan, reflected in buttons and bumper stickers at last week’s New York event, is “pro-Israel, pro-peace.”

But the organization faces some stiff challenges from groups and individuals on the right, many of whom doubt its devotion to the “pro-Israel” part of its creed, and those challenges were evident on the evening it launched its new branches.

In Philadelphia, for instance, home to what many consider one of the nation’s more conservative Jewish communities, right-wing activists attacked local Hillel leaders for leasing space to J Street for last week’s event.

“Most people think that when an institution rents another organization space, they’re giving the organization a hechsher,” said Gary Erlbaum, a board member of Philadelphia’s Jewish federation, using the Hebrew word for the certificate that approves food as kosher.
“J Street is anti-Israel and parades under the pro-peace mantle,” Erlbaum said. “I call them the Jewish pro-Palestinian lobby.”

Another Philadelphia-area activist, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, even organized a competing meeting the night of February 4 in the same building, Steinhardt Hall of the University of Pennsylvania. Sponsored by the right-leaning group she founded last summer, Z Street, the meeting focused on the perils of the peace process and of “negotiating with terrorists,” she said.

Local Hillel leaders defended themselves, saying they have hosted a diverse group of speakers in recent months, including Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, Richard Pipes, the right-wing scholar, and Knesset Member Effie Eitam. But the squabble highlighted a broader question — whether J Street fits comfortably into the mainstream of the Jewish community, allowing it a seat at the table with other Jewish organizations.

“My impression is that they’d like to believe the tent is bigger than it is,” said Gilbert Kahn, a professor of political science at Kean University in Union, N.J. Emphasizing that his figures are speculative, Kahn added that he believes “the center [in J Street] is very much to the left,” with as many as 75 percent of its supporters holding left-wing views and perhaps 10 percent falling on the “extreme” left.

The organization’s leaders “are trying to speak to a large audience, but without alienating significant segments of it,” said Kahn, who believes that J Street is still “refining” its outlook. “If you have people like [those from] Brit Tzedek on the one hand,” but liberal, Zionist Jews on the other, the Washington-based group is bound to have some real divisions.

Kahn’s reference to Brit Tzedek was to Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, a left-wing organization that recently merged with J Street and a group that some considered on the fringe. But Ralph Seliger, an activist on the Zionist left, disagrees, noting that Brit Tzedek’s founder, its last president and its last executive director are all firmly in the Zionist camp.

Bolstering Kahn’s view is that, for all Ben-Ami’s talk about Israeli security, his speech never once mentioned what many regard as the No. 1 threat facing Israel today: the strong possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. J Street now supports Congressional legislation that would impose stronger sanctions on Iran — a position the group arrived at only recently — but it opposes “any consideration at this time” of the use of military force against Iran by either Israel or the United States, as spelled out on its web site.

Such stands, though, may be a lot more reflective of American Jewry than many people think, said Kenneth Wald, a political science professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
“There’s a lot of variation among American Jews on whether Israel is central to their political identity,” said Wald. Moreover, he added, “there’s no question that many young Jews are uncomfortable with various Israeli policies,” lessening their identification with the Jewish state.
“I think it would help the discussion immeasurably if the term ‘pro-Israel’ wasn’t reserved for AIPAC alone,” Wald said, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. A supporter of AIPAC, he added that “what it means to be pro-Jewish and pro-Israel has been misappropriated” by one end of the spectrum — a development he considers “unhealthy” for American Jewry.

The reception to J Street among more established Jewish organizations has varied from community to community. In Boston, for instance, the Jewish Community Relations Council has welcomed J Street Boston with a seat at its Israel roundtable, a monthly forum of local Jewish leaders.

Ben Murane, a co-chair of J Street NYC, said the branch “wants to be part” of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York and plans to initiate contact. “We’re part of this community,” he added, “and we want to be involved in the community’s decision-making process.”

Meanwhile, the potential divisions among J Street members discussed by Kahn seemed to be in play at last week’s New York event.

Sherry Alpern, the branch’s other co-chair, told the audience that at least some of her views are to the left of J Street’s platform. In an interview later, Alpern, who chaired the local chapter of Brit Tzedek with Murane, declined to specify which positions she considered too centrist, but said they involve “the language [J Street uses] in describing Israel’s positions” — wording she thinks is overly generous.

In addition, Murane appeared to have trouble with the word Zionist. He initially said he wanted to avoid the question, which means “20 different things” to members of his generation. But the 26-year-old later amended his answer, saying he considered himself Zionist if the definition means support for a Jewish, democratic state, “with world-class human and civil rights,” alongside a Palestinian state.

But Ben-Ami said overcoming disagreements “is a challenge for every organization. I imagine there will always be people who support us in concept but disagree over specific issues.” But J Street’s positions will continue to be determined in Washington, where it’s based, rather than by supporters in the field, said Ben-Ami, who counts among his relatives grandparents who founded Tel Aviv and a father who belonged to the Irgun.

He also said, contrary to the perception of some people, J Street has no desire to be an alternative to AIPAC. AIPAC “wouldn’t characterize itself as an advocacy group with a point of view,” he added, while “J Street is unabashedly an advocacy group with a point of view.”
For its part, AIPAC said through a spokesman that it “represents the views of America’s pro-Israel community and the vast majority of Americans, who believe in a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and support a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East.”

But in an apparent swipe at J Street, AIPAC’s statement added that advocating “for a special, ally-to-ally relationship is what makes AIPAC’s bipartisan, pro-Israel approach different from those groups — on the fringe left and right — who think they know better than anyone, including the people of Israel, and then advocate for American public pressure and confrontation with our allies in the Jewish state.”

But J Street enjoys the support of a good number of AIPAC members, the organization’s leaders say. One of those supporters is Daniel Marks Cohen, a member of AIPAC’s Real Estate Division, who attended the New York event and believes there’s no contradiction in being involved in both organizations. “It’s important that Israel has no stronger ally than the United States, but it’s also important that Israel knows our support isn’t unconditional,” said Cohen, 39 a resident of the Upper West Side.

Others attending the J Street event included veterans of such progressive-Zionist groups as Meretz USA, which support [i.e., identify with--RS] Israel’s Meretz Party, and Ameinu, previously the Labor Zionist Alliance.

Rabbi Shira Koch Epstein, a spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Elohim of Park Slope, Brooklyn, could have spoken for them as she discussed her pride in being a Zionist and her view that Zionist “doesn’t mean you have to trample on the rights of others.”

“The Torah tells us, more than 35 times, that we’re to treat everyone with justice,” including strangers, Epstein said. “It’s important to me to be a strong supporter of Israel who loves Israel and also wants to see it abide by those values within its borders and with others.”

Tide Turning for New Israel Fund

The Meretz USA office has discovered the following: Of those NGOs accused of anti-Israel agendas, with alleged ties to the New Israel Fund, Zochrot and New Profile have never been grantees; and the Coalition of Women for Peace has not been a grantee since 2006.

In the meantime, the leadership of the Kadima party has rejected a proposal of one of its own MKs and decided not to vote for a committee of parliamentary inquiry into the New Israel Fund and the human rights organizations it supports. The proposed inquiry was triggered by a campaign of vilification launched against the NIF two weeks ago by a new right-wing group, Im Tirtzu ["if you will it"--from a famous inspirational statement by Theodor Herzl] attempting to blame Israel’s human rights community for the Goldstone report on Gaza.

You should check-out reporting by Ron Kampeas at the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) website. His coverage has been scathing on the low quality of the Im Tirtzu charges. Here's part of what Kampeas posted on Feb. 9:

... Im Tirtzu acknowledges that the 16 NGOs named in its report are a small portion of the more than 300 groups funded by the NIF, many of them having to do with building infrastructure, assisting immigrants, and defending the rights of women, the disabled and religious and ethnic minorities. But the distinctions seem to mean little to Im Tirtzu; its Web site, in Hebrew, lumps the groups together, describing NIF as "investing in and developing hundreds of extreme leftist groups operating in various sectors."

The NIF and its affiliated groups have pointed out what they say are errors of fact in the Im Tirtzu report.

Im Tirtzu, for instance, claims that "hardly a word was heard from the organizations" when Sderot, the Israeli town near the Gaza Strip, was afflicted by rocket fire in the years before the Gaza war. In fact, Shatil, an infrastructure-building group and the NIF's flagship in Israel, runs a number of projects in Sderot, as do other NIF affiliates.

Shatil ran a public forum in Sderot in the war's immediate aftermath to make heard the concerns of its residents. ...

Groups like B'Tselem, a human rights monitor, dispute the Im Tirtzu report’s repeated allegations that they "accuse the IDF of war crimes," instead saying that they uncovered allegations of abuse and left it to the relevant authorities -- in Israel and overseas -- to delve further.

"B'Tselem is not a commission of inquiry," said Uri Zaki [a former Meretz party youth leader], who directs the group's Washington office, adding that B'Tselem was compiling facts and seeking independent action.

"There should be an investigation inquiry or committee," he said. "That is what Israel is required to do."

... Zaki said B'Tselem stands by the accuracy of its Gaza war reporting. The Israeli government in a report earlier this month acknowledged using the group as a source.

What is more striking about the Im Tirtzu report is where it essentially agrees with its targets: In entry after entry, under a subsection called "Main activity against IDF policy,” Im Tirtzu lists petitions to the Supreme Court against army actions.

For the groups, these petitions are a matter of pride; the Public Committee Against Torture, for instance, initiated a petition that resulted in 1999 in the Supreme Court banning torture. The Israeli Foreign Ministry and other pro-Israel groups have cited the ruling as exemplifying Israel's democracy and its humanitarian character. ...

Even the Im Tirtzu report itself (on p. 23) oddly includes the following laudatory account of NIF activities:

... the NIF has been awarded major joint projects by Israeli government ministries and the Jewish Agency.

1. The NIF and the Education Ministry run active Citizenship, a joint civics education program in Israeli high schools. The program's aim is to strengthen Israel's political-democratic culture and to establish civics as a major, compulsory subject, like mathematics and English. The cooperation with the Education Ministry is manifest in the participation of NIF representatives in the ministry's committees and in the training of teachers to teach this subject.

2. The NIF, the Sports Administration of the Culture and Sports Ministry, and the Metzila branch of the Internal Security Ministry are running a program for the prevention of violence in sports. The purpose of this project is to reduce violence and racism in sports.

3. Fidel has been operating within the framework of the NIF since 1998. The organization's goal is to promote the social integration of Ethiopian immigrants and to narrow the social and educational gaps. The Jewish agency asked the organization to mentor groups of parents in immigrant absorption centers.

4. Taglit-Birthright and the NIF operate a unique tour that brings Jewish Diaspora youth to Israel: Discover Israel: Peace, Pluralism and Social Justice. Taglit-Birthright project is run jointly by the Israeli government, the Jewish agency, the United Jewish Communities and Jewish philanthropists. The joint tour operated by Taglit-Birthright and the NIF "explores the country from a progressive perspective, focusing on both domestic social and political issues as well as larger questions of a just and lasting peace for Jews and Arabs both. The trip includes fascinating encounters with Israeli activists and non-government organizations working for minority rights, environmental justice, gender equality, religious pluralism, and peace in the region.

Chazan, Burg, Indyk at NIF forum

As the brouhaha over the New Israel Fund was beginning to unfold, the NIF held a public forum in Manhattan on Sunday, Jan. 31. Rabbi Jeff Marker reported about it on his Weblog. He concluded sagely as follows:

One thing which struck me, but was not articulated by the speakers, was the political difference in how two minorities are treated in Israel. Both the Arab population and the “religious” Jewish population are between 15-20% of the population. To create a majority in the Knesset all the main stream parties depend on the religious parties which gives them tremendous clout. Yet no party dares include the Arab supported parties in government, which means that the left or even left-center has no hope of forming a government without some religious parties.

The afternoon was full of a combination of problems and determination. Even with all the frustration, it was good to be in a hall full of people who are committed to a democratic and tolerant Israel which respects its minorities.

Naomi Chazan fired by Jerusalem Post

In the wake of the attacks of "Im Tirtzu" and other rightist elements against Prof. Naomi Chazan and the New Israel Fund (she is president of its board), the former Meretz MK has been fired as a columnist in the Jerusalem Post. The following is the core of the Haaretz article that reported the firing:

... On Thursday, Chazan received an e-mail from Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief David Horovitz, informing her the newspaper would cease publishing her column.

Chazan had provided the daily with one of its few leftist voices in recent years....

Im Tirtzu claimed in a feature published in the Hebrew daily Maariv last Friday that it found that 92 percent of negative references to the IDF in the Goldstone report originating with Israeli sources came from organizations sponsored by NIF. The fund's grantees include Adalah, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Yesh Din and the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights.

Following the feature, Im Tirtzu launched an explicit campaign against the fund. Chazan herself says there is no direct correlation between the positions of the fund and those of the grantees. "We really don't support every single thing these organizations say, but we support their right to say it. Some organization's only sin was signing a call to set up an independent committee of inquiry," she said. "This is an attack against organizations that actually differ in their opinions about Goldstone. The only thing that unites them is a demand for an independent investigation, and this is totally mainstream. Even Dan Meridor called for such an investigation."

Chazan calls the Im Tirtzu research and the public scandal it provoked as "gagging." Neither does she spare the methodology of the report itself. "As a politics professor, I know how to read reports. They concealed all the important data. They didn't say, for instance, that many of the quotes come from IDF officers or even directly from Ehud Olmert. The whole thing seems, to put it mildly, methodologically poor and not worthy of comment. I imagine that the actual Goldstone researchers, in most cases, did not need to do anything more than go to any Israeli news site and all the information was there."

Meanwhile, the storm provoked by the campaign has reached the Knesset. The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee rushed to set up a subcommittee to look into how foreign foundations sponsor Israeli organizations. MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) announced he was working to reach a wide consensus on setting up a parliamentary inquiry commission to probe the conduct of NIF and its grantees, while a number of other MKs issued statements supporting the fund and freedom of speech in Israel.

"The Knesset is trying to gag the debate and fan incitement," said Chazan. "This isn't freedom of speech, this is incitement. It's an attempt to eradicate legitimate protest and opposition. And without opposition, there is no democracy."

Naomi Chazan forced to cancel trip to Australia

From a colleague in Australia:

The Australian Union for Progressive Judaism has canceled a scheduled visit by Prof. Naomi Chazan, president of the New Israel Fund. Chazan has expressed regret that the UPJ decided to, "bow to extreme and unfounded right-wing accusations." The rest of the article is here in "The Australian."

Meretz chair Oron: Fascism at Israel's doorstep

Meretz chair Haim Oron [affectionately known as "Jumas" or "Jumes"] has published an op-ed in Maariv, "Before Fascism Strikes," in which he offers a dire and uncharacteristically passionate warning about an Israel that is lurching towards fascism.

Although a longtime leftist, Jumes has never been populist in his rhetoric. He’s never been one for hyperbolic or demagogic statements. He’s Israel’s “salt of the earth”–a "dyed-in-the-wool" Zionist–a patriot, if you will. Some have criticized him for even being too cautious in his criticism of government policy (e.g., last year’s Gaza war).

So when Jumes warns that fascism is on Israel’s doorstep, it shouldn’t be taken lightly, or seen as the words of a politician scoring political points. That’s not his way. If Oron is writing this way, then he’s telling us that “this is not a drill”, or a bad dream or idle talk. The danger, he’s telling us, is very real. And it's time to wake up before disaster strikes.

The original in Hebrew can be found here. My translation of the article is below:

Self-styled patriots set out on a malicious campaign against the New Israel Fund and its leader, Prof. Naomi Chazan. Ironically, their thuggish campaign draws its graphic inspiration from the worst anti-Semitic propagandists. And maybe it’s not so surprising that both have a common denominator, since hatred is hatred, racism is racism, and fascism is fascism, whether it’s directed against Jews by the haters of Israel, or whether it’s directed by Jewish racists against the objects of their hatred.

Through sophisticated PR and – more worrisome – by virtue of non-investigative journalism, the “Im Tirtzu” campaign was presented as a mainstream initiative of a “centrist extra-parliamentary movement,” being led by “a secular guy from Ramat Sharon who’s in hi-tech” (according to the Maariv report), and which professes to be, “uninterested in the politics of left and right” (according to the Jerusalem Post). A real boy next door.

A 15-minute internet search reveals a completely different story, of course. This campaign is being financed by a combination of lunatic Christians who believe that Hitler was sent by God to help bring the Jews to the Land of Israel (“Christians United for Israel”, led by Pastor John Hagee) and right-wing Israeli fanatics who serve as a pipeline for contributions to Nadia Matar and her friends [of “Women in Green” – R.S.] as well as for the purchase of weapons (!) for the most extreme extremists in the settlements (the “Central Fund of Israel”, based in New York and in the settlement of Efrat).

What’s all the fuss about? About the fact that Israelis dared to publish reports and to relay information that contains some criticism of Israel. There isn’t one Western democracy in which opposition groups don’t march proudly in the streets and attack the way their government is doing things – even during times of war. In mass rallies on the streets of New York during the war in Iraq, banners were held condemning Bush and Cheney that in Israel would immediately bring about arrests and criminal charges.

I personally do not accept every single thing that was written in the publications issued by the organizations that submitted an opinion to the Goldstone committee. I agree strongly with parts, while other parts, I believe, are one-sided. But the thought that the ‘reward’ for expressing a reasoned and considered opinion, backed by research, could be a campaign like this, and that the campaign would be embraced by the mainstream of the Israeli media, is sickening.

We’re losing touch with the enlightened world

If this were a one-time incident, and if the media were to make clear to all that Im Tirtzu is a lunatic partner of the Hilltop Youth, we could make do with relating to the campaign itself. But with sadness, and I’d even say with fear, this is another link in a chain of events that is changing the face of Israeli society. Whoever cherishes Israeli democracy has to look at the big picture and has to be concerned not by the campaign itself, but by the way in which it was received by the media and public.

The Israel of 2010 is moving away from fundamental tenets of democracy that we once took for granted. The famous sayings of the liberal philosophers who laid the foundation for democratic rule were once self-evident slogans. Voltaire’s comment that, “I don’t agree with a word you’re saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, and similar quotes, were once studied in civics lessons in high school and then absorbed as part of the agreed-upon code of Israeli politics.

Perhaps such sayings are still studied in civics - occasionally they’re still voiced by politicians - but these basic democratic insights are disappearing – quickly – from our landscape. There’s a straight line that leads from the arrest of human rights protestors at Sheikh Jarrah; to the recruitment of the State Attorney’s office against Palestinian-Israeli director Muhammad Bakri; to the police interrogation of the women who wish to pray at the Wall; to the apathy with which the current campaign is being received. This line is moving us away from the enlightened world.

A society does not lose its sanity in an instant. It does not turn from democratic to fascistic overnight. As history shows, these processes occur in a string of small events. Some of these occur because the establishment is not standing guard over democracy, and some are at the initiative of the establishment itself. Each one of them is a small, almost imperceptible, step, and when it is allowed to pass without anyone taking notice, the boundaries are stretched a bit further. And further. And further.

Until one day, the society wakes up to discover that it’s somewhere that, not long ago, we wouldn’t have believed we could be. Usually that’s too late, and the awakening comes only after the catastrophe that rouses people from their slumber. “Have the courage to change before troubles strike,” Yitzhak Ben-Aharon once said. Well the troubles are at our doorstep, and we’re desperately in need of courage.

Inquiry against NIF is 'political persecution'

Meretz MK Nitzan Horowitz has just issued a press release, condemning the attempt by right-wing Knesset members to create a parliamentary inquiry committee to look into the actions of the New Israel Fund. The aim, of course, is to intimidate the New Israel Fund, in an attempt to silence its important voice. Here is MK Horowitz's statement as I've translated it:

Inquiry Committee against the New Israel Fund - Political Persecution of the Most Dangerous Kind

MK Nitzan Horowitz has warned against the attack on free speech in Israel being conducted by the far right and being encouraged by parts of the Kadima party.

"The persecution of human rights organizations in Israel has become a dangerous hobby, both in and out of the Knesset. Now elements in Kadima are also joining this witch hunt, with a dangerous proposal whose single goal is intimidation and the silencing of public discourse in Israel.

"Whoever in Israel is engaged in defending minorities, human rights, and freedom of expression has become a target for persecution on the part of the Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman-Yishai coalition. Now joining these efforts are segments of Kadima, whose real place is on the extreme right.

"The New Israel Fund is one of the most important socially-minded organizations in the country. Civil society in Israel would be unimaginable without its years of contribution. The incitement campaign against it is political persecution of the most dangerous kind."

"Im Tirtzu" - a creature of John Hagee?

Meretz in Israel has condemned "Im Tirtzu", the organization that this week launched the brazen, contemptible attack on Prof. Naomi Chazan - former Meretz MK and currently the president of New Israel Fund.

Here's my translation of the reaction of the Meretz executive in Israel (emphasis in the original, and original Hebrew below):

"The Meretz executive condemns the hateful campaign against the New Israel Fund and its leader, Prof. Naomi Chazan. The Meretz executive regards the New Israel Fund and the dozens of NGOs it supports as a central component in the democratic identity of Israeli society - especially since these are NGOs that stand at the forefront of the struggle for Israel's democratic image and civic character.

"The Meretz executive regards the ugly attack on Prof. Naomi Chazan as a further stage towards limiting public discourse, and it warns of the McCarthyist slope on which we find ourselves."

הנהלת מרצ בתגובה:

"הנהלת מרצ מוקיעה את קמפיין השטנה כנגד הקרן החדשה לישראל והעומדת בראשה, פרופ' נעמי חזן.
הנהלת מרצ רואה בקרן החדשה ובעשרות העמותות הנתמכות על-ידה, מרכיב מרכזי בזהותה הדמוקרטית של החברה הישראלית,
קל וחומר כאשר מדובר בעמותות הניצבות בחזית המאבק על דמותה הדמוקרטית וצביונה האזרחי של המדינה.
הנהלת מרצ רואה בהתקפה המכוערת על פרופ' נעמי חזן שלב נוסף בצמצום השיח הציבורי ומזהירה מפני המדרון המקארתיסטי בו אנו מצויים."

Elsewhere, the Israeli news portal "Walla" has revealed that "Im Tirtzu" is funded by none other than pastor John Hagee and his organization CUFI (Christians United for a Safe Israel). According to "Walla", CUFI donated at least $100K to Im Tirtzu's cause. So much for Im Tirtzu's "centrist" self-characterization (as if we needed further evidence)!

The State of the Union – and the State of Israel

(from the Meretz USA e-newsletter of January 29, 2010)

In his State of the Union address Wednesday night, President Obama assured the American people that he would continue to aggressively pursue his domestic agenda in 2010. He summed up his determination at the end of the speech with a rousing, "I don't quit" guarantee.

But does the same tenacity and steely resolve apply to his Middle East peace initiative? Is the President still in it for the long haul? Or is Mr. Obama getting ready to let Israelis and Palestinians "stew in their own juices", as Israeli political analysts are fond of saying? Will he throw them off like excess baggage, weighing down an Administration already saddled with challenges enough for the next 3 years?

The first month of 2010 has provided several alarming signals.

READ MORE...!