Washington Post: McCarthyism as News Coverage

Eric Rozenman
CAMERA Media Analysis
28 January '11

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1986

Often Arab-Israeli news coverage, including that of The Washington Post, calls for constructive criticism. Occasionally, however, an article or broadcast demands exposure, not a critique. Such is the case with “Israeli human rights groups decry effort to probe funding,” a January 20 report by Joel Greenberg, a special correspondent for The Post.

The report leans so far it nearly overturns. It quotes an opponent of a proposal before Israel’s Knesset (parliament) to make funding of anti-government NGOs (non-governmental organizations) more transparent. He says the measure “smacks of McCarthyism.” And The Post uses the “McCarthyist” charge in its own paraphrase of critics. Yet, relying on often loaded or evasive language and on a narrow range of sources, the article itself could be termed McCarthyite — after U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s (R-Wis.) tactic in the late 1940s and early ’50s of tarring alleged subversives as communists or fellow travelers.

The Post ostensibly covers a call by the Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Is Our Home) Party for an investigation of funding of “local human rights organizations.” The dispatch terms Yisrael Beiteinu a “far-right party.” Only two “human rights organizations” are identified by name. One is B’tselem, identified as “a leading rights group” when context would indicate it is an anti-settlement, pro-Palestinian if not anti-government organization. The other is the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which is not otherwise identified. This implies that ACRI is what its name suggests, rather than another anti-government organization that sometimes parrots the charges of Israel’s adversaries.

NGO-Monitor, an Israeli organization founded by Bar-Ilan University Prof. Gerald Steinberg, has found that, among other things, B’tselem’s executive director has alleged that “in some cases, the situation in the West Bank is worse than apartheid in South Africa.” The group has minimized Israeli security concerns, misrepresented international law and relied on erroneous statistics. A staff member was forced to resign after claiming Israel demonstrated “devotion to Nazi tactics.” B’tselem’s board chairman called for international sanctions against Israel and supported the so-called Palestinian “right of return.”

CAMERA has highlighted B’tselem’s repeated statistical falsifications and noted its reliance on European funding, for example, “UPDATED: In 2007, B’tselem’s Casualty Count Doesn’t Add Up,” Nov. 2, 2008. There also is B’tselem’s tendency to doubt official Israeli claims while accepting without corroboration Palestinian charges. This skepticism extended, for example, to the military’s claim, supported by videotape, that its commandoes boarding the Gaza Strip blockade runner, Mavi Marmara, were attacked by passengers.

Regarding the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, NGO-Monitor found, for example, that the group’s September, 2010 report on Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem, was “based almost exclusively on Palestinian ‘testimony’” that could not be verified independently. The “‘testimony’ is clearly designed to promote the desired political conclusions .... and reinforces the artificial image and ideology of Palestinian victimization.”

NGO-Monitor adds that the association “report repeats tendentious terminology used by political organizations, such as the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department,” including the phrase “Judaize,” which “erases the intense Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem and suggests that the very presence of Jews is alien and unacceptable .... While it is perhaps not surprising that the PLO would employ such terminology, it is immoral for human rights organizations to use phrases supporting ethnically-based exclusion.”

But wait, there’s more

ACRI is Impervious to Rational Discussion

Yaacov Lozowick
Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
02 January '10

Here's a typical story about the mindset of Israel's radical Left these days.

Last week a court in Ramleh sentenced Nuri el-Aukbi to seven months in jail for operating a business in Lod without legal permits. So far as I can see from the conviction, this is at least the third time since 2003 that el-Aukbi has been convicted for the same thing; each time the court orders him to shut down his business he not only refuses to comply, he builds additional structures onto the ones he's been ordered to shut down. A fine and upstanding citizen.

Ah, but there's a snag. In addition to being a serial offender against zoning and business-license laws, el-Aukbi is an activist in support of Bedouin rights in the Negev, some of which touch upon... laws of zoning and licenses. At his most recent trial, el-Aukbi or his lawyers seemed to think this should be a mitigating condition, and suggested the court be lenient since in other, unrelated matters, he's engaged in important things.

The court didn't oblige. On the contrary, when handing down his sentence, Judge Yemini noted that a social activist who speaks in the name of human rights and rule of law, ought to be careful he himself is above reproach in these matters. El-Aukbi, sadly, isn't. Rather the opposite. And note that the court was responding to a line of argumentation that had been presented to him, not initiating the discussion.

(Read full "ACRI is Impervious to Rational Discussion")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israel’s Left: Swearing Allegiance to Constitution Is ‘Fascist’

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
11 October '10

If there were an annual award for hypocrisy, the Israeli leftists now protesting a proposed amendment to the Citizenship Law would surely have this year’s title sewed up. The rhetoric has been utterly over the top: the Association for Civil Rights in Israel called the amendment “anti-democratic”; author Sefi Rachlevsky termed it “fascist”; Prof. Gavriel Solomon even compared it to the Nazis’ Nuremberg Laws.

Here are the actual facts. The amendment would require naturalized citizens, who are currently required to take an oath of allegiance only to the State of Israel, to instead swear allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” That phrase first entered the law books in 1992, when two new Basic Laws on human rights defined the country as a “Jewish and democratic state.”

According to both Israel’s Supreme Court and to all the leftists now vigorously protesting the proposed amendment, the 1992 Basic Laws are part of Israel’s constitution: they supersede all ordinary legislation, and the Supreme Court has the right to overturn ordinary legislation that it deems in contravention of the Basic Laws. Indeed, the only people who challenge the Basic Laws’ constitutional status are conservatives, who argue that laws passed by less than a quarter of the Knesset do not meet the minimal procedural requirements for constitutional legislation.

But if you assume, as the entire left does, that these laws are part of Israel’s constitution, then the proposed amendment does nothing more than require naturalized citizens to swear allegiance to Israel’s constitution.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The new pioneers

An exclusive interview with Yuval and Tamar Marcus, residents of Shimon Hatzadik in Sheikh Jarrah.


Peggy Cidor
In Jerusalem/JPost
05 February '10

For the past few weeks, the small Sheikh Jarrah playground (built through a grant by the Jerusalem Foundation) on Nablus Road, facing the entrance to the Shimon Hatzadik Cave, has become the stage for a weekly demonstration held by a wide range of left-wing activists and human rights organizations. On Friday afternoons, largely radical groups gather on the right side of the street. On the opposite side stands an ever-growing group of policemen. In between, whether driving or walking to the nearby mosque, Arab residents stare at the two groups with a glint of cynicism but mostly with indifference. The demonstration is a protest against the ongoing establishment of Jewish families in the neighborhood, which is considered a major obstacle to the division of Jerusalem in eventual negotiations.

Two weeks ago, the police arrested more than 20 of the Jewish demonstrators, among them Hagai El-Ad, executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and former head of the Open House. For many, that was considered crossing a red line by the police. As a result, the following week a much larger group – more than 300 people – turned up to show their support for the demonstrators, as well as their anger at what they consider a harsh attitude toward them by the police. Slogans, catcalls, placards and, as of this week, a group of drummers are turning the Friday demonstrations at Sheikh Jarrah into a new tradition.



During all this time the Jewish residents of the neighborhood, those who raised the ire of the protesters in the first place, have not been seen or registered any reaction, even though some of the slogans and placards are directed at them, such as “Settlers = Thieves.” In fact, not one of the 17 families installed in the tiny neighborhood situated between the commemorative stone for the victims of the Hadassah convoy during the War of Independence on the upper side of the street and the mosque near the American Colony hotel – three compounds of houses in all – ever show up, even speak to the media or express their position in any way.

For the past 10 years, since Jewish residents first began to move into the neighborhood, few have agreed to speak to the press. But this week, Yuval Marcus and his wife, Tamar, opened their home to In Jerusalem and agreed to talk about how it feels to live in an Arab neighborhood (“We feel rather secure here”), how they feel about the ever-growing demonstrations on Fridays (“We are not so aware of them”) and to say a few things about their connection to the Land and how they understand the term “pioneers” today.

How long have you been living here?

Yuval: We’ve been here for four and a half years. We arrived here as a young couple, and our two children were born here. We are both from here, Jerusalem.

What brought you to live here?

Yuval: It’s a simple ideological decision. We both strongly believe that settling in Jerusalem is something essential for Am Yisrael [the Jewish people]. We came here because it is crucial for our sovereignty over Jerusalem. After 1967, this area was totally devoid of Jews, and it is crucial to create a continuity of Jewish presence here. It is important on a national Jewish level, much more than personal consideration. And thus, though I am not happy about Arab families evacuated and living in the streets [though they built here without permits], this seems to me much more important.

(Read full interview)

Related: The Sheikh Jarrah-Shimon HaTzadik Neighborhood - The U.S.-Israeli Dispute over Building in Jerusalem
.

It's the Repression, Stupid

Yaacov Lozowick
Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
28 December 09

The Observer section of the Guardian website offers an innovative way to spin the weekend's story of violence in the West Bank. It starts just as you'd expect it to: Israel is shooting Palestinians, jeopardizing the cease fire and generally being its usual vicious self. Yes, there's a quick mention that the Israeli action in Nablus might be connected to the shooting of a settler, but the journalist races by that point in the fourth paragraph and never returns.

Then the fun begins. 14 of 20 paragraphs of the item report how Israel is clamping own on its own human rights organizations.

The shootings have come as Israeli human rights campaigners issued a stinging critique of how Israelis who opposed the war in Gaza have been treated by the state, claiming that they have been silenced, accused and vilified. In its annual report, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel states: "Instead of taking an honest look at its reflection, Israeli society and its institutions chose to smash the mirror."

I sometimes try to keep my language reasonable and civil. This line of argumentation, however, is so far beyond idiocy, that it can't be fudged. First, note that there's no news in the item: all the allegations are months old, and the threats of the politicians never led to any action, as any reasonable observer would have known in advance. Second, all these organizations (there are many dozens of them) have websites where they purvey their bile in English, even though the Israelis they're trying to educate prefer Hebrew; none of the websites is or has ever been censored in any way, nor could it be. Every one of these organizations can be found in the phone book (or its online version), and you can call them up, make an appointment and go visit them. They don't hide their addresses, as the Samizsdat publishers of the communist world once did. They routinely publish their opinions in the media....

(Read full post)
.

Who's afraid of NGO Monitor?

Naftali Balanson
Right of Reply/JPost
02 December 09

The primary role of civil society is to "give voice" to ordinary citizens and ensure that government officials hear from those most affected by their decisions. The ability of citizens to inform public policy is the hallmark of any democracy, including Israel. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can be at the vanguard of democracy and pluralism, promoting the values of free and open debate.

Therefore, it was striking that some of the most prominent Israeli NGOs boycotted the December 1st Knesset conference on "Foreign Government Funding for NGO Political Activity in Israel." The agenda included the political, diplomatic and legal issues raised by the phenomenon of NGOs which receive tens of millions of shekels from foreign governments, often without the knowledge of the Israeli government and public. Legislative proposals were also considered.

Minister Michael Eitan and MK Zeev Elkin invited officials from Israeli NGOs to speak at the conference, in order to include representation from groups that would be affected by future legislation. B'Tselem, the Association for Civil Right in Israel (ACRI), and Adalah receive millions in European government support. These NGOs have a vested interest in making their voices heard, and they were given an open platform.

But they refused to attend. Instead, NGOs and their allies initiated a campaign to delegitimize the conference and silence its organizers. They pressed MKs like Daniel Ben-Simon to cancel participation in the event, and wrote angry op-eds in The Jerusalem Post (David Newman) and Ha'aretz (Didi Remez). Reflecting the pervasive secrecy and lack of full disclosure, Remez did not reveal that he works for Ben-Or Communications. In this role, he has a direct and personal interest in many of the organizations he was defending: the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Bimkom, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), and Yesh Din.

These over-the-top reactions and silencing of critics reflect the "democracy deficit" and secretive nature of human rights NGOs in general. This trend is more pronounced among Israeli groups that rely heavily on foreign government funding.

(Read full article)
.