In the grand scheme of things, it’s probably not that big a deal. A right-wing government turns the screws on leftist human rights organizations in a small country that’s been running a police state for decades. But, this is Israel/Palestine so tanker-loads of ink have been spilled over a new law proposed in the Knesset. The law reminds many of Putin’s approach towards dissenters. Now, this in itself wouldn’t merit much attention if the targets of the law were Palestinians. But we can’t write this off as “necessary security measures” that might regrettably effect some “Arabs” since the groups being targeted are staffed by Israelis who don’t look obviously “Arab”.
Since 2011, NGOs (non-government organizations) in Israel have been required to disclose any funds received from foreign government agencies (Russia’s “Foreign Agents Law” dates to 2012). This month, the Knesset is set to vote on a bill requiring NGOs to list funding from “foreign political entities” whenever they issue a report of speak with a government official:
The New Israel Fund, which funds several groups that would be affected by the law, said Sunday in a statement that the bill “is a very precise imitation of the policies of Putin’s Russia and other authoritarian regimes clamping down on civil society.”
An earlier version of the bill would have required representatives of such organizations to wear special tags. After the ensuing uproar complete with images of yellow stars that read “Smolani” (leftist), it’s unclear whether the bill the Knesset will vote on shall have this stipulation. The impact of the new bill will largely be felt by left-leaning organizations. Right-wing organizations in Israel receive hundreds of millions in foreign funding, but it’s from individual donors and no similar disclosure is required there. The bill is also controversial for the involvement of the far-right organization Im Tirtzu in drafting it.
As [Likud MK Yoav] Kish told Channel 10 television late Saturday, "It's true that Im Tirtzu met with me, and they told me, 'We know you're submitting a bill like this. It's desirable that you use the word 'shtulim' [connoting a traitorous, foreign-directed, terrorist-friendly mole].”
“I did, indeed, make the change, from 'foreign agent.'"
In solidarity with this sentiment, Education Minister Naftali Bennett has barred Breaking the Silence from Israeli schools. The group collects testimonies for IDF soldiers and veterans regarding their service in the occupied territories. Their report on Operation Cast Lead (2009) revealed that IDF sponsored rabbis were delivering religious instructions to soldiers in the field that contradicted IDF policy. Their report on Operation Protective Edge brought many details about questionable, deadly actions by the IDF to light. The testimonies they collect from soldiers assigned to the West Bank and Gaza provide a valuable view into the banal brutality of an occupation.
All of this is of course makes them highly suspect in the mind of Naftali Bennett. Bennett, let us recall, ordered artillery units to shell a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon while serving in the IDF during 1996. 106 civilians sheltering there were killed. In 2013, Bennett was quoted as saying “I have killed lots of Arabs in my life — and there’s no problem with that.” He’s probably not the kind of IDF soldier who would testify to Breaking the SIlence.
In December 15th, Im Tirtzu released a video demonizing the heads of four left-leaning NGOs:
As a swarthy-looking man raises his arm to stab the viewer, the image freezes. “Before the next terrorist stabs you,” the narrator says, he already knows that this activist, a planted agent from Holland, will protect him from a Shin Bet interrogation; that activist, a plant from Germany, will call the soldier who tried to protect you a “war criminal;” yet another activist, planted by Norway, will protect him in court; and another, an EU agent, will call Israel a “war criminal.” The faces depicted are not foreign agents at all. They are Israeli staffers of four NGOs: the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Breaking the Silence, HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual and B’Tselem. And they are all named. "While we fight terror, they fight us," says the narrator.
Chemi Shalev calls this video a proto-fascist plot to destroy Israeli democracy. Carlo Strenger agrees and says the Israeli far-right isn’t Jewish, it’s totalitarian.
The Washington Post editorial board seems to have woken up and published an editorial titled A Danger to Israeli Democracy. It’s amusing to read their shock and disappointment at the Israeli government’s authoritarian tendencies. They seem to have selective amnesia over the intrusive surveillance state Israel runs in the West Bank and Gaza. But I guess that’s to be expected, since it’s been happening “over there” to “those people”. Of course, left-wing Israelis have known for some time that what was being done to Palestinians in the West Bank would eventually be done to them too.
While we’re talking about the Washington Post. Regular readers will have encountered Eugene Kontorovich’s unapologetic defense of Israel’s policies in the occupied territories on its Volokh blog. His bylines say he’s a professor at Northwestern, but it turns out he moved along with his family to a West Bank settlement two years ago. He testified at last year’s congressional hearing on BDS and has helped craft anti-BDS legislation in the US. Yedioth Ahronoth reported he had moved his family to Israel four years ago and identified him as a “lawfare bulwark”. Back then, in 2011, he was quoted as saying:
“Let’s say you are a human rights activist, and you want to express your positions but you don’t want to die for them. In this case, you’ll come to Israel, shout a little, they’ll interview you, you’ll give academic lectures, and you are successful, you will become a human rights celebrity in certain circles. If you try to do the same thing in Rabat, Morocco, that will be your last lecture. Israel is too soft on protesters and that makes them come here.”
That “softness” would come as news to the scores of Palestinian protesters killed by Israeli forces over the past three months. Or the fifteen thousand injured over the course of 2015. Or to all the protesters whose bones Yitzhak Rabin directed his forces to break during the First Intifada. But of course, they don’t count.
Zeev Sternhell writes in a vigorous defense of Breaking The Silence that the time has long past to condemn the actions of the Israeli army, and notes the Qibya reprisal killings led by Ariel Sharon in 1953 might have been the right time. Haaretz reports that a number of former generals in the IDF have rushed to defend Breaking the Silence:
“Breaking the Silence protects IDF soldiers in the impossible situation in which politicians have abandoned them," wrote Ayalon, a former commander of the Israel Navy, and Ron, who headed the northern district of the police during the events of October 2000 (in which 13 Israeli Arab demonstrators were killed by security forces). “The guidelines meant to silence the group are what damages and weakens the army,” they added.
The NY Times also gets in on the action, by publishing an Michael Sfard’s Op-Ed. He provides legal representation to Yesh Din and Breaking the Silence:
Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked deserves to own the copyright on branding human rights organizations as “agents of foreign governments.” For years, she has led a campaign to convince the Israeli public that such organizations are the long arm of foreign powers. [...]
Israel is turning into a “technical democracy,” a country that uses the twin hammers of legislation and incitement to strike down dissent. This environment has enabled hate speech against Israeli human rights defenders to flourish to the point that their safety is at risk.