Recently, the right wing Israeli group Im Tirtzu created a highly inflammatory video singling out leaders of four leading Israeli human rights groups as “plants” by foreign powers seeking to undermine the State of Israel and supporting terror attacks. The video has been widely condemned as incitement to violence against these individuals and their organizations. The Foundation for Middle East Peace quickly moved to support our Israeli colleagues, as did many other organizations.
The groups – B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Hamoked, and the Public Committee Against Torture In Israel – are among the many peace and human rights NGOs that are increasingly targeted by hateful rhetoric and even by anti-democratic legislation in the Knesset, much of which has been spurred by Im Tirtzu and their allies in the Likud and Jewish Home parties, the two largest parties in Israel’s governing coalition.
Still from Im Tirtzu’s video showing mock “files” on Israeli human rights leaders
Defenses of these human rights workers and condemnations of Im Tirtzu have come not only from the Israeli left and its supporters, but also from key officials in the Israeli government, military and intelligence communities.
Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog, to Netanyahu: “Take responsibility, tell Im Tirtzu that its video is beyond the ‘separation wall’ of what is acceptable in our democratic society… Stop those who stain your (Netanyahu’s) whole camp with hate.”
Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni: “I will oppose any attempt to paint people or entire communities as collaborators with the enemy.”
MK Zehava Gal-On, Chair of the Meretz Party: “This is an explicit call to action for these people’s blood. The public atmosphere of violence assisted in spreading this material like wildfire, and is further encouraged by politicians’ blazing hatred and populist appeals. I am afraid for their safety.”
Yuval Diskin, Former Director General of the Shin Bet: “[Israeli human rights groups] provide another, important mirror to our actions. Even if they can make us angry, even if they are sometimes inaccurate or not doing their jobs correctly – their contribution is very important.”
Amiram Levin, former IDF General and former Deputy Director of the Mossad: “’Breaking the Silence’ strengthens the IDF and its moral code…‘Breaking the Silence’ guards IDF soldiers in the impossible place in which politicians have abandoned them.”
Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet: “As a former soldier and commander of the army and who is today a private citizen who believes that the IDF is a moral army only when its fighters are reporting what they saw with their own eyes, I break the silence.”
J Street: “It is time for American Jewry to make its voice heard loudly and clearly. Whether we personally agree with the work of Breaking the Silence or the other NGOs targeted or not, we hope there can be near unanimous consensus across the political spectrum that [Im Tirtzu’s] behavior is outside the bounds of our community’s values and standards.”
The Anti-Defamation League: “Im Tirtzu’s highly disturbing video employs fear tactics to accuse Israeli human rights activists and organizations of being culpable in the ongoing wave of Palestinian terrorism. This is a form of incitement which clearly crosses over into hate speech.”
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “A particular concern is that the violent rhetoric doesn’t come only from the extremes, but is echoed by public figures, members of your government, and the media. That is why it is essential that you exercise your leadership to set the tone of civil discourse – preventing incitement and violence – regardless of any disagreements you may have with the views of the human rights NGOs. We have seen the horrors that occur when words of incitement turn to acts of violence; such incitement cannot go unchecked.”
Joint Statement of the Worldwide Conservative/Masorti Movement: “We must hold leaders and neighbors alike accountable for a society in which issues are debated based on facts, people are treated with respect regardless of their beliefs, and tolerance and acceptance drown out the noise of hate.”
New Israel Fund: “The new campaign by the extremist Im Tirtzu group, naming and inciting against four human rights leaders, is designed to further delegitimize the proper work of human rights organizations while endangering the personal safety of these leaders who are our friends and allies. Not for nothing did an Israeli judge deem Im Tirtzu to have “fascist attributes.”
Americans for Peace Now: “American Jewish leaders have, with good reason, long pointed to Israel’s vibrant civil society and freedom of speech as evidence of the robustness of Israeli democracy in an un-democratic region. Today, these same leaders must recognize that burgeoning attacks on Israeli progressive civil society are a threat to Israel’s democracy and feed the kind of extremism that has already led to attacks and the murder of an Israeli prime minister.”
T’Ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights: “This hateful rhetoric is all too reminiscent of the time when the walls of Jerusalem displayed posters of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin z”l in a Nazi uniform, and when crowds chanted “Death to Rabin” at rallies.”
B’Tselem USA: “This crude attempt to gin up support for silencing human rights activists by publicly attacking them for political gain is nothing short of sickening. This attack may come in Im Tirtzu’s voice but the hands are those of the current Israeli government.”
Ameinu and ARZA: “Im Tirtzu’s actions are a direct threat to Israel and a desecration of the Zionist Dream of Israel’s founders…this video adds to a growing culture of incitement within Israel and the Palestinian territories — one that is strengthened by divisive and irresponsible statements by government ministers and Members of the Knesset — which has already lead to violence…Im Tirtzu, the racist Lehava movement, the Tag Mechir (Price Tag) vigilantes and other foes of Israeli democracy must be denounced without reservation.”
Peace Now ad: “Whoever finances Im Tirtzu also supports Jewish terrorism”
Partners for Progressive Israel: “These are the tactics that resulted in the assassination of YItzhak Rabin twenty years ago; and these are the same tactics used by totalitarian parties of the right in Europe in the inter-war period in their successful campaigns to destroy democracy in Italy and Germany.”
Jewish Voice for Peace: “This video is just the latest, and perhaps most egregious, example of the climate of hate and violence directed at anyone who stands up for the rights of Palestinians.”
Foundation for Middle East Peace: “FMEP’s support for these groups is based on shared values of democracy, equality, and tolerance. Hateful attacks like the one launched by Im Tirzu undermine those values. The activists named in the video represent the best of an open, democratic civil society, something of which all Israelis should be proud, just as we at FMEP are proud to share in the common work of advancing human rights in our societies.”
Hagai El-Ad, Executive Director of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: “I’m not afraid of Im Tirtzu. I’m afraid of the occupation, of indifference to injustice, sanctimoniousness and passing shock.”
HaMoked: The Center for the Defense of the Individual: “There can be no doubt that this campaign which targets private individuals falls outside the protection of freedom of speech. It constitutes unbridled incitement and dangerous provocation that put at risk the personal wellbeing and safety of the organizations’ employees who “star” in it.”
Yair Lapid, Israel’s former Finance Minister, told a hawkish “pro-Israel” gathering in New York that the leaders of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement (BDS) are anti-Semites and their followers are “bleeding heart, so-called intellectuals.” Lapid went on to say that European citizens and American students “…are cheering for the people and values that brought 9/11 to this country. You are supporting people that kill gays and suppress women.”
Mutual Demonization
Lapid is far from alone in elevating the movement to a threat on par with Israeli descriptions of Iran. Whether it was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu placing a high-ranking Likud Member of the Knesset in charge of battling BDS or grandstanding on the issue by prominent members of Congress, the “threat” of BDS has never seemed greater.
The hyperbole around the issue has never been greater either. All of it is transparently overblown to anyone who actually knows the various players in this game. The BDS movement is not made up, as Netanyahu’s Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked stated, of radical Islamists, anti-Semites and naïve fellow travelers.
I have known many BDS leaders for many years, as I have also known many of my fellow two-state supporters. I understand their motivations. I disagree often with BDS leaders, but I have never known most of them to wish for violence of any kind, express support for al-Qaeda or ISIL, or express animosity towards Jews as Jews. Many of these folks are, indeed, anti-Zionists, and support a single democratic state in all of what they call “historic Palestine.” I disagree with them on that point, but my disagreement does not mean they hate me, or I them.
That doesn’t mean there are no anti-Semites in the BDS movement. Any pro-Palestinian movement is naturally going to attract those who wish to hide their anti-Semitic agenda under a more acceptable cloak. This small minority within their ranks does not define them.
Unintended Consequences
Israelis, and too many of its supporters, continue to bury their head in the sand about Israel’s diminishing standing in the world. The blame is on Palestinian public relations, the reach of the BDS movement, global anti-Semitism, or their own failure to adequately explain their position to the world. The one thing it never is, according to the Netanyahu government and too many “pro-Israel” groups around the world is Israeli policy.
Part of avoiding the policy debate is presenting Israel as a country constantly facing imminent destruction. While Israel faces very real threats to its citizens, it has not faced an existential threat in a very long time. Iran has never been that, as many Israeli security experts have confirmed. If a deal limiting its nuclear program is finalized, the world is unlikely to buy Israeli complaints that Iran could ever “wipe Israel off the map.” So, BDS is being primed for the role of menacing villain.
For their part, the BDS movement seems to be feeding eagerly on Israeli public relations. Despite having had no discernible impact on Israel’s economy or its determination to maintain its occupation, they are trumpeting their success.
One can understand this, of course. Bibi needs the perception of an existential threat to bolster his politics of fear, while the BDS movement, a grassroots movement with little financial backing, needs to demonstrate its own effectiveness. These tactics, however, are damaging hopes of progress toward a resolution of this vexing conflict.
By avoiding moves to end its 48-year old occupation and exaggerating the BDS threat, Israel is actually proving that only substantive pressure will convince it to end the occupation. This is a point on which the BDS movement and I agree; I have argued for decades that the biggest obstacle to ending the occupation is that Israel, in this regard a country like any other, is expected to take what it perceives as a huge risk without any pressure. The occupation’s 
costs are largely covered by the European Union, United States and some Arab states, and despite the terrorist attacks Israel still occasionally endures, almost exclusively in the form of sporadic rocket fire from Gaza, the Palestinians have few means to pressure Israel. This is the logic behind the PLO’s international campaign, which must be understood as distinct from BDS.
Israel is running other risks as well. By conflating so many actors and actions with BDS tactics and movements, it risks galvanizing a much harsher opposition than it has seen in the past. Domestically, this false image of BDS is already being used to push the right wing’s assault on democracy even further, while reinforcing the Israeli sense that the “whole world is against us.”
The Effect of BDS
The fact is that any effect BDS has had on Israel’s economy is imperceptible. The economic issues Israel faces have no connection to any drop in exports or loss of investment. That does not mean it never will, but it does mean that the hysteria about BDS is way out of proportion with its impact to date. So, we are left with the most right-wing government in Israeli history governing a country whose citizens, even the majority that still supports a two-state solution, believe that ending the occupation carries major security risks. That is a country that will not change its policies absent significant pressure.
If we accept that self-evident fact, we confront the fact that many people and groups who do not wish to be associated with the BDS movement, its leadership and some of its specific goals have for years avoided any sort of organized economic action against Israel’s occupation. While one can hardly blame the BDS movement for this (in no way have they acted to prevent more moderate groups from taking actions aimed strictly at the occupation), it is an unintended consequence of their activities.
Netanyahu has taken full advantage of the political void this opens up. When the European Union wants to enforce existing laws that distinguish between products made in Israel and those from the settlements, it is considered a “sanction” against Israel; i.e. the “S” in BDS. As a result, liberal Zionist, centrist and many progressive groups avoid any hint of economic action against the occupation.
Groups like Americans for Peace Now (APN), one of the very few who are standing up to call for boycotting settlement products, are not getting the support they need. Yet the few instances of divestment or refusal to do business in the West Bank (most of which were not attributed to the BDS movement by the organizations that took such actions, some of whom even explicitly stated that they were not acting as part of that movement) have all been firmly rooted in opposition to the occupation. They have not been connected to the other conditions of the BDS movement’s call to action, regarding Palestinian citizens of Israel and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
The Need for Economic Action
It is unfair, however, to expect the BDS movement to abandon its tactics because they are being used to scare more moderate peace groups away from action. Instead, it is the responsibility of moderates, two-state solution supporters and those who support Israel but loathe the occupation to stand up for our beliefs. Let the BDS movement do what it is doing. If you are really worried that BDS will “de-legitimize” Israel with rhetoric, then counter it with a principled, pro-Israel stand for Palestinian rights and statehood and an end to the occupation.
The distinction that Netanyahu and his cohorts in AIPAC and in Congress are trying to blur must be sharpened instead. The settlements are not Israel. They are an immoral and illegal enterprise that should not be supported — through tax dollars, investment or purchases. From such a position, classifying corporations that are profiting from the occupation, especially American ones as “socially irresponsible” can be supported on a pro-Israel basis. From that position, groups can stand up for Israel and support Israelis who are working to end the occupation, and combat the discrimination against Arabs that has become so bitter in recent years.
That is also a pro-Israel position from which Americans can demand that our government name the settlements the illegal enterprise they are, and treat them accordingly. It is a position from which one can promote a secure Israel within the Green Line that can, at long last, find some peace in that tumultuous region. It just has to stop denying millions of Palestinians their basic rights and any hope for the future. That, not Netanyahu’s demagoguery, is truly pro-Israel.
The shell game is a tried-and-true method of persuading people to give their money to the person running the game. In political terms, it’s also a reliable method of persuading people to buy into the political stance of the man running the game.
Elliott Abrams is a master of the shell game. He provides what seems like a serious and sober analysis, with just enough cherry-picking of facts and omission of detail to convince you of his point of view. That is a big reason why this man, who is responsible for some of the greatest foreign policy fiascos in American history, continues to be considered a legitimate source for foreign policy analysis.
Perhaps it’s not surprising. Despite the enormous catastrophes brought on by the neoconservative school of thought of which Abrams is a part, the philosophy, such as it is, continues to be an influential voice in the foreign policy debate in the United States. This is, however, even more reason to look at an apparent change of course from Abrams with a skeptical eye. Read more at LobeLog