In anticipation of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research’s upcoming Sunday, 6 November 2011 International Conference, “Combatting the Delegitimation of Israel,” this week’s Daily Briefings will focus on the global effort to demonize the lone democracy in the Middle East. The series will provide insight into the pervasive, “soft war” being waged against the Jewish State—in the media, in Europe, at the UN, on and off North American campuses, and in Israel itself. It will also convey relevant ways of combatting, and ultimately defeating, this dangerous propaganda campaign.
A video of the Conference will be posted on CIJR’s website, www.isranet.org. (For registration information call [514] 486-5544 or write Yvonne@isranet.com.)
GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
Gerald M. Steinberg
Jerusalem Post, November 1, 2011
“While ‘apartheid’ can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.”
These important words were published Tuesday in The New York Times by former South African judge Richard Goldstone, who was centrally involved in the transition from the real evil of apartheid in his native country.… His carefully considered and strongly written condemnation of the political war against Israel is a significant blow to those who groups and individuals who seek to demonize Israel, and to deny the right of the Jewish nation to sovereign equality.
The apartheid “slander,” to use Goldstone’s term, is central to these campaigns. Essentially, it represents the Durban strategy adopted in 2001 by the NGO Forum of the UN Conference Against Racism. The absurd and immoral analogy is also a key component of the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement. The Durban conference and the BDS movement are not about human rights. Rather, they are aimed at the complete international isolation of Israel by falsely painting Israel as a “racist,” “genocidal,” and “criminal” state.
What makes Goldstone’s statement particularly significant is the fact that this represents a major and wrenching about-face for him. In 2009, Goldstone presided over another UN-orchestrated anti-Israel assault, in the form of a pseudo fact finding mission on the Gaza war. The resulting report was a farce: Goldstone’s committee did its job in pronouncing Israel guilty of deliberate killing of civilians and war crimes, while ignoring thousands of Palestinian rocket attacks—every one a war crime.
As a result of this indictment, Goldstone was embraced by the leaders of the anti-Israel campaigns, including Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch and his counterparts in the NGO community. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, who was appointed by upstanding human rights stalwarts such as Ghaddafi’s Libya, Assad’s Syria, Cuba, Pakistan, and China, also touted the report. Dozens of smaller NGOs, including al-Haq, Adalah, and B’Tselem—many of which receive funding from the New Israel Fund (NIF) and European governments—promoted the report and have been spreading this false apartheid analogy.
The most rabid anti-Israel ideologues, people like Naomi Klein and Ali Abunimah, exalted Goldstone as their patron saint, publishing a collection of essays praising the UN report as the ultimate “proof” of Israeli war crimes and apartheid. They are now exposed for their rhetoric that contributes to anti-Jewish hatred and stands in sharp contrast to the moral foundations of universal human rights.
To his credit, Goldstone gradually realized that the allegations that formed the bulk of his report were copied largely from NGO claims, including from Human Rights Watch, and were not credible or clearly invented, and that his name and seal of approval were being abused to wage a very dirty war against Israel. Beginning in September 2010, Goldstone’s campus presentations and other speeches began to reflect a cautious doubt and misgivings on these central issues. This led to his April 2011 op-ed in the Washington Post in which he admitted, “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”
In some respects, Goldstone’s metamorphosis from a central participant in the political assault against Israel’s legitimacy into a front-line defender is reminiscent of the about face made by Robert Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch. Both are strongly committed to universal human rights, and both eventually realized that many of their former allies in promoting these goals had become chronically infected by an anti-Israel ideology that is entirely inconsistent with these principles. After many years of attempting to fight this disease from the inside, in 2009 Bernstein denounced HRW’s role in the campaigns to turn Israel into a pariah on the pages of the New York Times. He then created a new group called Advancing Human Rights.
The timing of Goldstone’s latest article is also significant, appearing just a few days before the scheduled opening of the so-called Russell Tribunal on Palestine in Cape Town, South Africa. There, with the participation of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a kangaroo court will begin its inquisition designed to restart the flagging apartheid analogy that is repeated at every BDS and “Israel apartheid week” event. Goldstone has now confronted Tutu and his other former allies from the real anti-apartheid movement in South Africa who have become leading Israel-haters, denouncing their role in “pernicious and enduring canard,” which is “calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.…”
Some people will continue to criticize Judge Goldstone for the damage caused to the Israelis who were libeled in his UN report on the Gaza war, and for the damage that report caused to universal human rights. Some of this damage is irreversible, despite Goldstone’s subsequent “reconsideration.” But taken together with his denunciation of the Russell Tribunal farce, and linked with Bernstein’s turn-about, as well as other exposes of the moral corruption among influential “human rights” frameworks, Goldstone should be congratulated…for having done the right thing.
(Gerald M. Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor.)
ARE YOUNG RABBIS TURNING ON ISRAEL?
Elliot Jager
Jerusalem Post, October 30, 2011
For all the theological, ritualistic and institutional differences separating the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform movements, for all their divergent approaches to revelation, halacha and communal decision-making, what distinguishes the groups in the minds of many ordinary American Jews comes down to branding.
Orthodoxy is on the Right, Reform on the Left. In the middle stands Conservative Judaism. If the new crop of Conservative rabbis has anything to say about it, Conservatism may not occupy the center for very long. That, at least, is the message of a recent report by the movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary, based on a survey of political views among “Generation Y” rabbinical students—born in the mid-1970s to mid-1990s—and the seminary’s somewhat older rabbinical alumni, ordained since 1980.
At first blush, the report purports to show what one would hope to find among the rabbinate: a solid Jewish identity and strong attachment to Israel. On closer examination, however, this identity appears increasingly filtered through a universalistic and liberal political perspective.
Among American Jews as a whole, according to the Pew Forum, 38 percent identify themselves as liberal; 39% call themselves moderate. In contrast, 58% of the Conservative rabbis surveyed—and 69% of the rabbinical students—called themselves liberal. It’s hard to defend the center when you’re not in it.
These rabbis and rabbinical students are “pro-Israel,” but they are redefining what “pro-Israel” means. As liberals, they hold an optimistic view of human nature: Though Palestinian leaders see their conflict with Israel as a zero-sum game, it seems hard for the rabbis to acknowledge this grim fact. Instead, they get their understanding of events in Israel from ideologically reinforcing Left-oriented sources: liberal media outlets, Facebook posts, and Haaretz.
These sources help explain the conspicuous disconnect between the next generation of Conservative rabbis and mainstream American Jews on the subject of the Arab-Israel conflict. More than three-quarters of American Jews, according to the latest American Jewish Committee survey, believe that the Arabs’ goal is not merely the return of the “occupied territories” but the actual “destruction of Israel.” Only 30% of the JTS rabbinical students agreed with a similar statement.
Indeed, fully 12% of the rabbinical students are “uncomfortable” with Israel’s being a “Jewish state.” To individuals with this universalistic bent, moral relativism comes more naturally. Most of the future rabbis—all of whom have studied in Israel—do not see Palestinian leaders as their enemies. A majority, 56%, say the Palestinian side is no “more to blame” than Israel for the ongoing conflict. Sure, Hamas dominates Gaza. Yes, the West Bank Fatah leadership refused to negotiate with the Netanyahu government during a ten-month settlement freeze. Even so, a majority of the rabbis want an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, with “land swaps” and a freeze on any “expansion of settlements in the West Bank.”
Compare these views with the position of most American Jews in the face of unremitting Palestinian intransigence: 55%, according to an AJC poll, oppose a Palestinian state. In equally stark contrast, most Israelis, regardless of their political views, simply do not believe that today’s Palestinian leadership is capable of making peace with Israel.…
No Israeli would suggest [Israel] is beyond criticism. But 30% of Reform rabbinical students return from Israel feeling “hostile” or “indifferent” toward the Jewish state; now we learn that 53% of JTS rabbinical students are “sometimes” or “often” ashamed of Israel.…
The JTS report concludes that the younger cohort of rabbinical students is “no less connected” to Israel than its elders. Yet, for many, this connection seems compromised by the felt need to reconcile their attachment with uncritically assimilated universalist ideals and, in extreme cases, Left-liberal dogma that is anti-Zionist. No amount of redefining what it means to be pro-Israel can paper over the predicament facing Conservative Judaism’s future leaders.…
(Elliot Jager is a former Jerusalem Post editorial page editor.)
THE TIMES’ ANTI-ISRAEL SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Evelyn Gordon
Contentions, November 3, 2011
Reading the New York Times op-ed pages recently, one can’t help thinking the paper has launched a deliberate smear campaign against Israel. Consider just two examples:
This week, it published a piece called “In Israel, Press Freedom Is Under Attack” by Israeli journalist Dimi Reider. Reider lambastes the 4.5-year sentence a court just imposed on Anat Kamm, claiming the former soldier has been punished “for leaking documents containing evidence of what she suspected might be war crimes committed by her commanders.” Since journalists worldwide rely on whistleblowers, he charged, this undermines press freedom:
“The verdict sends several chilling messages. To young soldiers it says: shut up, even if you suspect your commanders of violating the law; they will go unpunished and you will go to jail if you leak. To the source it says: no one will protect you; don’t be a self-sacrificing fool. And to the journalist it says: know your place; cover what we tell you to cover, print our news releases, and keep within your bounds.”
But here’s what the court said actually happened, as reported by the very newspaper [Haaretz—Ed.] to which Kamm gave the documents: Over the course of her army service, Kamm betrayed her oath as a soldier by “systematically” stealing everything she could get her hands on—2,085 documents in all, including “plans for military operations, information on troop deployments, summaries of various internal discussions, military targets and intelligence assessments.” For similar crimes in America, WikiLeaks source Pfc. Bradley Manning now faces life in jail. She then gave 1,500 documents to Haaretz journalist Uri Blau, who sorted through and found a handful that, in his opinion, showed the army was violating Israeli Supreme Court guidelines on assassinating terrorists. But as Reider himself admits, Israel’s attorney general—presumably a greater legal expert than journalists Reider and Blau—reviewed the material and concluded otherwise.
All this was widely reported in Israel’s English-language media, so the facts were easily checkable. But the Times preferred printing an anti-Israel smear.
Two months earlier, the Times published an op-ed by Israeli professor Carlo Strenger entitled “Netanyahu’s Partners, Democracy’s Enemies.” Strenger accused the Knesset of having “proposed and passed laws that seriously endanger Israel’s identity as a liberal democracy,” including “a law forbidding public commemoration of” the Nakba (literally, “catastrophe,” the Palestinian term for Israel’s establishment) and a “demand for all new Israeli citizens to swear a loyalty oath to a Jewish and democratic country.”
I’ve argued before that the proposed loyalty oath is no different than the pledge of allegiance required of American immigrants. But in any case, the bill died in the Knesset: Lacking a parliamentary majority, it wasn’t even brought for a vote. As for the Nakba proposal, the Knesset itself concluded (correctly) that the original bill was undemocratic. Hence the law actually passed merely prohibited state funding for public commemorations of the Nakba. And while democracies must permit offensive speech, no democratic principle requires a state to finance public calls for its demise.
Again, all this was widely reported in Israel’s English-language media, so the facts were easily checkable. But the Times preferred printing an anti-Israel smear.
There’s been much talk lately about liberal American Jews “distancing” themselves from Israel. But that’s really not surprising when you consider that most liberal American Jews get their (dis)information about Israel from The New York Times. Hence American Jewish leaders concerned about this trend must start challenging the Times on these smears. And they must also start educating their public not to believe everything they read in its pages.
ISRAEL SHOULD BE A U.S. CAMPAIGN ISSUE
Douglas J. Feith
Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2011
Pro-Israel organizations have long been active in American politics, promoting friendly relations between the U.S. and Israel. Jewish groups, in particular, have helped ensure that candidates’ attitudes toward Israel would be an important element in congressional and presidential elections. Yet now, two venerable Jewish organizations, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), are saying that it is improper to do this in the case of [US] President [Barack] Obama. They have taken the initiative to shield Mr. Obama from the political consequences of his cold treatment of Israel.
The AJC and ADL are jointly promoting a “national pledge for unity on Israel.” Its essence is that “America’s friendship with Israel…has always transcended politics” and that “U.S.-Israel friendship should never be used as a political wedge issue.” Explaining this effort, ADL chief Abraham Foxman lamented that presidential candidates have recently “challenged their opponents’ pro-Israel bona fides” and “questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel.”
True, every political movement wants unity in support of the common cause. But since when have American supporters of Israel believed that a candidate’s attitudes toward Israel should be kept out of electoral politics? Since never.
In 1984, pro-Israel groups exerted themselves to block the re-election of Illinois Republican Sen. Charles Percy, the prominent chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was an outspoken critic of Israel and champion of U.S. engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Percy lost and, in an election night interview, attributed his defeat to the Israel lobby. Other politicians who met a similar fate include Reps. Paul Findley (R., Ill.) and Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.).
When running against President George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bill Clinton took full advantage of Mr. Bush’s testy relationship with Israel. As the New York Times reported in March 1992: “Some leaders of American Jewish groups predicted today that President Bush would pay in the November election for his demand that Israel freeze settlements.” One such leader spoke of the “anger and dismay in Jewish communities over Bush Administration policy that is increasingly perceived as one-sided and unfair against Israel,” adding “I imagine it will be translated into an unwillingness to vote for this Administration or contribute funds.” By the way, the speaker was Jess Hordes, Washington director of the ADL.
President Obama came into office determined to distance the U.S. from Israel and to portray Israel as the impediment to Middle East peace. He insisted on an unprecedented Israeli settlement freeze.… Meanwhile he offered “engagement” to Israel’s Iranian and Syrian enemies, a vain policy that failed as the courted regimes rebuffed the offer and brutalized their own pro-freedom demonstrators. Mr. Obama also orchestrated a public imbroglio with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, walking out of a White House meeting with him in 2010 and refusing to be photographed with him. Quarrels between the men this year have been openly bitter.…
When Mr. Netanyahu addressed Congress in May, most Democrats, including the leadership, joined in the numerous standing ovations that were obviously intended to contrast the affection for Israel on Capitol Hill with the bad feeling emanating from the White House.
So anyone truly intent on preserving unity among Israel’s friends could do so by building on the substantial bipartisan opposition to Mr. Obama’s policies on Israel. Instead, the AJC and the ADL are working to protect Mr. Obama. These organizations exist in large part to defend the Jewish state from unfair criticism, pressure and attacks. But they are defending President Obama from well-grounded charges that he has subjected Israel precisely to that.…
[Instead], they are claiming to uphold a venerable (though previously unheard of) principle of unity that precludes criticism of a president’s position on Israel.…
(Mr. Feith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute,
served as under secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005.)
