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.”
Based on the current polls, it is unlikely that the left and center in Israel will be capable of forming the next government after the National election in March. It appears that Labor Leader Isaac Herzog and his partner, Tzipi Livni realize this and have set their sights on something less: a “national unity government” featuring a rotation in leadership between current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Herzog.
MK Haneen Zouabi
The cruel fact is that “the Zionist Camp” (the name taken for the joint ticket between Labor and Livni’s small HaTnuah party) and the left-wing Meretz party are just too far from the 60 Knesset seats required to form a government to seriously entertain the possibility of an actual victory. That is the case even if they would agree to include and could persuade the United Arab List (with a projected 12 seats in the Knesset) to join their coalition.
Dramatic evidence for this calculation by Herzog and Livni is their declaration of support for barring Arab Knesset Member Haneen Zoabi from running for national office. By joining the Likud in this tactic, the Zionist Camp seeks to position itself as eligible for sharing power with Netanyahu’s party. That may make short-term political sense for the leaders of the “main opposition party.”
But, it is a move that exposes the realities that politics in the “Jewish state” imposes on Jewish moderates. It appears certain, and it appears that Herzog and Livni know this, that in the kind of political arena currently constituted by the State of Israel no governing coalition in Palestine/Israel can arise which is capable of addressing the Jewish-Palestinian problem.
Demographic and cultural changes have transformed the Jewish electorate in Israel into a polity incapable of producing a left or even center-left government. The current election campaign shows that the painful implications of this state of affairs have not yet been absorbed by the remains of what used to be called “beautiful Israel.” To do so would mean recognizing that any serious strategy for bringing Jewish moderates back into power will require an alliance with non-Jews, campaigns to achieve extremely high turnout rates by non-Jews, and even extension of political rights to Arabs in East Jerusalem (perhaps to Arabs in the rest of the West Bank). Support for Zoabi’s political ostracism slams the door in the face of that strategy. At best it delays real movement toward it and at worst indicates a fundamental refusal to face the country’s deepest challenges and the realities that produce them. One of those realities is the impossibility that the country will once again ever be governed by an Ashkenazi-liberal dominated, Jewish-only, coalition.
Two instructive comparisons come to mind, one with the United States and one with France. Compared to Arabs in Israel, who comprise 15% of eligible voters, African Americans make up only 12% of the American electorate. Yet, elections in the United States have come to turn on African American participation. On average, Republican Presidential candidates receive about 57% of the white vote. Indeed, it is agreed among all observers that without a strong turnout by African Americans, Democrats simply cannot win Presidential elections in the United States. That they have done so repeatedly in recent years (including winning the popular vote in the disputed 2000 election) when African American turnout has been high, while suffering severe setbacks in off-year congressional elections (when that turnout has been low), proves the point.
Perhaps a better, though less well known, comparison is the predicament of the Socialist government of Guy Mollet in France in early 1956. The Socialists were already aware of the disastrousness of the war in Algeria. In January 1956, Mollet outlined a “Republican Coalition” that would include supporters of Pierre Mendez-France and other advocates of French withdrawal from Algeria—a coalition that would save the Fourth Republic by extricating France from the mess in Algeria forced upon the country by an alliance among right-wing and ultranationalist parties, settlers, and key elements in the military. But Mollet’s plan failed. He could not achieve a stable majority without allying with the Communists, who controlled a significant portion of the French legislature. Mollet refused to risk his “anti-communist” credentials by allowing communists in his coalition. Instead he turned to the equivalent of a “national unity government,” thereby winning power. But by joining with the right on a platform of Algerie Française, he prolonged the war, and, ultimately, destroyed the Fourth Republic. Whether the Fourth Republic could have been saved is unclear but by refusing to ally with the communists on the fateful question of staying in or leaving Algeria, Mollet sealed its doom.
There is a saying in politics—that it makes strange bedfellows. Usually that shows itself by the appearance of unexpected and even unprecedented alliances. But sometimes it shows itself by the fate of those who defy it. By refusing to face the newness of the world that must be made, the leaders of the “Zionist Camp” are deepening the crisis of the world as it is.
Professor Ian Lustick is the Bess W. Heyman Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a past president of the Politics and History Section of the American Political Science Association and of the Association for Israel Studies, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.