Poll: Americans love Israel

Israel's place in the hearts of Americans may have  deteriorated slightly, but remains high. According to a new Gallup poll  released over the weekend, Israel ranks fifth among the countries viewed most favorably by Americans, behind Canada, Great Britain, Germany and Japan. 67% of Americans have a favorable view of Israel. India got a slighly less favorable rating of 66%.

 

A similar poll in 2008 gave Israel a 71% approval rating, somewhat higher than the present results, but in that poll all the high ranking countries had more favorable scores than they did in the current poll. In any case, friction with the Obama administration and the Gaza war have not really affected American sympathies for Israel, according to these results. As might be expected, Gallup polls taken in other contexts seem to yield somewhat different results. When asked whether they favor Israel or the Arabs, only about 59% of Americans say they favor Israel. However, this percentage has increased over the years since 1967.

 

 Only 10% of American respondents had a faborable view of Iran in the current poll, 20% had a favorable view of the Palestinian Authority. Republicans like Israel somewhat more than Democrats.

 

Israel does not seem to have a real "image problem" in the United States. European perceptions of Israel are a different matter.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

NIF Protege Adalah strikes a blow for "human rights" and against Zionist ballet

Protesters led by the New Israel Fund supported group, Adalah, struck their version of a blow for "human rights" and "justice" by disrupting a performance of the Israel ballet in Vermont. According to Ynet news, the self-proclaimed forces of justice and freedom under Adalah claimed that "anyone who watched the performance was "supporting Israel's apartheid policy."'

Contributors to the New Israel Fund can be proud that they are getting their money's worth, as the Israel Ballet is certain a bastion of apartheid Zionism. Apologists for the New Israel Fund, who defend it against charges that it is funding anti-Israel organizations can point out that this noble operation of the Palestinians was aimed not only at Zionism, but at degenerate Western culture. In the secular democratic utopia promoted by Adalah, there will be no need for a ballet troop. Belly dancers and whirling Sufi dervishes will be characteristic of the New Israel created with the aid of New Israel Fund funding.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Russia to supply Iran with S-300 defense systems after all

Optimistic Israeli reports about Russian re-evalutation of their commitment to supply the S-300 defense system to Iran may well have been wishful thinking. According to a Reuters report:

      

Russia intends to fulfill a contract to supply S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran, Interfax news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying on Friday.

 

Israel and the United States have repeatedly asked Russia to scrap a contract to sell Iran the truck-mounted S-300, which can shoot down hostile missiles or aircraft up to 150 km (90 miles) away.

 

"There is a contract to supply these systems to Iran, and we will fulfill it," Ryabkov told Interfax in an interview. "Delays (with deliveries) are linked to technical problems with adjusting these systems," he added.
 
He also cautioned against politicizing Russia's arms exports to Iran.

 

"It is absolutely incorrect to put the emphasis on the issue of S-300 supplies... and to turn it into a major problem, to say nothing of linking it to the discussion on restoring trust in the purely peaceful character of Iran's nuclear program," Ryabkov said.

 

The possible sale of the S-300s, which could protect Iran's nuclear facilities against air strikes, is an extremely sensitive issue in Russia's relations with Israel.

 

How could sale of the S-300 not be a political issue? In fact, how could any arms exports to a country like Iran not be "politicized?"

 

Ami Isseroff.

Continued (Permanent Link)

What makes J street the enemy and is it the enemy?

The J Street lobby has managed to generate a lot of publicity for itself. Most of those who praise it however, are anti-Israel and most of those who are critical are pro-Israel. That suggests that J Street may be the enemy. J Street's Jeremy Ben Ami told Haa'aretz: 

 

A part of the Jewish community in the United States and some people here are intolerant of people who disagree with them or criticize them.

 

"And that intolerance immediately flips to 'you are anti-Israel - you're a Muslim lover or you're Muslim,'" ... "These are things that they call me, and this is what some of them call the president. It has to change both in the politics here and in the right wing of the American Jewish community."

 

Ben-Ami's rant sounds a bit like "Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism." That's true. But some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, and J Street is not only engaged in criticism of Israel.  

Criticism of Israel is not what makes J Street the enemy.  Signing a letter calling on President Obama to loosen the Israeli blockade of the genocidal Hamas organization might make J Street the enemy. Initiating action in Congress against Iran sanctions might make J Street the enemy. Having Congressman Brian Baird as an honorary host of a J Street gala dinner, might make J Street the enemy, since he told students in Gaza that the US should forcefully break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, as it did the Berlin airlift. His views about the "Jewish problem" could hardly have been a surprise to J Street when they invited him.  Taking money from Muslims and Muslim groups doesn't make an organization or its members into Muslims. Muslims are not necessarily anti-Israel either. But when the money comes from the American Iranian Council and similar groups, t it does raise the suspiscion that they are working to serve the interests of Muslims who are inimical to Israeli and Jewish interests. The Iranian regime  after all, is not a great friend of Israel or the Jewish people.

 

None of these things that J Street did are criticisms of Israel. All of them are inimical actions - attempts to influence a foreign government to take action against Israel, honoring anti-Israel politicians and funding some of them, getting support from anti-Israel groups. Groups that carry out inimical actions are usually known as enemies.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

NGO Monitor calls on New Israel Fund to establish "red lines"

NGO Monitor has compiled an even more extensive file on New Israel Fund-supported anti-Zionist NGOs than Im Tirtzu, and they had these data for years. Yet they have been ignored and ridiculed and slandered by the NIF.

 

This seems a fair enough assessment:

 

NGO Monitor has raised these topics in reports and correspondence with NIF officials on several occasions, but NIF has been unwilling to engage in substantive debate. Instead, NIF and its supporters have smeared NGO Monitor as "silenc[ing] expression," and being "extremist," "incendiary," the "rotten fruit of Israeli democracy," "McCarthyite," and "right-wing." The aim of these responses is to avoid substantive debate.

Unlike Im Tirtzu, NGO Monitor has not engaged in personalities or exaggerations. Yet NIF chose to stonewall and start a slander campaign rather than replying to the issues they raise.

Is it too much to ask of New Israel Fund and its supporters to stick to the issues. Can they explain why they continue to support Adalah, and organization that calls for right of return of Palestinian refugees? Can they explain why they continue to support Machsomwatch, Mossawa and other groups that called on Norway to boycott Israel? Can they explain why they collect donor-advised contributions for the divestment campaign run by Coalition of Women for Peace? Or will we only get from them more and more of the same old litany about McCarthyism and free speach. In Israel, Israeli citizens can say what they please. But the Israeli government doesn't have to cooperate with foreign lobbies that are encouraging destruction of the state.

Ami Isseroff

NGO Monitor has called on the New Israel Fund (NIF) to implement clear "red lines" regarding the activities and rhetoric of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that it funds. This initiative comes in the wake of wide criticism of NIF for supporting advocacy groups that centrally contribute to demonization of Israel through allegations of "war crimes" and intense lobbying for the Goldstone Report.

These guidelines should prevent NIF funding for organizations that support "Durban strategy" activities such as:

1. BDS: Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns.
2. Demonization and delegitimization: Expressions including "apartheid," Nazi rhetoric, "war crimes," and deliberate misrepresentations of international law, as well as the use of UN frameworks for these goals.
3. Lawfare: Legal threats or activities in courts outside Israel directed against Israeli officials, "Zionist" or "parastatal" groups, or companies that do business in Israel.
4. Anti-Zionism: Opposition to the definition of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state," including demands for a "one-state solution," the revocation of the Law of Return, and the elimination of national Jewish symbols.

These activities, which promote the isolation of Israel internationally, are entirely inconsistent with NIF claims that "our supporters love Israel."

NGO Monitor has raised these topics in reports and correspondence with NIF officials on several occasions, but NIF has been unwilling to engage in substantive debate. Instead, NIF and its supporters have smeared NGO Monitor as "silenc[ing] expression," and being "extremist," "incendiary," the "rotten fruit of Israeli democracy," "McCarthyite," and "right-wing." The aim of these responses is to avoid substantive debate.

For more details, see NGO Monitor's report, NIF-Funded NGOs: Goldstone's Building Blocks, February 9, 2010.

Continued (Permanent Link)

New Israel Fund supports divestment

New Israel Fund insists that the charges against it (see  Funding Anti-Zionism - Adalah, NIF and the "New Israel"   New Israel Fund supports anti-Zionist Propaganda and NIF Funds anti-Zionists Take II )  made by Im Tirzu and others are all bogus McCarthyism:

 

The New Israel Fund, in its defense, says it does not support those who demonize Israel or call for divestment or boycott of Israel, and that it will not assist those who advocate the "right of return" for Palestinians to reclaim land lost to them in 1948. 

 

But the truth is that New Israel Fund funds Adalah, a group that wrote a proposed Israeli constitution calling for Right of Return. (see   Funding Anti-Zionism - Adalah, NIF and the "New Israel" ). NIF also supports Mossawa and Machsomwatch, both of which called on the Norwegian government to support a boycott of Israel, and NIF collects "donor advised" donations for Whoprofits. Click this link and see for yourself:  http://whoprofits.org/Donations.php. You can see there that the instructions state: "Make out a check to "New Israel Fund", write in the memo line "for the Coalition of Women for Peace – Who Profits Project."  This was not invented by Im Tirtzu or by me. Who Profits is a project of the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP). Despite express denials, it seems that NIF supported CWP in 2008, with a grant that channeled money from the Ford Foundation, and they continue to support Coalition of Women for Peace though donor-advised channeling.

 

Why does the Ford Foundation find it convenient to channel grants through NIF, and why does NIF act as a conduit for the Ford Foundation? Any organization that was once funded by NIF is allowed to use NIF as a donor-advised contribution channel unless a decision is made to the contrary. New Israel Fund knows that CWP supports divestment, but did not cancel its donor-advised status.

 

The "donor-advised" status actually means that money contributed to them is tax-deductible in the United States as if it had been donated to NIF. Formally, it means that the money was donated to NIF for the express purpose of funding CWP, and NIF used it to fund CWP. If it was not formally recognized as a donation to NIF, it would not be tax deductible, as CWP has no 501c(3) tax deductible status in the United States. So NIF is supporting CWP at least formally. If NIF claims they are not supporting CWP and divestment, then the tax shelter given to these donations is a fraud.

 

It is beyond my understanding how people can claim that telling potential donors to New Israel Fund that it supports CWP and denies that it does so, that it supports Adalah and other organizations that call for divestment and right of return is not "democratic" or why it is "McCarthyism" to ask the Israeli government to investigate its ties with a group that is funding delegitimation of Israel. Don't NIF donors have rights? Doesn't the Israeli government and the Israeli taxpayer have rights? Don't we have the right to know how our money is being spent, and to donate to causes we believe in? Isn't it wrong to collect money for "democracy" and use it to support groups that are trying to destroy Israel?

 

Ami Isseroff  

Continued (Permanent Link)

British in no hurry to change "lawfare" law that allows bogus Human Rights arrests

Last update - 09:20 15/02/2010       
'Livni may cause own arrest to shame U.K. into changing law'
By Haaretz Service

 

Opposition leader Tzipi Livni reportedly indicated on Sunday that she would be willing to travel to the U.K. in order to provoke her own arrest, hoping thus to move London into changing a controversial law enabling the arrest of visiting politicians, the London Times reported on Monday.

 

"Britain has obligated itself to me personally that this subject will be taken care of and fixed," she said. "Now is the time."

 

Livni reportedly added that getting herself arrested was the only way to "shame" the British government into changing the law giving judges the power to arrest visiting Israeli politicians and generals.
 

Israel's government confirmed late last year that Livni canceled a planned London trip after her office received news of a secretly issued arrest warrant awaiting her arrival.

 

Foreign Secretary David Miliband later announced that Britain would no longer tolerate legal harassment of Israeli officials in this fashion.

 

But the Times report said Monday that the promised swift change could be delayed by the country's upcoming elections, citing a cabinet split over timing issues which may postpone any alteration of the rules until after the vote.

 

The report added that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, was privately warning against remaking the law over such a fundamental issue in haste, saying that it ought to be explored by a body such as the Justice Select Committee, a move which would further delay any new law until the next Parliament.

 

Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Oalmor, told the Times "If Israeli dignitaries cannot travel unhindered to Britain, than they will not travel. Automatically the political dialogue between the two countries will be reduced. This is not something that London or Jerusalem wants."

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

Take Action: J Street supported congressman: US should break the Israeli blockade of Gaza

Representative Brian Baird (Washington Democrat) a protege of the J Street Lobby, is on a solidarity visit to Gaza, to show his support for the genocidal, racist, religious fanatic reactionary Hamas regime there. Baird told Gaza students that the United States should break the Israeli blockade of Gaza:

"We ought to bring roll-on, roll-off ships and roll them right to the beach and bring the relief supplies in, in our version of the Berlin airlift,"

So much for the "unbreakable bond" between Israel and the United States. So much for J Street's "pro-Israel" politics. Baird was an honorary host of the J Street Gala dinner. Baird and about 50 other congresspersons, along with J Street, were signatories of a recent letter calling on President Obama to life the Gaza siege and let Hamas have the materials it so desperately needs to rebuild its terror capabilities, as well as to ensure that a satisfied population will support the Hamas regime. The supposed rationale of the policy was that improving the lot of the population would make them more likely to support compromise and peace proposals. This is analogous to claiming that the allies should have lifted the blockade of Nazi Germany in order to put the Germans in a friendlier mood. The Democratic party got a gift from the Republican Jewish Coalition, which made out that the letter is even worse than it is, and circulated inaccurate information about it. This allowed apologists for the letter to blunt criticisms by shifting the issue to the RJC's misrepresentations.

But the letter was not enough for Baird, since he is evidently an all-out open Hamas supporter, and insists that the US must show solidarity with the Hamas in the same way it showed solidarity with blockaded Berlin in 1948.

If you live in Washington State, please write to Congressman Baird, though he has announced his retirement. Every US citizen, especially Democratic Party supporters, can and should write to these contacts to protest support for Hamas by J Street and by Democrat law makers:

National Jewish Democratic Council, Marc Stanley Chairman - http://www.njdc.org/forms/sign/contact (fill out the form to contact the Washington office); By phone in Washington DC; 202-216-9060; New York: nynjdc@njdc.org; Addditional phone, fax and email contacts at the above Web site
.

Democratic National Party: http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

J Street: Jeremy Ben-Ami jeremyb@jstreet.org; Isaac Luria info@jstreet.org

Be respectful of persons and institutions and constructive. Focus on issues. Do not confuse partisan political pleading with Israel advocacy - and remember - the Gaza agitation is the work of a handful of senators, it is not policy of the Obama administration and should not be blamed on Barack Obama or any administration personnel.

Pass it on to friends and fellow Democrats.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Clinton: "Iran is turning into a military dictatorship"

Actually, Iran already was a military dictatorship and has been one almost since the beginning of Khomeini rule. Anyone who read "Reading Lolita in Tehran" and followed the history of repression in Iran can see all the tell-tale symptoms: arbitrary arrests for dissent, direction of policy by the Iranian National Guard Corps, mass executions. The only difference is that of late, the even more militant Basij have achieved more power.

 

Iran has a democratic facade of "elections" that should not have fooled anyone. Apparently, it has fooled people in the US State Department for quite a long time.

 

Ami Isseroff  

      
Clinton: Iran is turning into military dictatorship
By Amos Harel and Haaretz Service
 

 

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday the Obama administration believes Iran is becoming a military dictatorship.

 

In remarks to Arab students at Carnegie Mellon's campus in Qatar, Clinton said the Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran appears to have gained so much power, saying "the Revolutionary Guard ... we believe is, in effect, supplanting the government of Iran."

 

"That is how we see it. We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship. That is our view."
 
Clinton's comments came after it was announced earlier Monday that U.S. Vice President Joe Biden will be arriving in Israel within weeks on an official visit, amid growing regional tensions over Iran's controversial nuclear program.

 

Referring to U.S.-led effort to force new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Biden told Meet the Press on Sunday that he hoped to recruit China's support to the campaign.

 

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden will be arriving in Israel within weeks on an official visit, Haaretz learned on Monday, amid growing regional tensions over Iran's controversial nuclear program.

 

Referring to U.S.-led effort to force new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Biden told Meet the Press on Sunday that he hoped to recruit China's support to the campaign.

 

"We already have the support of everyone from Russia to Europe, and I believe we could also garner China's support so to isolate [Iran]," Biden said, adding that the world had "to make it clear to them that we can't go on like this."

 

On Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen appeared keen to relay a public message to Israel: The U.S. is leading the international effort to levy harsh sanctions on Tehran, so Israel must exercise complete restraint.

 

Mullen told reporters he was concerned about the unintended consequences of a military strike on Iran's nuclear program.

 

The U.S. army chief said after arriving in Israel on Sunday that American policy on the matter is clear: "Iran must not acquire nuclear capability."

 

However, Mullen also said that if a regional confrontation were to break out following a strike on Iran, it "will be a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike."

 

In a fairly unusual step, Mullen held a short press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. He then met with the Israel's military leadership, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.

 

In June 2008, when Mullen was last here, circumstances were similar: Then-president George Bush and his administration also interpreted Israeli statements as meaning that the country intended to attack Iran. Mullen was dispatched by the Bush administration in order to clarify that Israel cannot do this.

 

Mullen was asked Sunday about the red lines the Obama administration set for Iran's nuclear program. He refused to offer a detailed response, but said, "President Barack Obama was very clear that from a policy standpoint, Iran cannot have nuclear weapons."

 

He added that he still hoped a solution could be found through diplomacy and sanctions, and that there would not be a regional war.

 

"We haven't taken off any option from the table," he said. While the military option had not been discounted, "it's pretty hard to be specific."

 

He reiterated the assessment that unless Iran's nuclear program was halted, Tehran could have its first nuclear bomb within one to three years.

 

Mullen expressed concern at the behavior of the Iranian leadership and said it had a destabilizing influence on the region. He cited as cause for concern Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent statement that Iran could step up uranium enrichment, and added that the country was linked to Hezbollah, Hamas and the instability in Yemen, and played a role in Afghanistan.

 

Stressing America was committed to Israel's security, he commended the countries' close defense and security ties, and their stabilizing effect on the region.

 

The admiral also noted that the U.S. has taken steps to protect several countries in the region from Iranian threats, and mentioned that Patriot air defense missiles had been deployed in the United Arab Emirates. Mullen added that all measures are defensive.

 

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Qatar that Iran is leaving the international community little choice but to exact a heavy price from Tehran over its provocative actions.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Funding anti-Zionism: Adalah, NIF and the "New Israel"

The expose of New Israel Fund funding of anti-Zionist groups by Im Tirtzu (see New Israel Fund supports anti-Zionist Propaganda and NIF Funds anti-Zionists Take II ) drew fire from people who insist that New Israel Fund is pure as the driven snow, well-intentioned liberal Zionists, and that Im Tirtzu is a "right-wing" organization intent on stifling free speech. Im Tirtzu admittedly is a right wing group, but you can and should judge for yourself about the organizations that New Israel fund is funding.

Adalah is one of the organizations funded by New Israel Fund, as you can verify here. According to the statement of NIF:

[Adalah] Seeks to achieve equal rights for the Arab citizens in Israel, and to protect their minority rights with regard to land, housing, education, employment, language, political participation, women's rights, prisoner rights and cultural and religious rights.

That sounds wonderful. What does it mean in practice? In 2007, Adalah proposed a new constitution for Israel. It is posted on the Web at the Adalah Web site here.

Here are some features of this proposed constitution:

From the introduction:

"Adalah is issuing "The Democratic Constitution," as a constitutional proposal for the state of Israel, based on the concept of a democratic, bilingual, multicultural state."

No more Jewish state. Halas! Mafeesh! This is indeed a "New Israel."

Chapter 1 Article 4: " The State of Israel must recognize, therefore, its responsibility for the injustices of the Nakba and the Occupation; recognize the right of return of the Palestinian refugees based on UN Resolution 194..."

Chapter 2 Article 15 implies repeal of the law of return: Israel will no longer be a country for Jews seeking to live as part of a sovereign nation:

"The laws of citizenship and immigration will be established on the basis of the principle of anti-discrimination and will define the arrangements by which the State of Israel will grant citizenship to:

A. Anyone who was born within the territory of the State of Israel and whose parent was also born within the territory of the State of Israel;

B. Anyone who was born to a parent who is a citizen of the state;

C, The spouse of a citizen of the state;

D. Those who arrive or remain in the state due to humanitarian reasons, including those who are persecuted on the basis of political background."

Chapter 2 Article 20 is the foundation essentially of a binational state, but one that guarantees only Arab rights. It proposes one of two models. In the first model, every law will need to be approved by a committee composed of at least 50% representatives of Arab parties. Model II states:

"No bill will be approved by the plenum of the Knesset if 75% of the members of the Knesset who belong to parties which by their definition or character are Arab parties or Arab-Jewish parties vote against it under the reasoning that the bill violates the fundamental rights of the Arab minority."

Jews do not get this right. It won't be needed anyhow, since following exercise of the "right" of return, the Arabs will soon be a majority.

Chapter 3, Articles 29 and following supposedly guarantee civil rights - freedom of religion, information, privacy, etc. But contrary to Western constitutions, and like the Palestinian and other Arab country constitutions, they each include a provision that the right can be limited or nullified by a special law, in this language:

"...these liberties shall not be restricted except by a law enacted for a necessary purpose which is in accordance with the basic principles of a bilingual and multicultural democratic society, and to an extent that is no greater than is required.:"

That is an anti-constitutional provision that makes a joke of rights. Essentially, it states that people have rights unless the government decides to take them away. It means the government can enact any law it likes to abridge civil rights. Who decides what is in accordance with the principles? Who decides what extent is no greater than required? What is a "necessary purpose?"

Chapter 3: Article 39 - Restitution of all the property of all Arabs taken in 1948, and compensation for all the time they were denied use of their property:

" Every person whose land has been expropriated or whose right to property has been violated arbitrarily or because of his or her Arab nationality under the following laws is entitled to have his or her property restored and to receive compensation for the period during which his or her right to property was denied: the Land Ordinance (Acquisition for Public Purposes) of 1943, and/or the Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law of 1953, and/or the Absentee Property Law of 1950, and/or article 22 of the Statute of Limitations of 1958, and/or Regulation 125 of the Emergency (Defense) Regulations of 1945."

Since the constitution also calls for right of return, that means giving up all the land of all the Arabs who ran away or were expelled in 1948

The constitution is alluded to euphemistially in the NIF page about Adalah as the following goal:

Drafting and proposing a Charter of Human Rights as an alternative document to the various proposals for constitution in Israel .

The actual proposed constitution, which is not a charter of human rights, is published at Adalah's Web site. It has been public knowledge since 2007, but NIF does not tell their donors about it at all. NIF continued to fund Adalah after they published their proposed constitution.

Nobody disputes that Adalah has a right to their opinions. They have the right to free speech and freedom of the press and assembly. Not even Im Tirtzu disputes that. But the constitution they propose puts an end to the right of the Jewish people to self-determination under the pretense of ensuring minority rights. It calls for "right" of return, return of refugee property, Arab veto over legislation, arbitrary abridgement of civil rights, abolition of the Law of return and abolition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. Is Adalah an organization that is worthy of the support of a Zionist fund?

While Adalah has a right to have and express their opinions, some people seem to dispute the right of NIF donors to know that that is what they are funding, and some people insist, for reasons I can't understand, that the Israeli government and Jewish Agency must continue blindly cooperating with NIF, which funds Adalah, and financing their birthright trips, which no doubt inculcate more of the same philosophy.

As with Adalah, we can go through the list of organizations funded by NIF - Mossawa, Birthright, Betselem.... Is it "McCarthyism" to ensure that NIF donors know what they are actually funding, as opposed to the euphemistic account given by NIF at their Web site? Is it "McCarthyism" to investigate whether the Israeli government should or should not cooperate with Adalah? Decide for yourself.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

URGENT: Please support free speech in American Universities - Even for Zionists

Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's talk at the University of California at Irvine was aborted because of heckling by a small group of unruly extremists. A number of the students face disciplinary action.

The students are part of a group that has terrorized UC Irvine political gatherings for years, screaming "one state, one state" and preventing opponents from speaking.

The other side is running a write-in campaign to block disciplinary action against the students, so it is important to send as many letters as possible in support of disciplinary action.


Please pass the word to ask UC Irvine officials to expel these people and put an end to the "one state" groupies at Irvine.

Use the addresses/ telephone numbers to support prosecution of the offenders.

Ask to speak with Chancellor Drake or leave a message at: (949) 824 - 5011
and email him at: chancellor@uci.edu

Speak to the Dean of Students office, who are determining the punishment at: (949) 824-5181 and email them at: deanstu@uci.edu

Update

Since this group of extremists has flourished for many years and has been tolerated, at least, by UC Irvine administrators, you can and should, in addition to the above, contact the Governor of the State of California and the regents of the University of California:

University of California Regents: regentsoffice@ucop.edu

California Governor Schwarzenegger: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email

Continued (Permanent Link)

NIF funds anti-Zionists - Take II

The original reports about New Israel Fund (see New Israel Fund supports anti-Zionists ) by Maariv journalists Ben-Dror Yemini and Ben Caspit, and the Im Tirtzu report on which they were based were not accurate. Im Tirtzu's advertisement claimed that without the New Israel Fund and Naomi Chazan there would not not have been a Goldstone report condemning Israel. This was prima facie nonsense, and some of the statistics on which this claim was based turn out to be dubious as well. Moreover, it seems that New Israel Fund never funded Zochrot (though they did support them evidently, both directly and indirectly) or New Profile, the draft-dodger group. They did fund Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) but stopped funding them after 2006 (see here, here and here and NIF's own rejoinder here ).

Im Tirtzu violated an important rule of Israel Advocacy - always be sure of the facts and tell the truth as precisely as possible. They created a sensation for a few days, but now the legitimate part of their claim, and there is a legitimate part, is endangered by their exaggerations and "Public Relations."

There should, however, be no cause for gloating and celebration among supporters of the New Israel Fund. The New Israel Fund is pictured as an innocent victim since they stopped funding Coalition of Women for Peace in 2006, and only support Zochrot but don't fund it. On that basis, American Jews who support Israel are asked to donate to New Israel Fund. Suppose an organization came to you soliciting funds, and their representative said, "We stopped funding the Ku Klux Klan in 2006, and we never funded the American National Socialist Workers Party. We only support them." Do you think you would or should give money to that organization?

Here is a listing of previous (last year's) NIF grantees. Some are innocent projects working for good causes - or so they seem. But some are not necessarily so innocent. The NIF supports Adalah and Breaking the Silence among others. They were sources of materials used in the Goldstone report, and unfailing sources of disinformation designed to blacken Israel's image. Or consider the Al Yater association, which "Promotes the rights of the Palestinian population in Acre." Acre is in Israel. The people in question are Israeli Arabs. Only those who do not recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel call these people "Palestinians." Or consider Phsyicians for Human Rights. This organization became famous when it popularized the case of a poor Palestinian who died, according to them, because the evil Zionists would not let him get treated for cancer. But the Palestinian never died and the story was a lie. That's the sort of thing NIF is proud to support.

Many of us, myself included, who felt that the Goldstone report was unfair called for a thorough civilian investigation of the IDF, a position that I am sure NIF would support. But the same logic must work for NIF supporters. Im Tirtzu may have gotten many facts wrong, but there are certainly problems with some of the organizations that NIF funds and has funded in the past. But NIF is stonewalling. Just as the Hamas is unwilling to launch an investigation of any kind into the Goldstone allegations, the NIF is unwilling to clean house. Instead, they rant about McCarthyite tactics and suppression of dissent. If the NIF has nothing to hide, why are they hiding it?

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

NIF: Demonize others as you would have them demonize you

Who's demonizing who?
BY BEN-DROR YEMINI
07/02/2010 21:22

 

The NIF thinks it's ok to take part in the campaign against Israel.

 

The New Israel Fund is angry. It thinks that it is okay to cooperate with the Goldstone commission, even though it was formed by an automatic majority of the benighted countries that control the UN Human Rights Council. The NIF thinks it is okay that Israel cooperate with the commission, even though there is no country in the free world that supported its formation. It thinks it is ok to disseminate unsubstantial accusations against Israel. It thinks it is okay to take part in the demonization campaign being staged by certain NGOs. And it is absolutely legitimate, in a democratic country, to do all these things.

 

But there is something else that is also legitimate: To reveal the truth about the fund and the groups that falsely claim to be "human rights" organizations. If some of the political organizations supported by the fund do not recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state – don't cry human rights.

 

Tell the truth: the denial of rights is to Jews only. The Palestinians have a right to a state of their own, as do the Croats, the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Slovaks and other nations – but not the Jews.

 

Related opinion: We are with you Naomi Chazan

 

The New Israel Fund provides support (though not funding – editor, JPost), for example, the Zochrot organization. This is a nonprofit organization that openly strives to destroy Israel by means of the "right of return." Not that there is any such right, and not that there ever was another precedent for a mass "return" after a population swap in the wake of war – but this does not bother the New Israel Fund. It will always jump in under the slogan of "human rights."

 

All this doesn't mean Israel is exempt from criticism. After all, out of the hundreds of allegations, there are a few of substance. But if many sane people loathe the human rights organizations, it's not because they loathe human rights. Just the opposite. It's because the sane majority is fed up with 'human rights' becoming the weapon of benighted forces.

 

There are a million and one offenses to human lives and human rights in the world. Israel, as a state in conflict, offends less than all others. This has been checked. This is backed up in numbers. Yet Israel is the one taking the brunt of the criticism. This is called demonization, delegitimization and obsession. This is not defense of human rights, but rather an orchestrated campaign in the service of Iran and Hamas.

 

HOW IS it that many, mainly Jews, support the New Israel Fund? How is it that they enable this systematic campaign that pretends to be humane? They are not anti-Semites. They are people with good intentions. After all, the rhetoric is about human rights and minorities. Jews are sensitive to that. And it's good that they are. Most of them simply don't know. Most of them sincerely and truly want for Israel to be more enlightened and advanced, while being stricter about human lives and human rights.

 

But they do not know that some of the money goes to other goals.

 

Prof. Naomi Chazan, who heads the NIF, is not a hater of Israel. But what happened to the fund is exactly what has happened to innumerable organizations that deal with the "discourse of rights."

 

Human rights organizations can earn back our trust. They must genuinely support human rights, not organizations that work to deny Israel's right to exist.

 

The writer is an Israeli journalist and a regular columnist at Maariv, where an earlier version of this article originally appeared.

Continued (Permanent Link)

A coalition to destroy Israel

How a coalition was formed around the goal of destroying Israel.

Red + Green = a Mid-East car crash

An uneasy UK political alliance threatens both peace and Israel's existence

By Eran Shayshon, January 7, 2010

In recent years, Israel has faced a dramatic assault on the very legitimacy of its existence as a Jewish and democratic state. In this regard, the UK — and especially London — acts as a prominent "hub" in moves to delegitimise Israel. This is due in part to London's position as a media, cultural and academic centre and the UK's impact as an English-speaking nation.

I recently led a group of four analysts from the Reut Institute — an Israeli policy group designed to provide strategic support to Israeli leaders and decision-makers — on a 10-day visit to London to assess developments in this area. We met leading journalists, experts in international law, human rights activists, diplomats, and representatives of Jewish and Muslim organisations.

Though the Israeli-Palestinian issue seems to be very low on the average Londoner's agenda, there are several structural aspects that comprise a convenient platform for anti-Israel sentiment in the UK. One is Britain's post-colonial history --- notably the sense of historical responsibility for the current make-up of the Middle East, including Israel's creation. Another is the UK's historical role as a hospitable base for political radicalism.

But the main engine for delegitimising Israel in the UK is what is known as the "Red-Green Alliance" – an unholy pact between the radical British left and Islamist groups. Theses include Respect, Socialist Action, War on Want, Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Muslim Association of Britain.

Powered by the increasing radicalisation of the UK's Muslim community towards Israel, and the inversion of the left's view of the Zionist project (from once having represented the ultimate socialist model society to today being seen as the ultimate expression of Western imperialism), these groups have made the attack on Israel's legitimacy into a rallying cry.

Although this alliance is far from being a hierarchical, top-down structure, it has become increasingly institutionalised in recent years. The annual "Cairo Conference", for example, is an anti-Zionist event that brings together far leftists from Britain, radical Arab nationalists and militant Islamists — as well as the "BDS" movement, which promotes boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

The aims and methods of the Red-Greens are very different from acceptable, "softer" criticism of Israeli policies, mainly on behalf of human-rights groups. This kind of criticism is prevalent in Israel itself — as it is in any open democracy. But, while the Red-Green Alliance is still a marginal phenomenon in British politics, its delegitimisation activity is having a disproportionate impact as a result of the alliance's ability to unite with these "softer" critics of Israeli policies, blurring the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and illegitimate attempts to undermine its right to exist.

Red-Green strategy has several components. One is the creation of an "'all-or-nothing" dynamic against Israel by advocating boycott as the only effective protest option. Another is to make criticism of Israel "trendy'" by framing it in the worthy language of human rights.

In this regard, key institutions such as trade unions, campuses and NGOs are subjected to political campaigns. All of this is underpinned by the demonisation of Israel, portraying it as an "Apartheid" state, and as the principal source of conflict in the Middle East and beyond.

The Red-Greens have enjoyed success as a result of many anti-Israeli protestors believing they are thereby promoting human rights and supporting the Palestinian cause. This is clearly not the case. It is not the Palestinians who are influencing London; it is London that is influencing the Palestinians. At present, only a few key Palestinian individuals or organisations play an active role in the Red-Green Alliance, but radical left-wing ideology is slowly infiltrating and radicalising Palestinian discourse in the West Bank. Increasing calls among traditionally moderate Palestinian leaders to question the two-state solution are certainly buoyed by the increasing attempts among the Western left to undermine Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

Challenging the two-state solution on the basis of "liberal" post-modern theories is a recipe for continued violence and insecurity in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Instead of seeking to delegitimise Israel, pro-Palestinian groups should be working for coexistence, peace and good governance within the Palestinian Authority. Moderate Israelis and Palestinians can only hope for the emergence of an anti-radical alliance in support of a two-state solution to counter the dangerous message currently coming out of London.

Eran Shayshon is leader of the political-security team at the Reut Institute

Continued (Permanent Link)

Delegitimization of Israel - A Strategic Threat

Israel delegitimizers threaten its existence

Writing in Haaretz, Reut Institute Founder and President Gidi Grinstein describes an "unholy alliance" aiming to turn Israel into a pariah state and recommends a comprehensive policy approach to address the challenge.

 

Gidi Grinstein, Haaretz, 01/15/10

 

A year after Operation Cast Lead, it is increasingly clear: Together with the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the Gaza campaign exposed a dire need for Israel to reform its security and foreign policy doctrine.

Many Israelis are frustrated. Over a three-year period, despite overwhelming military, technological and economic superiority, we failed to achieve decisive successes in confrontations with both Hezbollah and Hamas. In 2006, Israel was dragged through a 33-day exchange, with a cost of 133 dead and a trauma to Israeli society that will take years to heal. And in last year's Gaza operation, our superior military power was offset by an offensive on Israel's legitimacy that led to a significant setback in our international standing, and will constrain future Israeli military planning and operations as effectively as any Arab army could. This is a scorecard Israel can't afford to accept.

Israel's wars are won, or lost, as much on the drawing boards of strategists and planners as on the battlefield. In its first 20 years of existence, Israel had remarkable military successes, but, notwithstanding the bravery of our soldiers, they were primarily the outcome of an intellectual victory in the war of ideas and concepts. David Ben-Gurion's 1947 "seminar," by which he prepared himself for leading the nascent state in an existential military confrontation, generated a set of principles for Israeli national security many of which are relevant today. By 1967, it was secure in its borders.

In the more than four decades since then, Israel's physical existence has been an unchallenged reality, even if at times its citizens have been subjected to terrorism and violence. Arab intentions to destroy Israel were repeatedly frustrated, to a point where any such effort was effectively abandoned, and Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel. Even though Iran may grow into an existential threat, Israel's successes to date have been truly phenomenal.

Frustrated by Israel's military might, its adversaries - primarily Iran and its Arab allies in Hezbollah and Hamas - have experimented with politics and violence in their attempt to cap our power and diminish it. Over time, they were able to crystallize a set of ideas that have proven effective. Rather than seeking to conquer Israel, they would aim to bring about its implosion, as with South Africa or the Soviet Union, by attacking its political and economic values. While Israel aims to avoid civilian casualties, they systematically involve civilians on both sides of the frontier. While Israel seeks decisive "victory" in direct confrontations, they value "resistance" and low-intensity conflict.

Turning Israel into a pariah state is central to its adversaries' efforts. Israel is a geopolitical island. Its survival and prosperity depend on its relations with the world in trade, science, arts and culture - all of which rely on its legitimacy. When the latter is compromised, the former may be severed, with harsh political, social and economic consequences.

The transformative change taking place stems from an unholy alliance with some European elites. The radical, brutal, sometimes-fascist Islamic states and organizations that reject Israel share aims with Europeans that deny the right of Jews to self-determination.

And so, our politicians and military personnel are threatened with lawsuits and arrest when they travel abroad, campaigns to boycott our products gain traction, and our very existence is challenged in academic institutions and intellectual circles. The country is increasingly isolated.

To date, Israel has failed to recognize these trends for the strategically significant, potentially existential, threat they constitute. It has mustered neither resources nor personnel to fight them, and lacks a comprehensive approach to the challenge.

Many frame the problem as one of public relations, as if what's required is a task force of eloquent speakers that can deliver a three-point punch line in polished English in 30 seconds. This may have been useful in the early days of global news, 20 years ago. Today it is insufficient.

Others say that Israel's policy is key, and that a genuine and credible commitment to the peace process will decrease both criticism and delegitimization of the country. But the delegitimization effort would continue even if Israel were to sign a comprehensive peace treaty with the PLO: Indeed, the forces that drive this effort are not Palestinian moderates, but rather people who oppose Israel's very existence. An agreement would only fuel their campaign to converge around the next outstanding issue that comes up between Israel and the Arab world.

Israel's delegitimacy is propagated in a few global metropolises - such as London, Madrid and the Bay Area - that are hubs of international NGOs, media outlets, academia and multinational corporations. Therefore, an extraordinary effort is required to respond to and isolate Israel's delegitimizers. We must play offense and not just defense.

The most effective barrier to fundamental delegitimization is personal relationships. In every major country, Israel and its supporters must develop and sustain personal connections with the entire elite in business, politics, arts and culture, science and academia. This requires not only an overhaul of Israel's Foreign Ministry, and particularly of its larger embassies, by infusing them with significantly larger operating budgets, but also the mobilization of our civil elite in Israel and overseas for the task.

Operation Cast Lead may have ushered in a new era in Israeli national security. The frontiers of our survival have shifted from the battlefields and military to our formal and informal diplomats the world over. This is a struggle that may be less bloody, but is as existentially important.

Gidi Grinstein is founder and president of the Reut Institute.

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

Palestinian plan to destroy Israel by "implosion"

Logic of Implosion: The Resistance Network's Political Rationale

This issue of ReViews cites a variety of quotes that demonstrate the Resistance Network's political rationale based on the theory of "Implosion", whereby Israel will not be overthrown militarily, but rather will be pressured on a number of fronts that will ultimately lead to its internal implosion

The recent war in Lebanon has revealed the consolidation of a Resistance Network, in which various political state and non-state actors promote a radical agenda through strategic, cross-boundary collaboration against Israel.

The Resistance Network conducts itself against Israel according to a political logic that is based on a theory of "Implosion", whereby Israel will not be overthrown militarily, but rather will be pressured on a number of fronts that will ultimately lead to its internal implosion as a state. This logic promotes the establishment of one Palestinian / Arab / Islamist state in place of Israel.

This issue of ReViews cites a variety of quotes from leaders of the Resistance Network (including Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and leaders of Hamas) whose statements demonstrate, the Resistance Movement's political rationale based on the theory of "Implosion" that are carried out through the following means: 1) the basic de-legitimization of Israel, and 2) preventing Israel from promoting a two-state solution.

The Resistance Network's Theory of Implosion

The theory of Implosion asserts that Israel's strength in relation to its neighbors will not withstand over time and it will implode as a result of internal pressure, demographic trends, and the erosion of its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.

The following quotes demonstrate the Resistance Network's theory of implosion:

• Ahmadinejad, in a speech given at the recent Holocaust denial conference held in Teheran, stated that "Israel is about to crash;" he added: "when I said the Zionist regime must be wiped off, the Zionist media of course harshly blasted me, but everyone must know that just as the USSR disappeared, this will also be the fate of the Zionist regime, and humanity will be free." (Ynet, 12/12/06).
  
  
• Referring to a statement made by Shimon Peres in which he said that the war in Lebanon is a battle of life or death for Israel, Nasrallah stated: "[Peres] certainly does not mean that the resistance in Lebanon will enter Palestine, liberate Palestine, and eliminate and destroy the [Israeli] entity. However, he knows full well that this wonderful Lebanese steadfastness ... will destroy the haughtiness, mighty arrogance, and the spirit on which his entity was established, and consequently, this entity will have no future. This is the story of life and death in the battle Israel is waging now" (BBC Monitoring Middle East, 7/29/06).
  
  
• Speaking to a conference in Tehran supporting the "Palestinian cause" against the Jewish state, Ahmedinijad said, "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm" (Ha'aretz, 4/16/06).
  
  
• In a speech given to cheering supporters on the heels of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah declared that "in order to liberate your land, you don't need tanks and planes. With the example of martyrs, you can impose your demands on the Zionist aggressors. It (Israel) has a nuclear weapon and the strongest air force in the region, but in truth, it is weaker than a spider web" (YnetNews, 7/31/06).

1) Basic de-legitimization of Israel

One facet of the resistance network's political rationale is the attempt to de-legitimize the basic tenets upon which Israel was created. This includes political, legal, and diplomatic declarations and actions aimed at terminating the existence of the State of Israel by fundamentally rejecting the Jewish right to self-determination and promoting the establishment of one Palestinian / Arab / Islamic state instead of Israel. Recent examples include:

• The Holocaust Denial Conference held in Teheran was used as an instrument to undermine the Jewish entity by denying the legitimacy of the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel. At the conference, Ahmadinejad said: "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall... I tell you now... the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated." (Memri, 12/15/06).
  
  
• At the Holocaust Denial Conference, Iran announced a plan to establish a world foundation for Holocaust studies which is to be eventually based in Berlin and headed by Iranian Presidential Advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin who said: "The resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel" (Memri, 12/15/06).
  
  
• In his letter to the American people, Ahmadinejad wrote: "I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum" (CNN, 11/29/06).
  
  
• In an address delivered by Iranian president Ahmadinejad on 10/20/06, he stated: "Today, this community, which was gathered by force, and under false pretexts, and whose members were joined to one another by a paper-clip, in order to create a false illusion of a nation...Today, they have fallen apart. I declare here, loud and clear: With God's grace, this regime has lost the philosophy of its existence" (Memri, 10/27/06).

2) Preventing Israel from promoting a two-state solution

An additional method for causing Israel's implosion is to prevent it from achieving a sustainable separation between itself and the Palestinians, including the end of occupation through the two-state solution (see: One-State Threat). In order to promote this goal, the Resistance Network works through the following paths: 1) erosion of the unilateral option; 2) undermining the negotiation option; 3) preventing Israel from a decisive military victory; 4) preparing the ground for the dissolution of the PA.

Erosion of Unilateral Option

The Resistance Network uses terror and rocket-fire as a strategy to prevent Israel from achieving political gains from its unilateral withdrawals from Gaza (8/05) and Lebanon (5/00), and in order to prevent additional unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank. Thus, the continuous firing of Qassam rockets erodes Israel's unilateral option and undermines Israel's ability to end its control over the Palestinians.

• When asked about her plan for further withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni remarked: "The plan that I'm talking about must provide an answer to the problem of steep-trajectory firing. That is one of the reasons why I prefer a consensual diplomatic process to a unilateral one. I think that after the disengagement, it's absolutely clear that we cannot simply throw down the keys and leave" (Ha'aretz, 12/29/06).
  
  
• As a result of the War in Lebanon and the firing of Qassam rockets, Prime Minister Olmert said that the Convergence Plan "is no longer on the agenda." (Ha'aretz, 8/18/06).
  
  
• Uzi Dayan, a former deputy chief of staff, referring to the implications of the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit on Olmert's convergence plan stated: "Anyone who cannot provide a military solution to the Qassam rockets or resurrect deterrence cannot carry out the Convergence plan in the West Bank, and that is the broader context in which these events must be considered." (San Francisco Chronicle, 6/30/06).

Undermining Negotiation Option

In order to undermine the negotiation option and in order to prevent political progress towards an agreement, the Resistance Network utilizes a number of tactics including: strategically timing violence to coincide with negotiations or other important political events, refusing to recognize and negotiate with Israel, and posing unreasonable conditions for negotiations (including 1967 borders, Jerusalem as capital, right of return, etc.).

• Khaled Mashal said: "if Israel and the U.S. want to end the bloodshed in the region, they must accede to the Palestinians' demands." Specifically, he said, Israel must withdraw to the pre-1967 armistice lines, release all Palestinian prisoners, accept a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and dismantle all settlements (Ha'aretz, 12/10/06).
  
  
• Speaking to thousands of students at the University of Tehran, Haniyeh stated that Hamas would never recognize Israel or accept past Israeli-Palestinian agreements (Ha'aretz,12/10/06).
  
  
• After meeting with Arab League chief, Amr Moussa in Cairo, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh demanded the "establishment of a Palestinian state, with June 4, 1967 borders, with east Jerusalem as its capital, and right of return of Palestinian refugees. He added, "The right of return of Palestinian refugees is holy, no Palestinian can make concessions about it" (Jerusalem Post, 11/29/06).
  
  
• In an interview on Al-Jazeera, Khaled Mashal stated that Hamas would not negotiate with Israel. (Memri, 1/27/06).

Preventing Israel from decisive military victory

The goal of the Resistance Network is not to destroy Israel on the battle field, but rather to prevent Israel from achieving a decisive military victory through the use of guerilla and limited warfare. The ability of the Resistance Network to "survive" against Israeli retaliation erodes Israel's deterrence capability and military image. The following statements illustrate Israel's weakened image:

• Jordan's King Abdullah said during an interview with the Tokyo-based newspaper The Daily Yomiuri that "The Lebanon war last summer showed that Israel is not as strong as we had previously thought, and, justifiably or not, the perception in the Middle East is that Israel lost." (Ynet, 12/26/06).
  
  
• In President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Qods (Jerusalem) Day speech, he said: "The existence of this regime [Israel] has been based on military threat, on military strength, and on its myth of invincibility. Today, by the grace of God, this myth has been shattered, with the help of the believers in Palestine, and thanks to the self-sacrifice and the belief of the Hizbullah commanders. Today, the Zionists do not feel safe, not even in their homes, [or] anywhere in the world" (Memri, 11/15/06).
  
  
• In a speech given after the war in Lebanon, Nassrallah said: "There is no army in the world that can [force us] to drop our weapons from our hands, from our grip. Today we celebrate a great divine, historic and strategic victory." (The Independent, 9/23/06).

Dissolution of PA

During the Oslo process, the Palestinian Authority was established as the cornerstone for the future Palestinian state. However, the Resistance Network continues to struggle against any temporary solution that may allow Israel to create a sustainable separation between itself and the Palestinians, such as the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The dissolution of the PA undermines the establishment of a Palestinian state, and promotes - in light of demographic trends - the establishment of one Palestinian/Arab/Islamic state in place of Israel.

The continuous threats made by Hamas leaders to dissolve the PA, may be interpreted as signs that the Resistance Network is preparing the ground for such a move (see: Dismantling the PA - an Emerging Trend).

• Khaled Mashal, head of Hamas political bureau, declared that Hamas would not hesitate to dismantle the PA if it sees that it "cannot protect the Palestinian people." He added that Hamas won't hesitate to announce the dismantling of the PA and return to the starting point: people under occupation. (Ha'aretz, 3/19/06).
  
  
• Members of high and mid ranks in the Hamas movement called the leadership of the movement to resign from the government, return to the armed struggle and dismantle the PA (Al-Hayat, 6/27/06).
  
  
• Representatives of Hamas and the Popular Front in the PLC have decided to convene to discuss the future of the PA and the possibility of dissolving it (Al-Ayyam, 8/7/06 and Al-Jazeera, 8/7/06).
  
  
• Speaking to the PLC, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh called Palestinian factions to sincerely discuss the future of the PA and the possibility of its dissolution. Chairman of the "Third Way" party and former finance minister, Sallam Faid as well as other representatives in the PLC supported Haniyeh's position. (Al-Hayat, 8/10/06).

Continued (Permanent Link)

How the defacto "Palinform" is organized to delegitimize Israel - Reut

This Reut Institute study tracks the "Palinform" that has been formed to delegitimize Israel. This is one of several posts on the issue.

Eroding Israel's Legitimacy in the International Arena

Israel is facing a dramatic assault on the very legitimacy of its existence as a Jewish and democratic state. The groups promoting this delegitimacy aim to isolate Israel and ultimately turn it into a pariah state. This issue of ReViews tracks this strategy and its components.

 

In recent years, Israel has faced a dramatic assault on the very legitimacy of its existence as a Jewish and democratic state. While the ideological framework for this delegitimacy was solidified after the first Durban Conference in 2001, the trend has been given a boost by the perceived lack of progress in the political process, coupled with Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.¹

The groups making the fundamental delegitimacy of Israel among their main rallying cries represent a marginal phenomenon in Western politics. Although some of their activities are portrayed as protesting against Israeli policies, in fact they are frequently manipulated in order to blur the difference between valid criticism of Israeli policies and attempts to undermine Israel's right to exist. Thus, they are able to disproportionately impact Israel's international legitimacy.

The aim of these groups is to internationally isolate Israel and ultimately turn it into a pariah state through demonizing the country;² promoting a policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS); and waging a legal struggle against the state and its citizens.

This issue of ReViews tracks this strategy and its components.

The Strategy: Turning Israel into a Pariah

• Addressing an International Conference on Palestine in London, Betty Hunter of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, UK said that, "Our task is to isolate Israel and to make it a pariah state." (International Conference on Palestine-London 12/5/04).
  
  
• Speaking at Hampshire College, Ali Abuminah explained that, "The loss of legitimacy in the practices of the [South African] apartheid regime is what changed, and when a system loses its legitimacy, all the weapons in the world cannot protect it... we're beginning to see a similar loss of legitimacy for Zionism." (Conference in Hampshire College 11/21/09).
  
  
• During Operation Cast Lead, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network advised that "unless this ideology [of Zionism] is delegitimized and defeated, the violence in the Middle East will continue to escalate." (Call to Action on Gaza 01/09/09).

Demonization

Demonizing Israel creates an ideological justification for taking concrete steps aimed at negating the state's legitimacy. Demonization is rooted in the narrative of Israel as an illegitimate colonial entity born in sin that practices Nazism, apartheid and racism. This narrative plays out in several key arenas, such as public protests and demonstrations, the media, and campus activities.

• Protestors in Brazil, Madrid and Buenos Aires held signs equating Israeli leaders and actions with Nazism and genocide (YNET 11/12/09, ADL 01/09).
  
  
• A series of events, titled "Gaza: Our Guernica," organized by the Palestinian societies at five University of London campuses, is due to take place throughout January and February. The reference to Guernica evokes a fascist attack that targeted Basque civilians (Jerusalem Post 01/21/10).
  
  
• First launched in 2005, Israel Apartheid Week is an annual event organized by anti-Zionist groups, which aims to create a link between Israel and the former apartheid regime in South Africa in order to lead a boycott against it. In 2009, Apartheid Week grew to include 27 cities, including England, the U.S., South Africa, the West Bank, Mexico, Scotland, and Norway³ (Jerusalem Post 1/29/09).
  
  
• A series of articles aimed to establish Israel as an apartheid state engaging in racist and discriminatory behavior (Guardian feature on Israel and Apartheid 2/6/07 part 1 and part 2).
  
  
• The University of Pittsburgh held a conference entitled 'Divest from Israeli Apartheid' (Pittsburgh Palestine Solidarity Committee 10/23/09).
  
  
• One of Sweden's largest dailies published a double-page focusing on claims that Israeli soldiers seized young men from the West Bank and Gaza and later returned the bodies with missing organs (Aftonbladet 08/26/09).
  
  
• Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" policies in east Jerusalem (Agence France-Presse 04/21/09).

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)

Attempts to demonize Israel provide the ideological and rhetorical platform for pursuing a policy of BDS in the fields of academia, economy, culture, sport, and security.

Despite the BDS movement including several academics, trade unions, and church groups, it has enjoyed limited practical success so far. However, efforts have been highly successful in generating publicity and in mobilizing anti-Israel activism, effectively uniting anti-Zionists with critics of specific Israeli policies.⁴

The risk posed is that such campaigns will create an equivalency between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa that penetrates the mainstream of public and political consciousness. Given Israel's dependence on vigorous trade, as well as scientific, academic, and technological engagement with other countries, this movement towards isolating the country may pose a strategic threat.

The BDS movement is largely spearheaded by non-governmental organizations. In a revealing example, the World Social Forum - an umbrella group for hundreds of social, anti-globalization, and rights groups worldwide - announced it would be launching a campaign calling on all of its affiliates to excommunicate Israel (YNET 3/30/09). Similar initiatives have also been taken up in academic, cultural and scientific, security, sporting, and economic arenas.

Academic:

• One of Norway's largest academic institutions, the University of Bergen intends to impose an official academic boycott against Israel over what it claims is its apartheid-like conduct (YNET 01/24/10).
  
  
• The board of the University of Trondheim in Norway held a vote on adopting an academic boycott of Israel. Three days prior, the institution hosted a lecture on Israel's alleged use of anti-Semitism as a political tool (Haaretz 10/20/09).
  
  
• A group of American university professors recently launched the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (Weekly Standard 3/20/09).
  
  
• University workers in the Canadian Union of Public Employees passed a motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel, and union members from at least one Toronto university planned to pressure their school to cut any financial ties with the country (The Star 02/22/09).
  
  
• A letter by 400 UK academics urging boycott, divestment, sanctions against Israel was published in the Guardian (Guardian 01/26/09).
  
  
• Since 2003, there have been a multitude of attempts to impose an academic boycott on Israel in the UK. A prominent example is the successful passage - later overturned - of a motion by Britain's largest lecturers' union (Natfhe) supporting a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions not publicly disassociating from Israel's "apartheid policies" (Guardian 05/30/06; UCU Website 5/30/06).

Culture and Science:

• The Toronto International Film Festival was the object of controversy for selecting Tel Aviv as its thematic subject, with high-profile artists signing a statement in support of a filmmaker who withdrew his entry (Guardian 09/07/09).
  
  
• An exhibition celebrating Tel Aviv's White City due to take place in Brussels was postponed after local organizers faced demands to boycott Israeli culture (YNET 2/9/09).
  
  
• The 2009 Edinburgh International film festival returned a £300 gift from the Israeli embassy following protests (Guardian 09/07/09).
  
  
• More than 400 academics called on Britain's prestigious Science Museum to cancel workshops promoting Israeli scientific achievements to schoolchildren (The Independent 03/03/09).

Security:

• A Norwegian government pension fund sold its shares in Elbit Systems due to its role in building Israel's security fence (TradingMarkets.com 09/03/09).
  
  
• Belgium's government banned the export to Israel of weapons that "strengthen it militarily" (Haaretz 02/01/09).
  
  
• British labor unions voted to support a ban on importing goods produced in 'illegal settlements' and ending arms trading with Israel (Associated Press 09/17/09).

Economic:

• The Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union passed two resolutions endorsing a boycott of Israeli goods and services and supporting divestment from corporations engaged in, or profiting from, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign 05/29/08).
  
  
• The Congress of South African Trade Unions joined the boycott of Israel, calling Israel 'an apartheid nation' (YNET 08/06/06).
  
  
• At its annual meeting, the British National Union of Journalists called for "a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions, and [for] the [Trade Union Congress] to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government " (The Guardian 04/13/07).
  
  
• Canadian Union of Postal Workers called for a Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign against Israel (Canadian Union of Postal Workers 04/09/09).

International 'Lawfare'

In parallel to demonization and promotion of the BDS Strategy, groups and individuals have increasingly sought to combat Israel in the legal arena. These efforts comprise attempts to: utilize laws of universal jurisdiction in European countries in order to charge Israeli generals and politicians with war crimes; levy proceedings against Israel in the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice; and file charges against corporations conducting business with Israel.

While certain initiators of these lawsuits claim to exclusively act according to a humanitarian agenda, Hamas involvement in some of these cases may indicate that the intention of prosecuting Israeli military and political leaders is not always pure.⁵

• A British court issued an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni for war crimes that Livni allegedly conducted as Israel's foreign minister during Operation Cast Lead (Guardian 12/14/09).
  
  
• Two law firmsrepresenting a group of Palestinians applied for an international arrest warrant against Ehud Barak, claiming that he committed war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention during Operation Cast Lead (Jerusalem Post 09/29/09).
  
  
• French pro-Palestinian organizations filed a law suit with the International Criminal Court against the Israeli president, foreign minister and defense minister (JCPA March April 2009).
  
  
• A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon (NGO Monitor 09/08). The following year, New Zealand's Auckland District Court issued an arrest warrant for Yaalon on charges of war crimes (Jerusalem Post 11/30/06).
  
  
• A class action lawsuit was filed in a New York U.S. District Court against former Director of Israel's General Security Service Avi Dichter for "war crimes and other gross human rights violations" concerning his alleged involvement in a 2002 military strike in Gaza (NGO Monitor 09/08).
  
  
• Major General Doron Almog avoided arrest in the UK by remaining on an El Al airplane and flying back to Israel, after a UK court issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of breaching international laws during Israel's control of Gaza (BBC 09/12/05).
  
  
• A law suit alleging war crimes was filed in a Spanish Court and with Switzerland's Military Attorney General against former Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, former IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, former Israel Security Agency Director Avi Dichter, and Doron Almog (American Jewish Committee 10/04; CNN 1/29/09).
  
  
• Belgium's highest court was set to try Ariel Sharon for his role as defense minister in the 1982 massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut (New York Times 02/13/2003).
  
  
• International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo considered whether to investigate Lt. Col. David Benjamin, a reserve officer in the Israeli military involved in authorizing Israeli military actions during Operation Cast Lead on the grounds of Benjamin's status as a dual citizen of Israel and South Africa, which has signed the ICC's charter (Newsweek 09/21/09). The ICC also considered whether the Palestinian Authority was "enough like a state" for it to initiate a case alleging that Israeli troops committed war crimes in Gaza (Guardian 3/2/09).
  
  
• The UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict headed by Richard Goldstone "found strong evidence to establish" that Israel committed serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian law that may amount to crimes against humanity (UN 09/15/09).
  
  
• In July 2008, law suits were filed suit in Quebec against three Canadian corporations accused of "aiding, abetting, assisting and conspiring with Israel, the Occupying Power in the West Bank, in carrying out an illegal act" through their involvement in construction projects in the town of Kiryat Sefer (Modi'in Ilit) (NGO Monitor 06/11/09).
  
  
• A 2005 law suit filed against Caterpillar, Inc. in a U.S. District Court charged the corporation with "providing specially designed bulldozers to the IDF that it knew would be used to demolish homes and endanger civilians" (NGO Monitor 09/08).
  
  
• A law suit was filed against the British Government in Birmingham charging that the sale of military equipment to Israel breached guidelines on arms exports and contributed to the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories (The London Times 05/30/07).

---

¹ See Ari Shavit, Haaretz 10/15/09; Ethan Bronner, New York Times 10/19/09.

² Jewish agency Chairman and human rights activist Natan Sharansky describes demonization as occurring when "Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion" and when "comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis." (Natan Sharansky. 3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization. Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3-4 Fall 2004).

Canadian Member of Parliament and international human rights lawyer Irwin Cotler meanwhile sees demonization as "the portrayal of Israel as the metaphor for a human rights violator," giving calls for "the dismantling of the apartheid state of Israel... the appearance of international sanction." These demonizing labels are "tantamount to transforming ideological anti-Semitism into a duty - the obligation to remove this Nazi state, Israel." (Irwin Cotler, Identifying the New Anti-Semitism Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. Nov. 2002.)

³ For more see Reut Concept Israel Apartheid Week.

⁴ See Gal Beckerman The Forward 9/16/09

⁵ See Reut post: Legal Aid: Role in Livni Arrest Warrant and Beyond

Continued (Permanent Link)