David Blatman's Call for Violence

On January 31, 2019, Haaretz published an op-ed authored by Daniel Blatman.

Entitled "Who Will Lead the Revolt?", Blatman raises a dark spectre.  However, since it seems not to have appeared other than in the Hebrew original, it has not drawn enough attention, if any, I assume.

Blatman bemoans the lack of a proper response to the Netanyahu threat. Netanyahu supposedly accuses journalists as "traitors" according to Blatman. He is leading Israel to a apocalyptic breakup.

Therefore, organization is required.

Yet, there is no real worthwhile political figure to save Israel.

One. Lapid it seems, is a journalist celebrity with a huge ego.

Another is a general, presumably Gantz, who is proud of what he did to Gaza.  Blatman then adds,

as if he were General Jurgen Stroop, who prepared a grand album to mark his victory over the Warsaw Ghetto.

Comparing the IDF Commander-in-Chief to a Nazi is, well, breathtaking. Of course, Haaretz saw nothing wrong in that.

Blatman then devotes most the rest of the article to John Brown.  The American Abolitionist. He is Blatman's hero. Now do you realize why the title is "Who Will Lead the Revolt?"?

In the penultimate paragraph he writes that several of the speech Brown made in the courtroom should be embedded in the minds of

all who seek the proper ways to confront the darkness descending upon us

In case you missed that history lesson, John Brown  was an American abolitionist who believed in and advocated armed insurrection as the only way to overthrow the institution of slavery in the United States. He led the Pottawatomie massacre in 1856. He was in charge of the raid on Harper's Ferry.

Blatman ends his op-ed with a call:

Would that there arise among us a leader that would speak such words in that spirit [of Brown - YM], he would be worthy more than anyone to stand at the head of the camp of John Browns that will go out to struggle for the existence of Israeli democracy"

This is what Blatman wrote and what Haaretz printed.

Support for insurrection.

Labeling Gantz a Nazi.

Suggesting Netanyahu is destroying Israeli democracy.

Think about that.

___________________

For those who cannot access the original, I reproduce it below:

מי ינהיג את המרי

31.01.2019

כמה שורות בניתוח הפוליטי של יוסי ורטר ("הארץ"', 25.1) היו צריכות לחולל השבוע מהפכה בתפישתם של אלה שמתיימרים להציב אלטרנטיבה לשלטון בישראל. וכך כתב ורטר על הרגע שבו יבין בנימין נתניהו שאין עוד סיכוי למנוע את סילוקו מראשות הממשלה והעמדתו למשפט בגין עבירות שהרשעה בהן עלולה לשלחו לכלא: "אז יגיע השלב שבו נתניהו יודיע לבייס שלו: זהו, אין אלוהים. ביום הזה, הדמוקרטיה הישראלית תועמד בסכנה של ממש... כשיכלו כל הקיצין יהיה מי שייתן את האות להמון המוסת, שמוחו כבר יהיה רווי במסרים של שנאה ונקם, לקום. להסתער". הכתובת הזאת רשומה כבר על שלטי חוצות עם דיוקנאות של עיתונאים המסומנים כ"חורשי מזימות", ועל קיר הפייסבוק של נתניהו, שמסמן בקביעות את מערכת המשפט ואת "השמאל" כבוגדים.

לו היה היום משמאל לליכוד מנהיג בעל שיעור קומה, הוא היה יוצא אל מול המחנה הגדול של חרדי קריסת הדמוקרטיה הישראלית ואומר דברים ברורים: אנחנו בדקה ה–89 שלפני השבר האפוקליפטי שאליו מוליך נתניהו את ישראל. אם לא נתארגן מבעוד מועד, מה שהיה לא יהיה עוד. ואם הדרך לשם מצריכה תובנה שמשמעותה שבירת כל הכללים הישנים והתארגנות למאבק שונה מכל מה שידענו בעבר — יש להתארגן לכך מבעוד יום. אבל במקום זה, יש לנו חבורה עלובה ומבולבלת, הכוללת עיתונאי־סלבריטאי נפוח אגו, מחפשי פלטפורמה פוליטית שתביאם לכס המיניסטר, או גנרל המתגאה כי החזיר לתקופת האבן עיר נצורה, שבורה, מוכת רעב ומחלות, משל היה הגנרל יורגן שטרופ, שהכין אלבום מפואר לציון ניצחונו על גטו ורשה.

אברהם לינקולן, מדמויות המופת של ההיסטוריה המודרנית, הוביל את עמו למלחמת אזרחים עקובה מדם, ועדיין, הנשיא שהביא על המדינה הצעירה יחסית, בשנות ה–60 של המאה ה–19, את המשבר הגדול בתולדותיה, והעמיד בסכנה את עצם קיומה, נחשב היום לאחד מגדולי מנהיגיה, דמות מופת שדורות של אמריקאים מתחנכים לאורה. ולא, אין זה רק משום שמחה את כתם העבדות, שהיתה גוועת ממילא במרוצת השנים. לינקולן נהפך לסמל חשוב משום שניחן ביכולת שאין היום לאף מנהיג פוליטי בישראל, המבין את הסכנה הגדולה העומדת בפני הדמוקרטיה החבוטה, אך אינו מעז לומר את הדברים האלה בפני המחנה הגדול שהיה מוכן לצאת ולהגן עליה — לומר אמת לבני עמו.

נאום ההשבעה של הנשיא האמריקאי לקדנציה השנייה, ב–4 במארס 1865, ראוי שיילמד על ידי מי שמתיימרים להציג אלטרנטיבה לחבורת החושך המנפצת את הדמוקרטיה הישראלית לרסיסים. לינקולן קבע, כי הרצון של מצדדי העבדות לשמור על המוסד הזה הביאם עד כדי נכונות לפרק את הברית בין מדינות ארה"ב, גם אם הדבר כרוך במלחמה קשה. מתנגדיהם, במקרה זה הממשל, רצו למנוע את ריסוק ארה"ב. אבל בעצם, שואל לינקולן, מהי סמכות הממשל לכפות נורמות מוסריות על חלקים בחברה השוללים את הנורמות האלה ולצאת למלחמה בשמן? ובהשלכה למציאות כאן: מהי סמכותם של שומרי הדמוקרטיה הליברלית הישראלית לקום ולהיאבק, גם במאבק אלים, נגד אלה הרוצים לכונן נורמות אחרות, לשבור ולשנות את המציאות שהתקיימה ב–70 שנותיה של המדינה?

לינקולן, הנוצרי האדוק, קובע ביחס למצדדים בעבדות: "לכאורה מוזר הוא, שבני אדם יעזו לבקש מאלוהי הצדק שיסייעם להוציא לחמם מזיעת אפם של בני אדם אחרים". אבל הוא מוסיף, בהסתמכו על הברית החדשה: "אַל תִּשְׁפְּטוּ לַמַּעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִּשָּׁפְטוּ" (מתי, ז, 1). כלומר: אין אנו יכולים לדעת מה כוונתו של האל, והתפילות של אף צד לעולם לא נענות במלואן. אבל כאן לינקולן עושה את ההכרעה הגדולה שלו כמנהיג בעל שיעור קומה היסטורי: "אם ברצון האלוהים שהיא (מלחמת האזרחים, ד"ב) תימשך עד שכל העושר שנערם ב–250 שנים של עמל ללא תמורה של המשועבד (העבדים, ד"ב) יחרב כליל, ועד שכל טיפת דם שהוקזה בשוט תיפרע בטיפת דם שתוקז בחרב, כמו שנאמר לפני 3,000 שנה, עדיין יש לומר: 'מִשְׁפְּטֵי ה' אֱמֶת צָדְקוּ יַחְדָּו'" (תהילים, יט, 10). כלומר, מכיוון שאין אנו יודעים מה רצונו של האל, ומכיוון שנכפתה עלינו המלחמה הנוראה הזאת, חובה מוטלת עלינו להמשיך בה עד שעוול העבדות יגיע אל קצו. לינקולן מאמץ את המסקנה הפרשנית לפסוק הזה, שלפיה הכרעות בני האדם, בניגוד למשפט האל, אף אם הן נעשות על פי הדין והיושר, אינן יכולות להיות נקיות לחלוטין מעיוות ועוול, שכן בן אנוש אינו יכול לשקול במדויק כמו האל בהכרעות של חטא ועונש. ובכל זאת, מוטל על האדם להכריע בהתאם למיטב הבנתו את צו האל. וכך הוא עשה.

כל קונפליקט אלים בחברה שמתפתח למלחמת אזרחים, יסודו במאבק על נורמות וערכים, שבו צד אחד מערער על הקיים ומנסה לנטרל את יריבו. קונפליקטים חברתיים כאלה יכולים להסתיים ללא אלימות, כל עוד שני הצדדים מקבלים את נצחיותן של הנורמות שהיו קיימות בחברה מאז שכוננה כמסגרת קולקטיבית, שכל חבריה שותפים וולונטרית לאותה מערכת ערכים. אבל כשצד אחד מדיר קולקטיב גדול מנורמות היסטוריות מקובלות ומנסה לקבע במקומן הגדרות חדשות, תוך כדי עשייה אלימה, חייבים אלה המאמינים כי "מִשְׁפְּטֵי ה' אֱמֶת צָדְקוּ יַחְדָּו", כפי שהאמין לינקולן, לקום ולעשות מעשה.

מלפיד, גנץ, גבאי, לבני, ברק, יעלון או כל מנהיג/ה אחר/ת שטרם יצא לפני המחנה ואמר את שצריך להיאמר, יש לצפות שיפסיקו להתבזות ולהטעות את כמחצית מהישראלים. אלה מרגישים, בתסכולם הרב, כי הם עומדים למצוא את עצמם בקרוב במדינה שבה חלומם יתמצה בתקווה שילדיהם ונכדיהם יהגרו לאוסטרליה, לאנגליה או לקנדה. אבל לא יודעים באמת כיצד לעצור את הקטסטרופה המתרגשת עליהם.

מהמשבר הגדול בסוגיית העבדות בארה"ב נחרת בזיכרון במיוחד המקרה של ג'ון בראון, מתנגד קיצוני של העבדות. ב–16 באוקטובר 1859 הוא פרץ, בראש 22 מאנשיו, ובהם ששת ילדיו, למחסן נשק בווירג'יניה, במטרה לצייד בנשק את תומכיו ולהקים בהרים מחנה מקלט לעבדים. הוא נתפס, נשפט והוצא להורג בדצמבר 1859. בראון הפך במורשת האמריקאית לדמות מופת של איש הנוקט אקט של מרי אזרחי למען הגשמת מטרה נעלה. כמה משפטים מנאומו האחרון בבית המשפט ראוי שייחרתו במוחו של כל מי שמחפש את הדרך הראויה להתייצב מול האפלה היורדת על חיינו כיום: "אילו התערבתי כך (במרי האזרחי, ד"ב) למען העשיר, התקיף, המשכיל, הגדול, וסבלתי והקרבתי כפי שסבלתי... לא היה איש פוצה פה; וכל אחד בבית משפט זה היה רואה במעשה זה דבר הראוי לפרס ולא לעונש. (אבל, ד"ב) כאשר התערבתי למען הענווים הבזויים לא עשיתי אלא צדק. עכשיו, כשאתם רואים צורך לגזור עלי כי אקפח את חיי למען קידום מטרות הצדק, שאערב את דמי בדם ילדי ובדמם של מיליוני ארץ העבדים הזאת, שזכויותיהם נדחקות על ידי חוקי אוון רשעים ואכזריים, אני מקבל עלי: יהי כן!".

לו יקום בינינו מנהיג שיידע לדבר דברים ברוח זאת, הוא יהיה זה הראוי מכולם לעמוד בראש מחנה הג'ון בראונים, שייצא למאבק על קיום הדמוקרטיה הישראלית.

פרופ׳ בלטמן הוא היסטוריון באוניברסיטה העברית

^

Burg's Bottle and Beinart's Bandwagon

I have been sent by several followers the op-ed by Avrum Burg in The UK Independent entitled, "Even I – an Israeli – think settlement goods are not kosher"  He is decribed there as

Avraham Burg was Speaker of the Knesset (1999-2003) and Chairman of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization

Odd that they ignore his demonstratively seeking French citizenship, exploiting his wife's birth nationality,  caused controversy by comparing Israel to 1930s Germany, calling for the repeal of the Law of Return, and pushing for Israel no longer to be called a Jewish state. And that he seeks to become reinvolved in party politics with a 50% Arab -50% Jewish list, claiming "Israel is becoming a nationalist, fundamentalist, theocratic state, which is the unholy triangle.”

In any case, he writes in The Independent

...Since 2009, the United Kingdom has been taking measures...to ensure that settlement products...that have been produced in the occupied Palestinian territories – are no longer labelled as "made in Israel"...several European member states now appear ready to follow...these measures act in Israel's interest. They do so because they take steps that defend and reinforce the Green Line, the pre-1967 border between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.The Green Line is of decisive importance to achieving Middle East peace.

 

Why is the Green Line important?  Well, its existence will not "prevent the establishment of an independent Palestinian state". If we preserve the Green Line, the very idea of an Arab Palestine is kept alive.

 

Of course, there exists another option: that if the Green Line is returned, and that is the essence of the Oslo Accords -  "The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period... The two sides agree that West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will come under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council in a phased manner,"- as per the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement, Article XI, Sub-paragraphs 1 & 2 what might and probably develop is an existential threat and, at the very least, the return to Raanan, Kfar Saba, Jerusalem, etc. the dangerous and murderous security situtation that was the lot of those locations and their inhabitants before 1967.  The record of the Palestinian Authority up until now, almost 20 years since the Spetember 1993 signing of the Declaration of Principles.

Burg should know, by the by, that the DOP signed explicitly notes that

permanent status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders are to be excluded from the interim arrangements and that the outcome of the permanent status talks should not be prejudged or preempted by the interim arrangements.

 

His boycott call, joining in his semantics the Beinart Bandwagon, actually doesn't align with the spirit of the peace agreements so far signed.

But Burg goes one step further:

 

It should long have been clear to every Israeli that...anything beyond the line is something else: undemocratic, illegal, not normative. Not ours.

Not "ours".  "Not"?  Shiloh is not ours?  Hebron?  In what sense?  It isn't part of the Jewish homeland?  It shouldn't be part?  No Jew should live there?  Is he boycotting, more than the products of our labors - in agriculture, industry, science, social projects - everything that is a link between Judea and Samaria and Israel/Israelis?

 

Burg continues in his extremism:

It is not anti-Semitic and not anti-Israel to convey these messages. On the contrary: the settlers, the conquerors and their political allies – including Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel – are the real enemies of Israel's future...Colonising Palestinian land across the Green Line...generates fanatic, nationalistic, fundamentalist and anti-democratic energies that threaten all civilised Israeli foundations...With international help, we must return these demons to their bottles...

I wonder from what bottle Burg has been imbibing.

^

Blowing Away Blau

Eli Pollak and I published in our weekly "Media Comment" column at the Jerusalem Post recently on the Uri Blau case.

And now this, from The New York Times, June 8, 2012,

Holder Assigns U.S. Attorneys to Investigate Possible Classified Leaks.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement on Friday that two United States attorneys had been assigned to investigate possible unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Ronald C. Machen Jr., the attorney for the District of Columbia, and Rod J. Rosenstein of the District of Maryland will lead separate criminal investigations being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“The unauthorized disclosure of classified information can compromise the security of this country and all Americans, and it will not be tolerated,” Mr. Holder said in the statement. Earlier on Friday, President Obama rebutted accusations that his administration leaked information about a terrorist “kill list” and cyberwarfare to make himself look tough in an election year. Without confirming the accuracy of the information — which was revealed in two articles in The New York Times last week — Mr. Obama said that such leaks dealt with the safety of the American people, its military and its allies.

What's good a la US democracy should be good enough for Israel.

^

Beinart Being Part of the Threat, Not Its Prevention

-{take note that I am constantly updating this

with new material and references}-

^^^^^^^

Remember the exchange of Tweets between Peter Beinart and myself, when I referred to him as an interrupting noise maker?

Well, he's gone to the favorite playing field for Jews who have problems with themselves and their Judaism, their Zionism and their politics - the New York Times.

In an op-ed, To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements, he suggests adopting the policies of Israel's - not of the communities in Judea and Samaria - most hateful enemies, one that plays into the hands of the anti-Semites and anti-Zionists.

Some of his remarks and my comments:-

...the Israeli government is erasing the “green line” [before 1967, when the Green Line, properly, the 1949 ceasefire lines, existed, it was then being erased by the Arabs who constantly infiltrated, conducting terror operations, first as fedayeen and then, from 1964, as PLO. but more importantly, in doing so, they demonstrated that for them, the 'Palestine' that needed to be 'liberated' was but Israel, and Israel without any "settlements" in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (although Jews did live there during the Mandate period and earlier) was the target for their violence. "settlements" did not exist there, so what was the cause of their violence?  to dismantle "settlements" is in no way connected to the Arab hostility.]

...The Israeli government and the B.D.S. movement are promoting radically different one-state visions, but together, they are sweeping the two-state solution into history’s dustbin. It’s time for a counteroffensive — a campaign to fortify the boundary that keeps alive the hope of a Jewish democratic state alongside a Palestinian one. And that counteroffensive must begin with language. [continuing his error of historical fact, he propounds it by creating an error of logic: that a Jewish democratic state (and we'll ignore what is meant by 'Jewish') can exist alongside a "Palestine", that that "Palestine is not and will not be inimical to the very idea of any Jewish state of any democratic character or in any geographic configuration]

...Jewish hawks often refer to the territory beyond the green line by the biblical names Judea and Samaria, thereby suggesting that it was, and always will be, Jewish land. Almost everyone else, including this paper, calls it the West Bank. But both names mislead. “Judea and Samaria” implies that the most important thing about the land is its biblical lineage; “West Bank” implies that the most important thing about the land is its relationship to the Kingdom of Jordan next door. After all, it was only after Jordan conquered the territory in 1948 that it coined the term “West Bank” to distinguish it from the rest of the kingdom, which falls on the Jordan River’s east bank. Since Jordan no longer controls the land, “West Bank” is an anachronism. It says nothing meaningful about the territory today. [has he been reading me?]

...Instead, we should call the West Bank “nondemocratic Israel.” The phrase suggests that there are today two Israels: a flawed but genuine democracy within the green line and an ethnically-based non democracy beyond it. [that, I will admit is clever.  but many democratic countries maintain extraordinary situations such as the US and Washington, DC or with Puerto Rico which parallel our situation in terms of non-perfect democracy. but the real point is: will Judea and Samaria, if they become the territory of an Arab "Palestine" - and we know no Jews will be permitted to reside therein - be a land of freedom and democracy or will there be there real apartheid, true non-democracy, "improved" terror as well as ongoing oppression of the Arab masses and Beinart and all his liberal and progressive friends not only will have contributed to Israel's decreased security and increased threat to its existence but will be partners in the subjugation of the Arabs they, I presume, wish to merit a good life.  but only with Israel with Judea and Samaria can there be both security for Israel and hope for the Arab residents of those areas]

We [and here comes the nasty] should lobby to exclude settler-produced goods from America’s free-trade deal with Israel. We should push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities. Every time an American newspaper calls Israel a democracy, we should urge it to include the caveat: only within the green line...We should oppose efforts to divest from all Israeli companies with the same intensity with which we support efforts to divest from companies in the settlements: call it Zionist B.D.S.

...settlements need not constitute the world’s worst human rights abuse in order to be worth boycotting...The relevant question is not “Are there worse offenders?” but rather, “Is there systematic oppression that a boycott might help relieve?”...prominent Israeli writers like David Grossman, Amos Oz and A. B. Yehoshua have refused to visit the settlement of Ariel. [and that effort has collapsed, proving worthless and lessening the influence of the so-called left-wing camp]

...the boycott should not apply to East Jerusalem, which Israel also occupied in 1967, since Palestinians there at least have the ability to gain citizenship, even if they are not granted it by birth... [lot of luck with that with your progressive friends, Peter. they'll wake you up as to what animosity really exists]...If moderate settlers living near the green line resent being lumped in with their more ideologically driven counterparts deep in occupied territory, they should agitate for a two-state solution that would make possible their incorporation into democratic Israel. [ah, so the Arabs must know that even you will not give them the territory they demand and they may 'lose' land even from such an extremist as you]

...As I write this, I cringe...Boycotting other Jews is a painful, unnatural act. But the alternative is worse...Zionism and democracy were not only compatible; the two were inseparable...If Israel makes the occupation permanent and Zionism ceases to be a democratic project, Israel’s foes will eventually overthrow Zionism itself. [ah, but what if a possibility exists that Israel can remain democratic?  just like in 1949, Israel, despite the war, remained democratic and worked out problems.  or perhaps the Arabs will finally come to realize that Israel is their best social, political and economic bet in the area and peace will arrive and recognition of Jewish nationalism and our rights: historical, legal, religious and cultural to the Land of Israel?  and Peter, if you do not believe that, if you permit yourself a pessimism about that, allow me my pessimism about your approach and your wisdom]

...If we want to effectively oppose the forces that threaten Israel from without, we must also oppose the forces that threaten it from within. [Peter, you are closer to being part of the threat, to paraphrase, rather than contributing to its prevention].

How unfortunate, for Beinart and his children (he is the one who brought them in to the story = "I belong to an Orthodox synagogue, send my children to Jewish school and yearn to instill in them the same devotion to the Jewish people that my parents instilled in me") that he is willing not only to adopt a BDS policy but to publicize it from the pages of that not-so-friendly 'newspaper of the record'.

UPDATE

I wrote a letter but it wasn't among those published.
Here:

Peter Beinart's anti-Jewish residency rant ("To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements", March 19), seeking to deny Jews the right to live in portions of the historic Jewish homeland is logically flawed. There were no "settlements" in these areas before 1967 and since there were Arab terror attacks between 1948-1967, our homes cannot be a reason for Arab animosity and therefore, our disappearance will not provide a solution to the real problem: Arab refusal to accept any form of Jewish national sovereignty. A state of "Palestine" refuses to have Jews as citizens.

Moreover, his concern for Israel's democratic soul may resonant with those of the progressive/liberal camp but his portrayal of its weakening is flawed and misrepresented. His call for boycott actions can but weaken Israel's standing and undermine its security. Democracy serves no one when it endangers the lives of people and the existence of a state.

___________

Richard Silverstein shows how BDSers really hate Israel:

...[Beinart] comes up with the hopelessly flawed, “nondemocratic Israel.” How do I hate this phrase? Let me count the ways. First, it associates the Territories with Israel, when they are not Israel, but Palestine. Second, the phrase clearly indicates a claim that Israel within the Green Line is democratic. For any reasonably well informed observer of Israeli society, this is false. At best, Israel is democratic for its Israeli Jewish citizens. For its Israeli Palestinians? Not so much.

I’d argue further that Israel isn’t a democracy not just because of its dispossession of its Palestinian citizens (and this includes the Nakba), but because it is a national security state that subsumes many rights reserved, in truly democratic countries, to citizens, under the guise of fighting terror.

...his Buy Israel campaign will actually benefit companies based within Israel proper which do business in the Territories. But he argues that we cannot boycott these companies because if we did, we wouldn’t know where to stop our boycotting activities within Israel. That essentially limits the companies and products you boycott to almost nil. Further, settlers could easily get around his boycott by associating themselves with Israeli companies based within the Green Line.

... I wondered why Beinart excluded East Jerusalem from the settler population count. It becomes clear later on when he deliberately excludes East Jerusalem from his boycott. Why? Because East Jerusalem Palestinians can become Israeli citizens. First, these Palestinians do not want to be Israeli citizens. They want to be Palestinian citizens. They don’t want to live in a Jewish state. They want to live in a Palestinian state. Israel took that right away from them when it annexed their homes in violation of international law. Now Beinart offers East Jerusalem a free pass from his boycott because of a flimsy fig leaf of so-called democracy.

Further, East Jerusalem is an occupied as the West Bank. Saying it is less occupied is ludicrous. Not to mention it gives one the impression that Beinart does not believe in sharing Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. As far as I’m concerned that’s a fatal political flaw in his proposal.

...If you are truly a “committed Jew” it becomes MORE, not less important to boycott other Jews when their interpretation of “Judaism” is not only an abomination, but endangers the rest of Israel. There should not be any hesitation in doing so. Boycotting them is not a painful or unnatural act. On the contrary, it is an obligatory act as a Jew. Think of Prof. Yeshaiya Lebowitz, also an Orthodox Jew who brought his children up to be devoted to the Jewish people. Yet he didn’t hesitate to call radical settler leaders, “Judeo-Nazis.” Beinart would never do this. Because Beinart pulls his punches. Beinart holds back. That is what makes him and his analysis so disappointing and so ineffectual...

And there's this letter up already (how did that happen?).

And I left a comment here.

And I found this point (k/t=Faniel Gordis) in a review of his new book, that Beinart's main complaint is that Israel is

alienating a concentrated, core group of liberal Jewish elites

those that are unconcerned about the undemocratic societies Israel faces and moreover, there are ethics -

"Israel's physical survival," he writes, "is bound up with its ethical survival." That ethical survival, according to Beinart, will depend on Israel's willingness to accept that its military and economic might have given Jews a new kind of power. And with that power, Beinart writes, comes responsibility: the responsibility to recognize, far more than most supporters of Israel would readily admit, that the Jewish state plays a large part in shaping the threats that it faces.

So, we're back where we started before Zionism: it is our fault that we are hated.

That is so liberal. And the reviewer then goes off the deep end:

Even if one objects to this kind of moralism, one has to acknowledge that Beinart has identified the genuine threat posed by the occupation to Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state. And if it's in Israel's existential interest to stave off that threat by withdrawing from the West Bank, then Beinart is right to say that continued settlement construction and subsidization—particularly in areas that Israel will need to forfeit in a future agreement—does "menace Israel's future" by making it that much more difficult to leave and achieve peace. Israel must embrace some level of responsibility for the continuation of the conflict. But not the lion's share—and that, unfortunately, is what The Crisis of Zionism strongly implies

.
_____________

And now this from a JCPA report:

From the substantive point of view, the BDS campaign feeds on and demonstrates a blatant and deliberate ignorance and denial of the basic issues involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The oft-repeated use of such slogans as "apartheid" and "colonialism" and the like with respect to Israel demonstrates total ignorance of the significance of the terms used, and an acute lack of familiarity with the democratic character of Israel and the actual situation in the area.

________________

This on the book from Sol Stern at Commentary:

all the footnotes in the world can’t disguise the fact that Beinart willfully ignores just about any testimony or source that might undermine his uncomplicated narrative of good liberal Zionism versus bad reactionary Zionism.  That elision is evident in Beinart’s assessment of Stephen Wise, whom Beinart vaunts as the model of what a Jewish leader in America should stand for: belief in the prophetic social-justice traditions of Judaism, a commitment to a sane, peaceful Zionism, and a healthy respect for dissenting opinions...

...But the supreme test for American Zionism would come after the U.S. government officially acknowledged in November 1942 that Hitler was implementing a plan to exterminate European Jewry and that two million Jews had already been murdered. There is no Zionism worthy of its name without the priority of rescuing Jews in mortal danger and distress. Wise failed this test, although you wouldn’t know anything about it from Beinart’s book...Wise was a leader of a dozen Jewish or Zionist organizations at the time. Contrary to Beinart, there was nothing very democratic about how he ran those groups, which is why he was often called the “King of the Jews.”

Still, he might have risen to the occasion and used his position to press the administration to change its position on rescue. But the Zionist leader was encumbered by his close personal relationship with the president...One group in America, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe, took up the challenge and mounted a public lobbying campaign to pressure the administration to change its policy on rescue. The new organization was led by a small cadre of young Jews who had originally come to the United States from Palestine to work with Vladimir Jabotinsky. (The revisionist leader died in New York in 1940.) Also known as the Bergson Group, after its leader, Peter Bergson, it was successful in pushing the administration to finally create the War Refugee Board, which did manage to save thousands of Jews, mainly in Hungary in the last months of the war. But that was no thanks to Rabbi Wise. Instead of working together with Bergson to put maximum pressure on the administration to change its policy, Wise turned on the dissidents, trying to undermine their organization and block their influence.

There is not a word about this unsavory chapter in American Jewish history in Beinart’s book, only unrestrained praise for Wise’s democratic Zionism.

and this:

What is wrong with Beinart’s book is contained within its title, The Crisis of Zionism. Zionism itself is not in crisis. The liberal Zionism Beinart espouses is, because Beinart and others like him have decided to condition their belief in a Jewish national homeland on its pursuit of policies that make them feel good. They prefer an Israel of social-democratic fantasy—an Israel that need not take account of the behavior of its Palestinian interlocutors, that need not take account of the safety and security of its own population, and an Israel that need not take account of the views and wishes of its own electorate—to the real thing.

_____________


A list of critiques from ChallahHuAkbar.

hinzufügen Josh Hasten.

Beinart attacked by an Arab.

Rob Eshman.

Seth Mandel.

Omri Ceren.

Ruthie Blum

Daniel Gordis.

Leo Rennert has something positive to point out ("Beinart is amenable to Israeli retention of major settlements").

Daniel Freeman.

A newer reaction by me, and another

Assaf Romiwowsky.

Barry Rubin.
___________

And by the way, all of Beinart is old hat. From May 2011:-

The unspoken implication...was that Beinart had strayed from the fold of centrist Jewish thinkers...Beinart has aligned himself with Israel bashers, or so Halevi seemed to be implying...the problem isn't that his former co-worker openly criticizes Israel, but that he neglects on-the-ground realities, including existential concerns, that profoundly affect the Jewish state.

...Beinart, in contrast, tends to focus on what he calls "nondemocraticIsrael," the occupied territories in Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. The decades-long occupation by Israel, Beinart maintains, has frayed the country's moral fabric and is contributing to the disintegration of its democracy. "It is very important for us to understand that while Israel is a democracy ... it is not a democracy outside of the Green Line," he told the audience. In those areas, he maintained, Israel seems to be morphing into an "apartheid state,"...Jews, Beinart explained, must make a concerted attempt to understand the Palestinian psyche.

...Urging Beinart to "choose your allies very carefully," Halevi lambasted his opponent for signing a missive last year that urged the U.S. not to veto a United Nations resolution censuring Israel. Signatories included several longtime Israel bashers.

____________

Anti-Zionist approach.

____________

Martin Sherman following the Beinart-Gordis debate.
^

Dimi Reider Gets A Free Ride in the NY Review of Books

The New York Review of Books hosts Dimi Reider on "Israel: The Knesset vs. Democracy".

He writes about:

...a far-reaching series of laws now pending or already passed by the Knesset suggests Israel is moving in an alarmingly anti-democratic direction.

...[a] sustained assault on such fundamental democratic principles as the right to asylum, the right to free association, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to an independent judiciary?

...it has been the Knesset itself that has become the primary engine of Israel’s turn away from democratic values.

...Some say the undemocratic system established for these Palestinians is now seeping back across the Green Line.

...the decline of Israel’s independent press

...Israel’s dual identity as a democracy for its citizens and a Jewish state is undergoing a momentous change, with the current coalition increasingly willing to sacrifice the former to preserve the latter.

I left this comment there (for after all, they'll never give me a platfrom to adequately respond):-

In writing "They portray civil society NGOs as agents of foreign influence, the Supreme Court as an unelected clique that grossly obstructs the democratic process, and news organizations that question government policies as left wing and unpatriotic. These allegations find a ready audience in an increasingly nationalist electorate; even those skeptical of some of the more radical proposals have shown little readiness to engage in organized opposition", Reider, one of the more extreme left-wing progressives here in Israel, summarizes what is the only truths in his otherwise misrepresentation of Israel's societal discourse and incorrect assertions in his flawed piece.  Earlier he wrote that what is supposedly happening is an "sustained assault on such fundamental democratic principles" but what has happened since the mid-1980s was a takeover of central power focii by the three main elitist groups: the judicial, the media and the 'humanist' associations (funded by liberal Jews) who seek, with each one's support, to alter Israel's ethos into a "state of all its citizens" (while one group of citizens denies any allegiance to or current/future idenification with the state), to de-Judaize the public square, to supplant basic values with post-modern reinterpretations and, most of all, to implant a feeling of remorse and guilt in Israelis for being Jewish, Zionist and zealous in desiring to be...Jewish, Zionist and zealous about our security, our identity and our just cause in a surrounding Middle East which is undemocratic, fanatic and dangerous.  Almost a death wish.

^

Roger Cohen's Danger and J Street's Sin

I can only agree with Amy Lipton who has had her letter published at the NYTimes, commenting on Roger Cohen's latest in nhis campaign to undermine Israel:

Mr. Cohen dangerously conflates two issues: Israel’s sincerity in seeking peace with the Palestinians and its fear of being annihilated by its neighbors and other regional aggressors...it is incontrovertible that Hamas and Iran seek Israel’s destruction. Hamas and Iran have admitted as much. Repeatedly. Israel’s taking steps to avert this threat hardly amounts to a “treacherous trope” of “victimhood” that rightfully should be inverted; it is obscene for Mr. Cohen to suggest otherwise.

Oh, there is also this from New York's J Streeter, Talia Benamy (Ben-Ami anglicized?):

As a Zionist, I define being pro-Israel as working toward ensuring that Israel survives as a democratic, Jewish homeland. If there’s no shift in Israeli policy and in American Jewish efforts, I fear that the Israel I know and love will cease to exist. If Israel loses its democratic nature...

That harping on "Israel's democratic nature" is the euphemism the Left uses to imply, in a sinister fashion, its criticism of any political ideology that is not liberal/progressive and has nothing to do with the actual reality of Israel's democratic system, democratic culture, democratic institutions and democratic commitment.

Her approach a priori seeks to sow doubt, to cast aspersion.

That is a cardinal sin and it is a J Street fault line of negativity.

^

Freedom of Expression - A Secularist's Privilege?

Ilana Dayan got her day in court. And won. Despite bias, her documentary was approved under the right of a free press and free expression.

Observant and nationalist Jews wishing to pray on the Temple Mount still have a difficulty:

Police bar entry to Temple Mount for all non-Muslims, fearing incitement

Entry is closed following a statement by Likud member and Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) Chairman Moshe Feiglin that he plans to enter the Temple Mount on Sunday • Police: We will not allow any religious representative to make political use of the Temple Mount or Western Wall and will use all legal means to prevent it.

Jerusalem Police declared on Sunday that they will be barring entry to the Temple Mount to all non-Muslims, citing potential threats of incitement, according to Israel Radio. The announcement came after Moshe Feiglin, who serves as head of the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction in Likud and recently launched an unsuccessful challenge to Netanyahu’s role as party leader, said that he intended to go up to the Temple Mount on Sunday, something he claims to have done on the 19th of every Jewish month for the past 10 years.

...police said they will not allow any religious representative to use the Temple Mount or Western Wall for political means. The Temple Mount is one of Jerusalem’s most sensitive sites and has often been a flashpoint for tensions between Jews and Arabs...

Oh, don't forget:

High Court Rejects Temple Mount Faithful Petition

February 7th, 2012 - The High Court of Justice has rejected a petition from Temple Mount Faithful founder Gershon Solomon, explaining that while going onto the Mount and davening is a basic right, police and others have a right to limit and amend that right.

Court President Justice Dorit Beinish added that based on current realities, in this case security concerns, permitting him onto Har HaBayis may lead to violence and loss of life and as such, security officials are well within their right and responsibility in taking actions that seek to prevent a deterioration in the situation.

Israeli democracy.

^

Arabs Foil Hillary But Will EU Follow US?

Those Arabs.

Just when it looks good, and Hillary Clinton is really upset at Israel's supposed "democracy" faults, look what happens:

Egyptian security forces on Thursday raided the offices of 17 nongovernmental organizations, including three U.S.-based agencies, as part of a crackdown on foreign assistance that has drawn criticism from the West and threatened human rights groups and pro-democracy movements.

The move appeared to be part of a strategy to intimidate international organizations...The military's actions angered Washington at a time the White House is pressuring Egypt to respect civil liberties..."This action is inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we have had over many years," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at a news briefing after the raids. "We call on the Egyptian government to immediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolve this issue immediately."

And pay attention to the highlighted portion of the transcript:

QUESTION: What do you think this says more broadly about Egypt’s commitment to democracy?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, as you know, we believe that these NGOs are there to support the democratic process. Some of these are institutions that are supported by the United States Government, that work around the world in the interests of helping citizens realize their goals of democratic processes taking root in their country. And we have been very open and transparent with Egyptian authorities at all levels, particularly about the operating procedures and policies of NDI, IRI, and other international – other NGOs that we support. So we are very concerned, because this is not appropriate in the current environment.

I wonder: is the US open with Israel about its support, as well?

And if so, as it should be expected to be, will the EU follow suit and act the honorable way with transparency as regards their interventionist policies?

I'll ask NGO-Monitor.

^

Hillary Heaps On Israel

From Steve Plaut:-

...Hillary Clinton recently decided to speak out against the mistreatment of Middle Eastern women, she singled out Israel for condemnation, and then turned around to welcome a delegation of Saudi
feudalists with cordiality. If Hillary considers Israel a force of anti-feminine darkness and repression, just imagine how awful she must regard Scandinavia...

...The treatment of women in Arab and Moslem countries is so atrocious that space here would not allow for even a superficial survey. In the very same week that Iran announced that a woman convicted of adultery would be mercifully hanged to death instead of stoned to death, the Obama team could find nothing more deserving of condemnation than the treatment of women in the only country in the Middle East in which women are treated as humans deserving of equal rights.

^

Uri Avnery Blithely

In Haaretz:

In a column that you wrote, you draw a link between present-day legislation and the collapse of the Weimar republic.

"I was nine when the Nazis came to power, and as a child in a very political household I was very much aware of what happened. Especially when the child sees what is going on, in a very visual way: the uniforms, the parades, the music. So I know how the republic fell. I was aware of it, stage by stage, one small step followed by another small step, and then the whole thing collapsed. Collapsed because the public did not understand why it was important. The public did not summon up from within the emotional strength to oppose.

"When I see the first sign, that first red light goes on for me. I wake up a little earlier than the others. Others are waking up, too, but it takes time. At the beginning they said to us: How can you make a comparison to Nazi Germany? How could you even compare the two? So it doesn't have to be Nazi Germany, which truly was unique in human history ... It doesn't have to be Hitler - what about Mussolini? And if not Mussolini, how about Franco? Or Pinochet in Chile? Or the colonels in Greece? And if not any of these, how about Ceausescu, or Putin now? There are so many levels - from the very worst to the less worst, but each of them creates hell."

And where are we in the hierarchal ranking you described?

"We are past the first step. We are far from the last step, but in my opinion it is the first step that determines where it will head. The barricades have fallen...

However, consider this:

In 1941, Avnery wrote a pro-Nazi article in the Paris journal "Shem", whose contents were later revealed by the Hebrew University Orientalist Prof. Yehoshua Porat in his book "Shelach V'At B'yado", page 182. Herr Avnery was also fond of using the concept of "Hebrew Blood" in a racial sense, in the same way as Hitler spoke of German Aryan Blood. In those days he was anti-Marxist, although today has no problem with associating himself with Stalinists. Back then he repeatedly expressed admiration for the great job Hitler was doing in remolding and renewing the German nation. Avnery was an open admirer of Nazi propagandist Alfred Rosenberg, adopted the latter's rhetoric, and repeatedly declared that he saw himself as the Hebrew Alfred Rosenberg (which, in a sense, he is). Avnery ran a tiny "journal" called The Struggle, an obvious imitation of the name "Mein Kampf". He ran his own one-man party, whose official salute was a Nazi raised hand.

Avnery in those days advocated creation of a Semitic "race" that would lead the Middle East to greatness when combined with a new Hebraic non-Jewish culture. As such, he advocated the end of the Jewish people as a national entity and expansion of the new race into its "Semitic Lebensraum" (yes, he used that Nazi concept!). He later wrote of his dream for a new and better Hitler emerging, an anti-Nazi Hitler who will lead the struggle for peace and will promote the Palestinian cause (well, at least he got THAT part right!).

Avnery then left for Israel/Palestine.

^

This Is Incitement, Use It Judiciously, Mrs. Beinisch

Ever since 1995, the term "incitement" has taken center stage in the left-right divide in Israel's politics and and judicial considerations.

Incitement is a key buzz word that is employed to halt any robust discussion and it indicts, especially, the nationalist camp, religious or secular.

Even the President of the Supreme Court employs the language:

"This is a campaign of delegitimization led by a number of politicians, Knesset members and even cabinet ministers, who exploit their [parliamentary] immunity and give the general public false and misleading information that has deteriorated into incitement against the court, the justices and the judiciary's work," she said.

President Shimon Peres used it a month ago:

During an official memorial ceremony Tuesday night at the President's Residence, Peres honored Rabin and reflected on their relationship.

"We will never forget your walking down the road of hate and incitement, along a landscape of violence and provocation. You did not panic. You did not retreat. You did not stop your march," Peres said.

Haaretz's Akiva Eldar used it in a call to American Jewish leaders to intervene in Israel's democracy:

For several long months, the (mostly self-appointed ) "leaders" in the U.S. community have ignored the unbridled incitement launched by Israel against human rights organizations, the Supreme Court and the media.

Charges have recently been brought:

A-G orders incitement probe into Safed rabbi

Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein decided on Tuesday to open a criminal investigation against Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, chief rabbi of Safed, on suspicion of incitement to racism.

The investigation will be based on a number of statements Eliyahu made in reference to the Israeli-Arab community which were publicized by the media.

So, should we not try to ascertain what "incitement" is in a democracy other than Israel?

This is what is incitement in America:

State v. Turner, 2011 WL 4424754 (Conn. Super. September 6, 2011)

A Connecticut state court held that prosecuting a blogger for posting content online encouraging others to use violence did not violate the blogger’s First Amendment right to free speech.

Defendant was charged under a Connecticut statute prohibiting individuals from “inciting injury to persons or property.” Angry about a bill in the state General Assembly that would have removed financial oversight of Catholic parishes from priests and bishops, defendant posted the following statements to his blog:

•[T]he Founding Fathers gave us the tools necessary to resolve [this] tyranny: The Second Amendment
•[My organization] advocates Catholics in Connecticut take up arms and put down this tyranny by force. To that end, THIS WEDNESDAY NIGHT ON [my radio show], we will be releasing the home addresses of the Senator and Assemblyman who introduced bill 1098 as well as the home address of [a state ethics officer].
•These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die.
•If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they’re going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too

Defendant challenged the application of the state statute as unconstitutional. The court disagreed, finding there to be “little dispute that the defendant’s message explicitly advocate[ed] using violence.” Moreover, the court found the threatened violence to be “imminent and likely.” The blog content said that the home address of the legislators and government officials would be released the following day.

Though the court did not find that a substantial number of persons would actually take up arms, it did note, in a nod to 9/11, “the devastation that religious fanaticism can produce in this country.” As such, there was a sufficient basis to say that defendant’s vitriolic language had a substantial capacity to propel action to kill or injure a person.

Mrs. Beinisch, learn to use words judiciously.

For the law's sake, for Israel's democracy sake.


^

Oiy. New "Draconian" Media Law

No, not in Israel where "democracy is under assault" as Israel's Leftist forces and even Hillary Clinton would have you believe.

In Brazil, maybe?

You decide:-

Brazilian Senate approves bill that would require journalists to have a degree in journalism

After arguments from the National Federation of Journalists (Fenaj in Portuguese) and similar journalist groups, senators approved a bill to amend the Constitution that requires practicing journalists to have an advanced degree on Nov. 30, reported G1. The degree requirement was defeated by the Supreme Federal Court in June 2009. Despite Minister Gilmar Mendes' statement that any attempt to oblige degree requirements to practice journalism would be declared unconstitutional, the bill returned to the Brazilian Congress and easily passed the Brazilian House of Deputies and, now, the Senate. Fenaj President Celso Schroder was pleased by the vote. "This represented the Senate's desire to correct an historic error by the Court against the professional characterization of journalists," he said in a public statement on the group's website. The amendment still needs to pass a second plenary session in the Senate and return to the Chamber of Deputies...

Groups like the Inter American Press Association and the Brazilian Association of Journalists see the return of degree requirements as an attack on freedom of expression and free speech guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

Imagine that, legislating academic standards.

What were they thinking? That a journalist needs be trained, educated, sensitized? Have a broad, liberal arts background?Just because his reporting could, perhaps, defame an individual, libel him? Could bring down a government? Couild mislead you about economic issues?

Who do those legislators think they are?


Well, here's one, MK Tzipi Hotoveli of the Likud:-

...The fourth branch of government – the media – rushed to divide legislators into sons of light and sons of darkness, and to label each bill with a derogatory nickname reflecting its own views. Thus, the proposed amendment to the NGO law [which aims to limit funding to nongovernmental organizations] became the "law to dry up the left-wing NGOs," while the proposed amendment to the libel law became the "mouth-shutting law."

In this manner the media prevented any substantive discussion of these bills...Opposition leader Tzipi Livni went a step further and declared that Israel had swapped roles with Egypt – with Egypt moving toward democracy and Israel turning into a totalitarian regime.

More recently, the top echelon of the judiciary branch also joined this incitement campaign. First the state prosecutor said he would "hunt down" anyone who threatened the courts, then Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch gave an unprecedented speech criticizing both the executive and the legislative branches of government.

...This is not a case of the court overturning another law, this is a case of the court blocking public discourse. The judicial system has carried out a targeted assassination of any proposal it does not agree with...Criticizing and even defaming MKs, and particularly ministers...wild and dangerous incitement – no less dangerous than the legislation she is criticizing.

Seconds before fair and balanced discourse takes its leave of Israel forever, Israeli democracy must stand strong against the attack. In a democracy, one must always remember that it is not only the minority that has the right to voice its views, the majority is also allowed to weigh in on whether a bill is worthy or not.

^

Abusing Democracy

From a column by Lior Alperovitch

...It would not be an exaggeration to say that a majority of Israelis hold right-leaning views. The extensive representation of the right in the current coalition, which by the rules of democracy should accurately represent the people's range of views, proves this claim.

But a strange thing happened in Israel: though the Right was voted into power, the media and many non-parliamentary bodies expect it to abide by the values of the Left. Why? Because they believe the Israeli public is not smart enough to make political decisions, or because, as opposed to the select few in the Left, they have not been blessed by the wonderful light of enlightenment. As far as they are concerned, the Right is qualified only to flounder around in the darkness of their popular religion or their chilling conservatism – certainly not to govern. The Left sees itself as a moral watchtower, whose aim it is to correct the public's views, by force if necessary, or by use of outside assistance in the form of European funding.

The roots of this distorted view – prevalent in some Israeli political and media circles - can be found in the judicial activism revolution, which upgraded the legal system's status from a separate, independent branch that protected minorities, to a kind of legislative branch that can prevent the Knesset from passing laws it considers too right-leaning or too nationalistic.

There are also those who would attribute this calamity to the words of left-wing politician and pioneer Yitzhak Ben-Aharon. His disappointment over what he saw as the invalid election of Menachem Begin in 1977 led him to declare that "if this is the people's will, then the people should be replaced."

...it is clear that not everyone is happy with the fact that democracy can also benefit your political opponents.   Democracy being defined as majority rule does not mean the majority has a right to abuse the minority. But it also does not mean that as a protected sector, the minority can use its immunity to rule over the majority. In Israel, the left-wing minority aims to rule over the right-wing majority...

I'll agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that all the laws floating around now are smart or applicable.

The US has Senate review and consent. There is registration for Foreign Agent status. The average Israeli politician in legislative matters is just that - average.

^

The Case of the Missing Verb

From here:

The detentions and the raid on Yitzhar, where the office of Hakol Hayehudi is located, comes a day after the Internet news site published a document showing that the army does not want to let soldiers who live in settlements of plans to demolish structures in Jewish West Bank communities.

Let what?

Let 'know'? Let 'be privy'?

By the way, it's an interesting story.

See also background in English - here and here

Hebrew.

^

Deputy State Prosecutor Demonstration

Remember the Shai Nitzan poster?

Well, there was a demo tonight poutside his home, led by former Kahane adherents (Hebrew video here).

And INN reports that

Two people were detained for questioning Thursday evening

Earlier

Dozen's of demonstrators protested Thursday evening outside the home of Deputy State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan in the Ramot neighborhood of Jerusalem

Background.

^

The Anti-Shai Nitzan Poster

The story of this poster, calling Assistant State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan an "enemy of the Torah" is here. Moshe Feiglin's background comment is here. Other Rabbis' support here.

And here is the poster, photographed by yours truly:-

And the response?

Here:-

Leading Israeli intellectuals and Israel Prize laureates demanded the immediate firing of a top rabbi accused of supporting a book justifying the killing of non Jews on Saturday, urging the state to investigate him for his alleged role in the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

They never give up. Despite Justice Elyakim Rubinstein's full clearance, and his defense of free speech, they persist in their conspiratorial theories.

^

Israel Democracy in Action

See the highlighted part at the end:

A summary of yesterday's vigil that ended with the police brutally beating us up and arresting six participants. The video footage clearly shows the police violence. At the end of the summary you can click on different links to see the footage.

From Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar

--------------------------------

Continuing to Hike in Eretz Israel!

February 3, 2011

1) Thank G-d, all those from the trip in Gush Etzion who were arrested have been released. A great injustice was done them, by accusing them of manslaughter, when they acted in self-defense - and thanks to them the Arab rioters were unsuccessful in carrying out their plans.

2) Dozens of people participated in the protest vigil held yesterday in front of the Magistrates' Court, including hikers who come from throughout Israel to participate in these hikes and take possession of the land with their feet.

3) The speakers included Rabbi Yehudah Amihai, the head of the Torah and Land Institute and the father of Ahikam, may G-d avenge him, after whom and David Rubin, may G-d avenge him, these hikes are named; Rabbi Ya'acov Medan, the head of the Har Etzion Yeshivah; Rabbi Mordechai Rabinowitz, the rabbi of the Tiferet Yaakov congregation in Kokhav Yaakov; Boaz Haetzni; Dr. Nava Tavger; Alizah Said, the mother of David Said, one of those arrested; Danny Halamish, former Prisoner of Zion in Zion; Yisrael Bramson, member of the Kiryat Arba Local Council; Zvi Kedar, a resident of Kfar Sabah who was one of the hikers on Friday.

A letter to the Interior Minister by Knesset Members from the Eretz Israel Lobby was read in which they urge the minister to indict the Arab assailants, as was the letter by Shimon Kohen of Rehovot, another of the hikers.

All of the speakers praised the hikes and called for their continuation, the release of those arrested, and for bringing to trial the Arab rioters.

4) After about two hours during which a peaceful vigil was held, a group of police officers arrived, with a court order, claiming that the protest was to be dispersed. When the organizers requested an explanation about the puzzling order, and also attempted to photograph him and the officers, the police began using force and acting violently. Six were arrested, including two girls, two boys, an adult resident of Gush Etzion, and Nadia Matar from Women in Green.


Participants who continued to protest were brutally attacked and pushed, including Yehudit Katsover who was punched in the ribs and the back. In the wake of the arrests, a letter of strong protest was sent to the Minister of Internal Security.

5) In order to take full legal action against the unrestrained policemen who so brutally attacked the protest participants, we are collecting evidence. We ask all the participants in yesterday's protest to provide us, as quickly as possible, with all documentation: video recordings, still photographs, written testimonies to what you saw, and the like. We will not let this pass quietly.

6) We wish to thank all the protest participants who came. Once again, we learned that support and public involvement bear fruit. We thank Adv. Adi Kedar from the Honenu organization for immediately coming to the assistance of those arrested.

Leading Activist Violently Apprehended by Police at Protest

^

Is Israel Undemocratic?

On the issue of the investigation of left-wing groups in Israel, complaints are sounded off.

It's undemocratic.  It's fascism.

Is it?

Here's Evelyn Gordon's simple explanation:

...foreign governments fund left-wing NGOs exclusively. They don’t fund groups that, for instance, build Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. Hence, to investigate this issue, the Knesset has to focus on left-wing groups.

Simple, really.

Could it be the left is subversive?


^

But Can We Trust Them?

From Evelyn Gordon:

...finally, a contingent of Israel’s left has said “enough”: As Israelis, it’s our job to negotiate the best deal for Israel, not the Palestinians. And it’s our job to promote Israel’s positions overseas, not to besmirch our own country by promoting the Palestinian narrative.

Right now, it’s a small contingent — five of Labor’s 13 MKs — spearheaded by a widely disliked leader, Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Thus its capacity for growth is unclear. But it does give the government stability, as these five are enough to ensure its majority (especially since many of the others never voted with it anyway). So at least the government is now better positioned to fight the diplomatic battles ahead.

More important, however, five MKs from the heart of the left have openly challenged the leftist parties’ destructive behavior. And if their challenge catches on, it could revolutionize Israel’s diplomatic position. For while many of the reasons for Israel’s growing pariah status have nothing to do with Israel, the chorus of Israelis blaming the ongoing conflict entirely on Israel clearly plays a role. If additional swathes of the left started advocating for their own country rather than its adversaries, Israel could fight back much more effectively.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Barak and his allies. But in this effort, they deserve support from everyone who cares about Israel.

If only we could trust Israeli politicians to act for the benefit of the country.

A Jewish-Democratic State

Israel is defined by law as

the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state

On the background of the recent controversy whereby

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein on Thursday stated that his office would check if the behavior of state-employed rabbis, who signed a letter against renting to non-Jews, was "criminal."

...Forty-seven state-employed rabbis signed a statement, made public Tuesday, which quotes the halachic stance against renting or selling a house or plot of land to a non- Jew in Israel.

“In response to many people’s questions, we hereby reply that it is prohibited by the Torah to sell a house or a field in the Land of Israel to a gentile,” the letter begins before proceeding to quote Maimonides, the Shulhan Aruch and other sources. The letter notes the danger of intermarriage, the potential damage to the religious beliefs of Jewish neighbors who might be influenced by non-Jews, and the damage to the value of real estate in the area.

I wonder:

if the Rabbis' appeal is essentially a voluntary one, that is, no one is legislating a law of discrimination, and people are being requested to use their democratic choice and indeed, this is a Jewish issue, would this not be considered the epitome of a Jewish-democratic state?

Of course, there is also this:

Just in time for Christmas, religious leaders in the Holy Land want landlords to tell non-Jews there's no room at the inn

^