26 January 2016

The Attack on Israel’s Human Rights Organisations by the State

When Israeli Jewish Opponents of the 

Occupation are Targeted for attack the 

Israeli Labour Party Offers its Support


Ezra Nawi - arrested Human Rights Worker
The article below in Israel’s 972 Magazine illustrates graphically the attack on Israeli human rights organisations and groups which oppose the Occupation and highlight its casual brutality.
Ezra Nawi has been detained, without access to a lawyer, on a trumped up charge as a result of the ‘revelations’ of the far-right Ad Kan group that he had threatened to report what was a bogus land deal to the Palestinian police.

Another Israeli far-right NGO Im Tirzu makes it clear that it is unconcerned if its campaign against left-wing NGOs and civil liberties groups results in physical attacks on those running those organisations.

Having attacked Palestinians in Israel and run an Occupation for nearly 50 years, it is clear that the next target is Israeli Jews who speak out against Zionist violence and injustice. 

B’Tselem field worker Nasser Nawajah was as I previously described, arrested and produced in the Jerusalem criminal courts and when the courts ordered him to be freed, immediately transferred to the Military courts on the West Bank, which are courts in name only.
Ezra Nawi - Ta'ayush and gay activist in South Hebron Hills
The Israeli anti-occupation Left and human rights NGO’s are under severe attack by the Israeli state.  Breaking the Silence, an organisation of soldiers with a conscience, is a particular target.  BtS documents and publicises the war crimes of the Israeli military by documenting the stories of Israeli soldiers themselves concerning the brutality and the mass murder, in Gaza in particular.  BtS is a target of those who, instead of preventing Israel’s war crimes prefer to attack an organisation which publicises them.  It is a classic case of shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message. 

In this attack we see that the virulent nationalism of Zionism now targets the democratic rights even of Israeli Jews.

Tony Greenstein

Published January 23, 2016
There is a campaign being carried out against anyone actively opposing the occupation in Israel, and it doesn’t matter if you’re an activist in the field, a human rights attorney or a former soldier talking about what you were ordered to do.

Ta’ayush member Ezra Nawi is brought to a Jerusalem court on January 20, 2016. Nawi, an Israeli Jew active opposing the occupation, was arrested after a right-wing organization put him in the crosshairs of a hidden-camera ‘sting operation.’ (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)
“Activists from the shady organization, “Ta’ayush,” who we tracked from within and outside, behind closed doors and during clashes on Saturdays, are going to fall one by one. Don’t worry friends. We will finish off Ezra Nawi and move on to Guy Butavia… and many others.”

That message was published and quickly spread on Facebook following the arrest of Ezra Nawi, and before the arrest of Guy Butavia, another activist in Ta’ayush, and B’Tselem field worker Nasser Nawajah. The three were arrested after a right-wing group, “Ad Kan,” gave allegedly incriminating materials to the police and primetime investigative news show, “Uvda.”
A month earlier, far-right group Im Tirzu marked other anti-occupation activists as targets: B’Tselem Executive-Director Haggai El-Ad; executive director of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Yishai Menuchin; a prominent member of Breaking the Silence; and an attorney who protects Palestinians in Israeli courts on behalf of Hamoked — Center for the Defense of the Individual. This week it was revealed that right-wing group “Regavim” hired a private investigator to track human rights attorney Michael Sfard and Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din. There is a connection between each of these, of course.
By Haggai Matar | January 22, 2016
The past few days have seen politicians and pundits comparing the “extreme left” to the “extreme right,” between the Ta’yush activists to the suspects in the Duma murders. Alon Dian wrote brilliantly about the mainstream’s tendency to create this kind of symmetry — replacing principled, moral judgment with statistics. But there is a different, more fundamental point that does not get the attention it deserves. In the case of Duma, the police went and looked for the perpetrators only after the crime was committed. The same goes for all the recent hate crimes by right-wing extremists, which were investigated by the state (the vast majority of so-called “price tag attacks” end with no indictment).
A group of Ta’ayush activists walk toward a Palestinian hamlet in the South Hebron Hills on Saturday, January 17, 2016. The activists’ presence is often enough to prevent settlers from targeting Palestinians and to deter the army from kicking them off their land. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)
But in the case of the Ta’ayush activists, the process was reversed: “Ad Kan” did not go to the South Hebron Hills to investigate the harassment of land sellers. They went in search of ways to bring down Ta’ayush. To infiltrate the organization and get dirt on as many activists as possible. Like in the case of Michael Sfard and Breaking the Silence: first the Right found its target, and only then did it start looking for crimes. To the chagrin of Regavim, the materials it found and published about Sfard did not lead to the same storm that the Uvda report or recent articles on Breaking the Silence did. But the principle is identical.
The criminals from the South Hebron Hills
A member of Ta’ayush speaks to Israeli army officers during a direct action in solidarity with Palestinian residents of the South Hebron Hills, January 17, 2016. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)



This is the fundamental issue. This is the reason left-wing activists feel it is open season on them. Because the targeting of activists has become personal, using their names and images. Because the goal is to find something — anything — to eliminate them, at all costs. If not through police investigations, then by tarnishing their public images, like in the case of former Ambassador to South Africa Alon Libel. Perhaps a recent article on him in Yedioth Ahronoth, in which he was secretly filmed giving a lecture to Breaking the Silence activists, will bring about a change in the law and Libel will find himself in prison. If not, then maybe someone will decide to wait outside his home and beat him up. When the head of Im Tirzu was asked about the possibility that his contemptible campaign could actually bring physical harm to the heads of these organizations, he shrugged and said that it “would be their responsibility.” Things have never been clearer.

A prominent right-wing journalist with whom I used to work often said, in an entirely different context, that “once you enter the system’s pipeline, someone will find something about you.” That is why in a state governed by law, the police investigates crimes rather than people. At this moment, the logic in Israel is the exact opposite — the Right is investigating people. The media, the police, and the pathetic politicians of the Israeli center are following in its wake. Before the land seller case, the Samaria and Judea Police Division tried to pin on Nawi a series of traffic violations. Only the fact that were able to make an even better case stick saved us from reading op-eds about how “the Left is protecting a traffic violator.”
The reason these people were targeted is crystal clear. There is not much in common between Ta’ayush and Michael Sfard, or between Breaking the Silence and Ezra Nawi, aside from the fact that they all struggle against the occupation.
They say Breaking the Silence is hated in Israel because they speak about the occupation abroad, and that B’Tselem is hated because they receive donations from foreign countries. Nonsense. Ta’ayush does not speak abroad. In fact, they aren’t even an NGO, but rather an informal organization made up of people who every Friday and Saturday head to the South Hebron Hills — in the hottest days of summer and in the freezing winter — to stand up to settlers from illegal outposts and the army that backs them. This is a boring, difficult task, which often includes accompanying Palestinian shepherds and farmers — so that they are not attacked by settlers — planting trees, or cleaning out water wells that have been either sealed shut or destroyed.
A decade and a half ago, when I served as a soldier in South Hebron Hills, the army still accompanied Palestinian children in order to prevent settler harassment. But the truth is that even back then, this was the wildest, ugliest place in the country. One of the settlers, who immigrated from apartheid South Africa, advised us to treat the Palestinians the way they used to treat blacks in his native land. Another settler, who lived in a cave in the West Bank, used to march his small herd of sheep directly into Palestinian fields, and when they tried to keep the animals away from their crops, the man would call the army because, well, the Palestinians were harassing Jews.

The reality of the Israeli Wild West did not interest the either the public or the media back then. It doesn’t interest them today. Uvda never bothered to go to the occupied territories to talk about the difficult reality farmers face there on a daily basis. The only people who cared were the activists in Ta’ayush, who do everything they can to stand up to much larger, far more organized forces. And now they are paying the price for it. Just like Michael Sfard, who argued before the High Court of Justice — and won — that the land belonging to the villagers of Bil’in was stolen for the sake of building a new neighborhood for Jews, all using deceptive claims of “security needs.” Just like B’Tselem’s field worker Nasser Nawaj’ah, who sat in jail following Uvda’s report while bulldozers demolished a protest tent against land expropriation in his home village of Susya. First they ignore the story, then they target those who speak about it, then they look for dirt, and then they demand the rest of the Left condemn the wrongdoers, lest everyone be considered a criminal.
The fact that Ta’ayush’s activities focus on Israel/Palestine, rather than abroad, hasn’t helped them much. Michael Sfard’s appeals to Israeli courts, rather than The Hague, were what led the Right to persecute him. The fact that Breaking the Silence does not reveal the names of the soldiers who give testimony, so that they do not face prosecution around the world or even in Israel, did not help. They are all fighting the occupation — that is their real crime. Instead of going to speak on television panels about the need for a “political horizon,” they tried to do something about the reality here. The occupation is the ruler, and it eliminates its opponents. Not because they are strong or threaten it, but because there really is no other way. Because the project of control in the occupied territories is in crisis, and we need to place the blame on someone.
The Right’s vision
It is no coincidence, of course, that Ad Kan’s campaign is backed by the publicly funded Samaria Settler Council, and that Regavim — which spends huge sums on tracking human rights organizations — is also backed by state-funded local councils in the West Bank. Ta’ayush, on the other hand, is run entirely by volunteers. Now it seems that the only people who actually received money for their trips to South Hebron Hills were Ad Kan’s moles, possibly funded by Israeli taxpayers.
The state and the Right are joining hands because the occupation is the state. Guy Butavia discovered in his interrogation that the questions he was asked by the police were passed on by Ad Kan. Israeli police in the West Bank, a division of the Israel National Police that is totally incompetent when it comes to solving recurring attacks against Palestinians — and which closes investigations into people who attack left-wing activists in broad daylight and in front of the cameras — suddenly acted with maximum efficiency in response to the Uvda investigation. Ezra Nawi was arrested at the airport despite the fact that there was no order preventing him from leaving the country. Why? How? Who cares. The arrestees were prevented from meeting with their attorneys, as if we were dealing with a “ticking bomb.” Not only were these blatantly political arrests, the most basic rights of the detainees were suspended.
Something dawned on human rights organizations and anti-occupation activists this week. It seems clear to all that a new campaign has begun. Much of the public is apathetic toward the Ta’ayush arrests, as goes for all political persecution. In history classes we used to ask ourselves how the “silent majority” and the “good people” allowed for such horrible things to happen. Now the answer is clear: if someone is being persecuted, there was probably a good reason, and the majority of people continue living their lives, because that is what people do. The weakness of Israel’s left-wing parties is far less clear to me. They are still playing the old game of trying to wedge themselves into the mainstream while the reality has changed completely.
It must be repeated: the Right has no solution for the current situation. The Palestinians will continue to resist the occupation, even if all the human rights organizations are shut down. Even if Israel manages to silence the Palestinians for a month, a year, or five. Those who view Arab citizens of Israel as enemies will turn them into enemies. Those who view Israelis who oppose the occupation as traitors won’t stop there. The only vision the Right is presenting is a civil war between Jews and Arabs, and between Jews and Jews. The only thing preventing that from happening is Israel’s sheer military strength. But desperation will also find a way to break through even that. With every day that passes, the price of changing direction only rises, and those who are able to step on the brakes prefer to sit on the fence.
This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here. 

24 January 2016

Israeli Police Simply Ignore Court Order to Release Palestinian –

Jewish Co-defendants Tried Under Different Legal System

The police took Nasser Nawaj’ah out of the West Bank and into Israel to face trial. When that didn’t work, they ignored a court order to release him and smuggled him back to the West Bank and into military custody.

Despite calling itself the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ Israel behaves very much like a police state when it comes to Palestinians.  In the saga below, a Palestinian, Nasser Nawaj’ah, is charged with making a complaint to Palestinian police about another Palestinian.  Apparently that is an offence under Military Regulations which are not published, still less translated, into Arabic.
The two Jewish co-defendants, who are alleged to have also informed the Palestinian police about someone who fraudulently sold land to settlers, who would therefore be subject to imprisonment, are being tried under Israeli law.  In fact there was no land seller.  It was all a set-up by a right-wing Zionist NGO to entrap Jewish human rights workers who opposed the sale of Palestinian land to Zionist settlers.
Khirbet Susiya
When the Israeli police produced Nasser Nawaj’ah in question before the Jerusalem Magistrates Court it was ordered that he be released as the Court had no jurisdiction in the case, because he was a Palestinian.  The Police promptly appealed and the Jerusalem District Court also ruled that Nasser Nawaj’ah should be set free.  What did the Police do?  Instead of releasing him they kidnapped him and took him to the West  Bank where they charged him before a Military Court, where the rights of defendants are non-existent.  The courts have a conviction rate of 99.7%.

One of the essential prerequisites of a bourgeois democracy is the rule of law.  In Israel the Police choose which legal system with which to charge someone.  If they can’t do it under one system they choose another!
Tony Greenstein

|Published January 22, 2016

Israeli police smuggle Palestinian suspect out of the country

Palestinian anti-occupation activist Nasser Nawajah is led into the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court, January 21, 2016. (photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)
What happened to a Palestinian man named Nasser Nawaj’ah on Thursday could fill an entire chapter of a textbook about the Israeli justice system, or rather, about its military occupation.
Related stories

By Dahlia Scheindlin | January 15, 2016

Nasser was arrested in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers on suspicion of filing a complaint to the Palestinian police about another Palestinian. The soldiers hand him over to Israeli police, who take him from the West Bank to Israel. There, a Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court judge rules that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over Palestinians, and orders him released unconditionally. The police appeal the judge’s decision, but the Jerusalem District Court also rules that it doesn’t have jurisdiction, and once again orders the police to release the man unconditionally.

The Israeli police ignore the Israeli court’s decision, take the Palestinian man outside Israel’s sovereign borders and bring him to the Ofer Military Court in the occupied West Bank. There, Israeli authorities ask a military judge (who is actually a major in the army) to extend the Palestinian man’s remand. The man’s lawyer is not present this time. She is still back in Israel, in Jerusalem, busy filing an emergency petition to hold the police in contempt of court.
Nasser Nawaj’ah explains to the military court that all he did was to report to the Palestinian police a Palestinian man who he thought was trying to harm him, and that he doesn’t understand why that could possibly be illegal.

The military court judge says he feels “uncomfortable” with how this is all happening, and with the fact that Israeli authorities transferred a Palestinian man from a court “in Israel” to a court in “the region” (the West Bank). In other words: this is the opposite of the normal scenario, in which Palestinians are brought only to military courts in “the region.” Nevertheless, the military judge rules that Nawaj’ah be kept in custody until Sunday, using the charming logic that in military courts — as opposed to civilian courts — four days in jail isn’t anything to get worked up about.


WATCH: Anti-occupation activists brought to J’lem court

Meanwhile, the petition to hold the police in contempt of court is still pending. Recall that the police completely disregarded and mocked the District Court’s order to unconditionally release Nasser Nawaj’ah, instead smuggling him out of the country and out of the court’s jurisdiction.

All of this happened while two other arrestees in the same case, suspected of the same crimes, and who happen to be Jewish, are processed though an entirely different legal system.
Amazing, isn’t it?


Update: On Friday morning, Nawaj’ah’s attorney filed an emergency petition for writ of habeus corpus to the Israeli High Court of Justice.

22 January 2016

Ex-Netanyahu Aide Aviv Bushinsky Calls US Ambassador ‘A Little Jew Boy’

Zionist anti-Semitism in the 'Jewish' State

Theodor Herzl - the original Jewish anti-Semite
It would be difficult to find a more anti-Semitic and derogatory remark than ‘Jew Boy’.  Possibly ‘kike’ and ‘yid’ might fit the bill.  It was what the fascists called Jews in the ‘30’s and it has all but gone out of fashion – even for fascists.  An equivalent term would be ‘paki’ or ‘nigger’.  You get the message.

Yet this was the term that a former aide to Netanyahu, Aviv Bushinsky, used against the American Ambassador, Daniel Shapiro, who had issued a mild critique of Israel observing that there were two standards of justice on the West Bank and that maybe Israeli army investigations weren’t all that they were cracked up to be.

One might think that Shapiro was somewhat stating the obvious, since it is a fact that there are two different legal systems operating on the West Bank – one for Jews and another for Palestinians.
But Aviv Bushinsky wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary.  Anti-Semitism and Zionism go together like Jonathan and David, Lennon and McCartney.  They are twins of a kind.  Zionism started from the belief that Jews do not belong in the diaspora.  Strange as it seems, anti-Semites also hold the same belief, viz. that Jews do not belong other than in ‘their’ state.
Daniel Shapiro
Zionism however was more than a wacky belief.  It was a movement intent on setting up a Jewish state and to do that it had to ally itself with one or more colonial powers.  One of its main tasks was in persuading Jews to emigrate to Palestine.  This was no easy task.  Between the middle of the 19th Century and 1914 over 2 million Jews  emigrated as refugees from Russia, because of the anti-Semitism and pogroms there, but only about 50,000 emigrated to Palestine.  The rest of the Jews emigrated to the United States and Britain.  In other words only 2% of Russia’s Jews wanted to go to the Promised Land. 

Zionism began from the premise that the Jewish position in the diaspora was ‘unnatural’.  That anti-Semites were entitled to their own anti-Jewish nationalism.  That Jews were strangers in other peoples’ lands.  They were guests, strangers who had outlived their welcome.  Indeed they went further.   Mapam/Hashomer Hatzair the ‘Marxist’ Zionists believed that the social structure of Jews in the diaspora resembled an ‘inverted pyramid’ i.e. there were too many rich Jews and not enough working-class Jews.  In fact this was untrue.  Jews in Russia (which then included Poland and Lithuania) were overwhelmingly poor workers and they formed the General Jewish Workers Union of Russia, Poland and Lithuania otherwise known as the Bund.  The Zionists were a tiny minority.
The Zionists attitude was essentially that the anti-Semites were right about the Jews.  The founder of Political Zionism Herzl made common cause with anti-Semites.  Contrary to a popular myth, Herzl wasn’t at all disturbed by the Dreyfus Affair, quite the contrary.  He wrote that:

‘In Paris..., I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism. [Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Gollancz, London 1958 p.6].
It was but a short step from this to believing that ‘the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies. We want to emigrate as respected people’ [Diaries pp. 83/4]
Herzl kept company with non-Jews like Daudet who were opponents of Jewish emancipation and anti-Dreyfussards.  Herzl went out of his way to obtain a favourable review of his pamphlet, The Jewish State, from Eduord Drumont, the leader of the anti-Dreyfussards.
Nor was Herzl alone.  Jacob Klatzkin, editor of the Zionist paper Die Welt and later the founder of Encyclopedia Judaica, wrote that
We are in a. word naturally foreigners. We are an alien nation in your midst and we want to remain one. An unbridgeable chasm yawns between you and us. A loyal Jew can never be other than a Jewish patriot... We recognise a national unity of Diaspora Jews no matter in which land they may reside... no boundaries can restrain us in... pursuing our own Jewish policy. J Klatzkin, 'Krisis und Entscheidung in Judentum', Berlin 1921, p118
The logic was impeccable.  Klatzkin was convinced that it wasn’t the anti-Semites but the opponents of anti-Semitism who were the enemy:
The contribution of our enemies is in the continuance of Jewry in Eastern Europe. One ought- to appreciate the national service which the Pale of Settlement performed for us... we ought to be thankful to our oppressors that they closed the gates of assimilation to us and took care that our people were concentrated and not dispersed. ['Crisis' Decision! p.62 cited in Hermann op. cit. p. 205].
Often, if you didn’t know the person was Jewish you could be mistaken for believing that the statement had been issued by an out and out anti-Semite.  For example Pinhas Rosenbluth, Israel’s first Justice Minister was of the opinion that Palestine was ‘an institute for the fumigation of Jewish vermin’ [Joachim Doron, p.169. Classic Zionism and modern anti-Semitism: parallels and influences’ (1883-1914), Studies in Zionism 8, Autumn 1983].

All this was encapsulated in the foundational Zionist axiom called ‘the Negation of the Diaspora’.  The Jewish Diaspora was something that should be wound up.  Jews belonged in their ‘homeland’, Israel not in the countries they’d lived in for generations.

All this meant that Zionists viewed Diaspora Jews with contempt if not hatred.  Hence the description of a Jewish Ambassador using the most anti-Semitic word that one can conjure up.  Nor was Bushinsky alone. 

Attacks against Jewish anti-Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians in Israel is often anti-Semitic.  To support the Palestinians means that you would have deserved the attentions of Adolph Hitler.  Jews who care about others have a ‘diaspora mentality’.  When Israeli Jews in Sheikh Jarrar in Jerusalem protested at yet more confiscation of Palestinian civilians’ homes, Jewish right-wingers demonstrated against them chanting ‘Hitler was right’

Zionism is and always has been a Jewish form of anti-Semitism and Bushinsky’s comments were therefore completely in line with what Zionists have previously said.


State Department backs Daniel Shapiro after he said Israel applies law in West Bank differently to Palestinians and Israelis
The US ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, was publicly lambasted on Israeli television. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AFP/Getty Images
Peter Beaumont in Jerusalem

Wednesday 20 January 2016

The US State Department has moved to back America’s ambassador to Israel in a febrile and escalating row over his remarks on Monday that Israel applied law in the occupied West Bank differently to Palestinians and Israelis.

Ambassador Daniel Shapiro’s unusually critical comments drew harsh criticism from ministers in Israel’s rightwing government – including from the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.
Shapiro was also publicly lambasted on Israeli television on Tuesday by a former aide to Netanyahu who used the deeply offensive Hebrew word “yehudon” – which translates as “little Jew boy” – to disparage the ambassador. The term is used by rightwing Israelis against other Jews – particularly those in the diaspora – whom they regard as not being sufficiently Jewish or pro-Israel.

Netanyahu has described Shapiro’s comments as unacceptable and wrong, while the justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, has suggested that they were inappropriate and Shapiro should recant them.

 “We are being subjected to a terrorist onslaught that is simply unfamiliar to the United States, and to pass judgment on us in such a one-sided manner is wrong,” Shaked told Army Radio. “It would be appropriate if he corrected himself, and I hope he does that.”

As the row continued into a third day, US State Department spokesman John Kirby insisted the ambassador was reiterating US policy on Israeli settlement construction. Kirby was speaking after a private meeting between Shapiro and Netanyahu to attempt to paper over the differences.

“Our long-standing position on settlements is clear. We view Israeli settlements activity as illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace. We remain deeply concerned about Israel’s current policy on settlements including construction, planning and retroactive legalisations,” he said.

The latest row comes against a backdrop of escalating tensions between Israel and various countries and international political groupings.

Last year, Netanyahu’s government reduced diplomatic contacts with EU officials following a decision to recommend that member states label products produced in illegal Israeli settlements.
The Swedish foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, has effectively been declared persona no grata in Israel after calling for an investigation into whether recent shootings of Palestinians by Israeli security forces amounted to extrajudicial executions. Israeli officials said her comments were “delirious”, while Netanyahu called them “outrageous”.

Israel also strongly condemned the decision this week by the EU foreign council to take up a new resolution strongly critical of continued Israeli settlement.
Israel finds itself facing renewed criticism from the European Union for the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a complaint that Shapiro echoed.
In remarks at a security conference on Monday – regarded as a showcase event for Israeli politicians and senior security officials – Shapiro said: “Too many attacks on Palestinians lack a vigorous investigation or response by Israeli authorities, too much vigilantism goes unchecked, and at times there seem to be two standards of adherence to the rule of law: one for Israelis and another for Palestinians.”

Kirby explicitly rejected Israeli claims that EU labelling of settlement products amounted to a boycott of Israel. “We do not view labelling the origin of products as being from the settlements a boycott of Israel. We also do not believe that labelling the origin of products is equivalent to a boycott.”
Media pundit Aviv Bushinsky, who served as Netanyahu’s chief of staff when he was finance minister in Ariel Sharon’s government, made the remarks on an Israeli political show.

“Nobody was standing there with a hammer forcing him [Shapiro] to say it,” he said on the programme.

“I see a Jew, Dan Shapiro, saying this. I see it as a pattern – it was the same thing with [former US Middle East envoy] Dennis Ross and now with [former US ambassador to Israel] Martin Indyk saying his nonsense. It’s the behaviour of Jews who are trying to show that they are extra leftwing, more liberal and more balanced.”

Some Israeli commentators saw it as no coincidence that Shapiro’s remarks were made so soon after the lifting of sanctions against Iran and at such a high-profile forum.


Writing in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Shimon Shiffer said: “Shapiro’s comments … are significant in that they suggest the Obama administration will no longer tolerate human rights violations by our decision-makers against Palestinians in the West Bank. From the perspective of the White House, ‘enough is enough’.”

Israel Herzog v Gideon Levy and the Bankruptcy of Israeli Labour

The debate in the pages of Ha’aretz between Gideon Levy and Isaac Hertzog, leader of the Zionist Union/Israeli Labor Party demonstrates the utter bankruptcy of the Zionist ‘left’.
It is a useful reminder of how useless the Israeli Labour Party is since there are illusions among the Corbynistas, not least Corbyn himself, that the Israeli Labour Party represents an alternative to Benjamin Netanyahu.

Herzog condemns himself and his tradition out of his own mouth.

“Only when I and the leadership of the huge camp I represent prove that in defense of the country, on security issues and in times of danger, we always side with the state… will we be able to win the trust of the majority in Israel.”

And that is true.  In every single war that Likud has led, from the invasion of Lebanon to the repeated attacks on Gaza – Cast Lead, Protective Edge et al.  the ILP has always stood full square behind Begin and Netanyahu.  Of course it is a deception to believe that that would win the support of the majority in Israel.  Why vote for the ILP when you can vote for the full-blooded version instead? 

Herzog’s second card was to accuse Levy of not being a Zionist!  Now that might be a crime in Israel but overseas it should open peoples’ eyes.

“Levy used to be a Zionist,” wrote Herzog. “I’m no longer sure that he is one.”

In Herzog’s eyes this is a crime.  What does it mean to be a Zionist?  Well it means believing that ‘the Jewish people’ have a right to Palestine – all of it.  Indeed more than all of it.  The Zionist belief is in the Land of Israel from the Litani river in Lebanon in the north to the Nile in the south and East to the Euphrates.  Of course all this is for the future.  At the moment Palestine is more than enough.
It means that Israel should be a Jewish state.  That meant the expulsion of ¾ Palestinians in 1948, the expulsion of 300,000 in 1967, the conquering of that part of Palestine allocated to an Arab state by the UN in 1947 and the racist, apartheid division of Israel from 1948 to the present. 

It means that as a Jewish state then being Jewish gives you privileges that a non-Jew does not possess.  In every aspect of society – education, employment, land, welfare benefits – being an Arab is to be the subject of ingrained, institutionalised discrimination that is purposely carried out by the State.  Whereas in most western countries racism is something the State deplores, in Israel it is applauded.

In the ‘war against terror’ Herzog promises that he will be “more extreme than Netanyahu’.  If Netanyahu has killed 150 people in recent weeks, then Herzog would have killed 500.  If Netanyahu killed 2,200 in Gaza then Herzog would have killed 5,000.  This is Israel’s great white hope.

The reality is that Likud has done nothing that the Israeli Labour Governments before them haven’t done.  Expulsions, administrative detentions, land confiscations, mass murder – you name it the ILP has done it. 

When the ILP mounts an election campaign today its main message to Jewish electors is that Likud’s policies are leading towards a bi-national state in which Arabs are a majority.  This is the evil that Labour will prevent.

The ILP has supported the racist and ‘anti-terror’ legislation of Netanyahu.  Be it the attacks on left-wing NGO’s or the banishing of supporters of BDS from Israel or making support for BDS an offence or the decision of Netanyahu, despite his own security advice, to make the Northern Islamic Movement an illegal organisation.  In all this Herzog is Netanyahu’s faithful puppet.

Perhaps the most amusing charge that Herzog makes against Levy is that he is obsessed with the Occupation.  This shows indeed what the priorities of the Israeli Labour Party is and why those who, like Labour Friends of Israel, pretend that the ILP has a radically different policy from Likud on the Occupation, are merely poor liars.

We should be grateful to Herzog for making it clear that there is no Zionist alternative to Netanyahu.


Tony Greenstein
Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog, left, and Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy, right.Ofer Vaknin, Tomer Appelbaum

In a series of opposing op-eds, opposition leader Herzog and veteran Haaretz commentator Levy get to the heart of the differences within the Israeli left.

Haaretz Aug 28, 2015 3:47 AM

19 August

Levy began the exchange with a critique of Isaac Herzog’s tone after the opposition leader’s visit with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Herzog’s “strong man” rhetoric about his extreme commitment to the war against terror, argued Levy, was vacuous at best and at worst, legitimized the right’s “foolish” notion that a third intifada can be prevented by force. Leave the scare tactics to the likes of Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, or even former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, said Levy. What this country needs is a radical change of direction.
“It sounds so funny,” concluded Levy, “and it’s so sad.”

21 August

Herzog responded, bristling at Levy’s accusation of cliché when Levy himself “has been singing the same song for years, publishing the same article and the same text, twice and sometimes three times a week… Levy has been a one-trick pony since way back in the 1990s.”

Herzog wrote that leaders today have a different set of options than those of the nineties ­– ISIS, Hamas, Iran – all of these groups have led Herzog and the camp he represents to embrace the tough talk.

“Only when I and the leadership of the huge camp I represent prove that in defense of the country, on security issues and in times of danger, we always side with the state… will we be able to win the trust of the majority in Israel.”

“Levy used to be a Zionist,” wrote Herzog. “I’m no longer sure that he is one.”

23 August

The gauntlet had been thrown. Levy took it up, proudly acknowledging the “one trick pony” label as a badge of honor and shooting back with his own endearment for the Zionist Union leader: “Rambo Herzog, the fighter of terror.” In snide sarcasm, Levy apologized for “boring” Herzog by harping on the occupation.

“I’ve been trying to report on its crimes for 30 years or so. It’s an obsession of sorts: A person is convinced that his country has a malignant disease and that no issue is more crucial,” wrote Levy. 

“I’m sorry if that bores Herzog, but it’s a cruel reality for millions of people. It’s the reality that hasn’t changed, not the person writing about it.”

Levy detailed the many iterative solutions to the occupation he has believed in over the years, from “the Jordanian option” to Oslo to, now, boycotts and a “single democratic state.”

Herzog and his ilk, suggested Levy, had better work to end the occupation if they expect writers like Levy to stop writing about it.

26 August

Herzog turned the tables in his second response to Levy within a week, calling the writer a fear-mongering messianic closer politically to the likes of Uri Ariel (or even Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh) than the Israeli left.

“In his article, Levy suggests that we turn out the lights on the Zionist project,” wrote Herzog. “Levy doesn’t have to join Habayit Hayehudi. He can easily skip over the party headed by Naftali Bennett and land straight in the lap of Uri Ariel’s Tekuma. Ariel wants the same thing — one state from the Jordan to the sea and one man, one vote, and may the best man win.”

The pragmatic camp that Herzog represents, alternatively, aspires for security for Israel as well as for Palestinians.

“And today there is a window of opportunity for an agreement, both regional and vis-a-vis the Palestinians, that must not be missed,” he wrote. “It’s an opportunity not only for negotiations, but for a real agreement.”

27 August

In the last installment of the open correspondence so far, Levy wrote to Herzog that the only thing he himself has in common with Ariel is “the vast gulf between us,” noting that the agriculture minister’s vision of a united Israel is anything but democratic. It is Herzog, Levy wrote, who stands on Ariel’s side of the line.

“If you scrape off the layers of makeup, you’ll find within him the same nationalist foundation; the belief that in this land there is one nation with inborn privileges that exceed those of the other nation living here,” wrote Levy. “It starts with the Law of Return, which is for Jews alone; and winds through “security needs,” which are always only the security needs of the Jews, and ends with the demand that the Palestinian state be demilitarized; it all screams of privilege.”

The choice, says Levy, is simple: Israel can choose to be a democracy first or a Jewish state first – everything else is petty bickering.



Apparently there is no chance that the left-center will be weaned off its way of doing things; let it ask itself: Why is there Palestinian terror, and what is Israel Defense Forces activity if not terror?

Gideon Levy Aug 19, 2015 6:28 PM

Isaac Herzog returned from Ramallah loaded down with impressions, and hastened to write a nice composition, with good penmanship and without his parents’ help. “Don’t worry, don’t be afraid. Be daring,” was the title of the manifesto.

The rest was even more embarrassing and childish (the only thing missing was “we returned home tired but happy,”). But within the sea of cliches, one sentence stood out: “We must prevent a third intifada. That means an uncompromising war against terror, and on that issue I’m even more extreme than [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.”

Aha, the “war against terror.” Herzog will be “more extreme than Netanyahu.” He will prevent a third intifada.

Herzog owes an accounting for his cliches: What did he mean when he said that he would be even more extreme than Benjamin Netanyahu? Even more violent? Netanyahu is responsible for killing thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, and he will kill tens of thousands? During Netanyahu’s tenure there are 400 administrative detainees, and with Herzog there will be a thousand? Netanyahu is evicting thousands of people from their homes in the blazing sun, and Herzog will evict tens of thousands? Herzog roared on the way from Ramallah – who will not be afraid.

That’s not what he meant, the spokespeople will explain. Herzog only wanted to say that he will be tough in the war against terror, because without that it’s impossible to win elections – and besides, he’s in favor of “the process,” after all. But terror will never be eliminated with force, and the left-center will never learn anything and never forget anything.

The next intifada will not be prevented by means of anyone’s threats, including Herzog’s, but only through a radical change in direction, which won’t take place here of itself.

Herzog’s “process” certainly doesn’t fit that description. Cancelling administrative detentions, for example, would prevent terror more it can be prevented by elite army units. But Herzog and his friends have nothing to say about that. Is the Zionist Union in favor of administrative detention? Against? Again they are only looking for the strong man who will convince the Israelis that he will defeat terror and the Arabs in general, and once again they’re banging their heads against the wall.
Apparently there is no chance that the left-center will be weaned of its way of doing things; let it ask itself: Why is there Palestinian terror, and what is Israel Defense Forces activity if not terror? It can’t let go of the old notion that it must convince the public that it will screw the Arabs the way the right does.

If the leader of the opposition still thinks that a popular uprising is suppressed by force, that a “process” is sufficient to stop such an uprising, if he doesn’t propose a revolutionary change of values and perceptions – what do we need all this for? We’ve had more than enough of this species.
In order to “defeat terror by force” we have Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon. To prevent the next intifada by means of foolish threats – “We’ll harm anyone who tries to harm us,” and “We’re prepared for any scenario” – Netanyahu will suffice. In order to explain to the Palestinians that they can achieve what they want only by force – with kidnappings, hunger strikes and Qassam rockets, never through negotiations – there’s no need for Herzog. They’ve known that for a long time.
And even in order to present a left with a security-oriented facade we don’t need Herzog – former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi is already warming up on the ropes, in the role of the most desperate hope that the left has ever invented. The general of Operation Cast Lead, the man without (known) opinions, who has never said anything about anything, he is the great and only hope of the moderate camp in Israel. Can you believe it? Why Ashkenazi? Because he’s the only one with a chance to bring down Netanyahu. And why bring down Netanyahu if we’ll get Ashkenazi?

And until the propitious time arrives and Ashkenazi hatches from the egg, Herzog will play Ashkenazi’s role. He will be the commander of the left’s anti-terrorism unit. He will threaten, he will eliminate enemies, he will promise “an uncompromising war.”

It sounds so funny, and it’s so sad.



Isaac Herzog Aug 21, 2015 2:05 PM

Opposition leader Isaac Herzog responds to criticism levelled against him by Haaretz's Gideon Levy, arguing that making peace also means fighting terror - not just accepting the Palestinian narrative hook, line and sinker.

Abbas and Herzog, in the West Bank city of Ramallah, August 18, 2015.Reuters
It’s always amusing to read Gideon Levy criticizing someone else for using cliches ("The left’s counter-terrorism unit," Haaretz, August 20). After all, Levy is the expert in the use of cliches. He has been singing For the same song for years, publishing the same article and the same text, twice and sometimes three times a week: "Occupation, occupation, occupation and once again occupation; only the Jews are to blame and only the Palestinians are right." Levy has been a one-trick pony since way back in the 1990s.

My meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) this week lasted for an hour and 15 minutes. We sat privately and conducted a penetrating, detailed and in-depth conversation. Too much time has passed since an Israeli leader sat with Abu Mazen and spoke to him directly and at length. He is afraid of the unbridled terror. He is doing quite a lot to combat it, but is very concerned by the fact that we may be on the brink of a third intifada, and that it is liable to erupt on his watch. Under his responsibility. He is particularly concerned by the stagnation and by the lack of hope on the diplomatic front.

I described my viewpoint to him; I explained that I want to take take my party back to the path of late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, which means a tough and uncompromising war against terror, and at the same time, a courageous diplomatic initiative. As I told Abu Mazen, in the war against terror I really am more extreme than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His policy of speaking to Hamas and isolating Abu Mazen will lead to Abu Mazen’s resignation and to Hamas taking control over Judea and Samaria. Hamastan five minutes from Kfar Sava. That’s not how to fight terror and its leaders.

On the other hand, I see a rare regional opportunity, with other countries in this region - which are also threatened by the ISIS crazies and the Iranian sweet talk - as well as Israel and Gaza, which want to continue the quiet and are willing to think about rehabilitation and calm, have a shared interest in moving towards direct peace negotiations between Israel and the PA. That’s the key, and that should be encouraged. We must not award a prize to Hamas, but rather foster calm and turn the PA into a partner - and there are plenty of means available of doing so.

Towards the end of the burning-hot summer there is such a moment, in which it is possible to restore hope to the region.

But people like Levy are stuck in the 1990s and fail to understand that it’s impossible today sit down around the negotiating table with the Palestinians and to emerge, locked in a brotherly embrace, moments later with a with full peace agreement that features a return to the 1967 lines and a division of Jerusalem. Levy writes as though he hasn’t been here in recent years. In a previous article he mocked me because my wife and I gave our blessings to the cadets in a pilots’ training course. Levy used to be a Zionist. I’m no longer sure that he is one.

After Gaza fell into the hands of Hamas, and the State of Israel was attacked with missiles, and tunnels were dug under dining rooms on kibbutzim in the south, it’s no longer possible to continue talking only about a bilateral agreement with the Palestinians. We have to talk about a trailblazing diplomatic move, supported by the moderate countries in the region.

Levy thinks that the Palestinians are always right. That the terror attacks against us are their natural right. That a boycott against the Jews is the imperative of the hour and that the time has come for U.S. President Barack Obama to impose the same kind of sanctions that he imposed on Iran on Israel. In effect Levy, like the messianic right, is leading to a state with an Arab majority between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

In contrast, the huge camp that I lead loves Israel and wants a Jewish and democratic state, existing alongside a Palestinian state in security and peace. Only when I and the leadership of the huge camp I represent prove that in defense of the country, on security issues and in times of danger, we always side with the state, and only afterwards do we have time for debates and disagreements. Only then will we be able to win the trust of the majority in Israel and to bring these ideas to fruition.

I believe that leadership is always obligated, while adhering to its values, to make a tactical recalculation. Not to close its eyes in the face of what is happening - and always to be daring enough to confront a changing reality and to try to change the present and the future.


The head of the Zionist Union comes across as someone who is not up to the challenge of fighting the most right-wing, nationalist government in the history of Israel.

Gideon Levy May 21, 2015 4:44 AM

An election campaign billboard shifts between images of Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog, right, and Likud Party leader and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Tel Aviv, March 3, 2015.AP
From the outset, he shouldn’t have been the Zionist Union’s candidate for prime minister; like his counterpart Miliband, he should have resigned the day after his defeat. But even having come this far, he should quit his post – yesterday, today or tomorrow at the latest – in the wake of the documentary that exposed his conduct during the election campaign.

Anyone who believed before the election that he was the man, anyone who believed after the election that he should stay on and continue leading, ought to watch Anat Goren’s film “Herzog,” the first part of which aired two days ago on Channel 10’s “Hamakor” program. In order to truly understand that while Isaac Herzog may be a fine person, a pleasant, decent, intelligent and honest conversationalist, this is not the material from which another prime minister, leader or statesman will ever emerge.
The day after the election, or at the latest, the day after the screening of “Herzog,” this thing has to end. Herzog isn’t right for the job. He never was right for the job – as the film clearly shows.

The Herzog of “Herzog,” like the real-life Herzog, is not suited to be prime minister, or opposition leader for that matter. Some people reached this conclusion long ago, but even those who kept on believing couldn’t deny what they have been seeing on their television screen.

“So what do you want? Can you tell me where?” Herzog asks in one of the many low points documented in the course of his campaign. “Can someone come here and guide us? Can someone explain to us what’s going on?” he’s heard saying at another embarrassing moment, sounding so helpless it’s almost pitiful. Really, where should he stand? Next to the cedar tree his grandfather planted in Gush Etzion? But the sun is in his face and anyway you can’t see the monument from there. So what should he do? And what are we? Maybe he ought to mention Barack Obama in his speech? Or maybe not? And maybe there should be some water on the podium? Or maybe not? And maybe he should leave the speech on the podium? Or maybe not?

Ridiculous politicians who become puppets in the hands of their media advisors are nothing new around here. We’ve seen plenty of strutting and blustering media consultants before. But the combination of [media consultant] Reuven Adler and Isaac Herzog is the most farcical of all: The arrogant and euphoric statements that keep spouting from the mouth of the consultant-sorcerer, legs up on the table and overflowing with self-importance, juxtaposed with the utter helplessness of the puppet he is trying to manipulate with his supposedly magic strings, is just too much. Nothing good has ever come of combining a weak and desperate politician with a haughty personal advisor. When will we ever see a politician here who won’t listen to advisers?

The man who said, “I have the feeling that I am leading a large camp” and that he “sees steps ahead,” shouldn’t ever have been running for a job that was too big for him. But the statesman-prophet from Tzahala didn’t give up. That may be his tragedy, or that of his party too. Now it’s become a farce, and soon it will turn into a catastrophe.

And this is how it is: The most right-wing, nationalist and religious government in the state’s history just came into power by a slim majority. Its components are almost beyond surreal, its statements are already beyond bad taste. A government whose education minister explains that “Education is aspiring for every boy and girl to love the homeland” is one for the scrapbooks: This is the kind of talk that once was heard in Nicolae Ceaucescu’s Romania, maybe also in Enver Hoxha’s Albania. 

This government is being run by a prime minister whose agenda has expired: Iran is out of the picture, as is the chance for the two-state solution. All that’s left for him is to undermine the regime, as is the way with rulers who stay in power for too long.


And who do we have to contend with all of this? Isaac Herzog. Leader of the opposition. Grandson of the rabbi and son of the president. This farce has to end.