“Isn’t the Talmud about the art of listening? The main principle is ‘come and listen.’ Listening means always understanding the views of others,” Wiesel said. “To study Talmud is to study values and principles, to study the art of studying. Studying implies memory and respect for the other, what to say to others, especially those who disagree.”

No related posts.

A heated debate has taken place in the last few decades on the definition of what is a true democracy. While democracy has traditionally been seen solely as the implementation of majority rule, a new definition has risen among academics who were unhappy of the results of democratic decisions.

“A democracy of the majority alone that is not accompanied by a democracy of values is but a formal, statistical democracy. True democracy limits the power of the majority in order to protect society‘s values.” (Chief Justice Aharon Barak in the famed Bank Mizrahi case)

With these few sentences, Justice Barak redefined Israeli democracy from that of majority rule to that of a society ruled by “proper values”. Of course, what Justice Barak failed to clarify who would be responsible for deciding what values deserve protection. A deeper look at Barak’s philosophy gives us a clear answer: the decisions are made by a small group of homogenous academics sitting in a body called the High Court of Justice. This small group of intellectuals have more legitimacy, according to Barak, than the majority of Israelis to decide what values are proper for the State of Israel.

The elitist coterie of Supreme Court judges is but one example of how unrepresentative the State of Israel’s main institutions have become. It is well known in Israel that the media is highly tilted to the left. Haaretz, for example, is considered the most influential newspaper in Israel (Rebecca L. Torstrick. Culture and Customs of Israel). Yet, Haaretz has been accused of clear bias for the opinions of its small elite of journalists and editors, with few dissenting voices ever appearing on its pages. Its readership is far from representative of the Israeli public, as most are wealthy Ashkenazim. Israeli author Irit Linur has even canceled her subscription, accusing Haaretz of an anti-Zionism that turns too often to “foolish” journalism. While Haaretz is an extreme example of the media’s bias, its influence is unmatched by any other newspaper and is the most read newspaper by decision-makers. Therefore, in Israel, a small elite is writing the newspaper that is influencing decision makers.

In the last year, much has been said about the high level of bias in Israeli universities. Reports by Im Tirtzu and the Institute of Zionist Strategies have shown that Israeli universities and professors tend to skew towards post-Zionist and anti-Zionist views. While much noise has been made about Im Tritzu’s alleged McCarthyism, no one in the academia bothered denying the accusations made by the organization. Once again, we see that an essential and influential institution in Israel is being run by a small, elitist minority.

Finally, in Israel, many organizations calling themselves human rights organizations, funded by European countries, have put all their energies in the de-legitimization of Israel. Instead of protecting the legitimate human rights of Israelis, Palestinians and all other human beings, those organizations have constantly attacked the State of Israel, fought against its right to defend itself, and often even questioned the very legitimacy of the existence of the Jewish State.

When the courts (and the very definition of democracy), the media, human rights organizations and the academia is all run by a small minority that does not represent the majority opinion, it is only natural that the majority stands up and demands to re-take control over these institutions.

This year was transformative for Israeli democracy.

This year, the nation of Israel rejected Justice Barak’s vision of democracy and decided to take its fate back in its hands. Through campaigns by organizations like Im Tirtzu, NGO Monitor and various other organizations, Israelis rejected the values of the minority elites who’ve never represented them and demanded that the power centers of Israeli society be returned to the Nation.

Unbiased news started appearing both through online technologies and blogs, as well as the growth of more representatives competing newspapers. Human rights organizations were put to task and a law was passed which will require those organizations to provide full transparency. The academia has been served a serious message when, for the first time ever, individuals started requesting that the bias be stopped and that all opinions be given equal treatment in academic discourses. Democracy has moved once again: It has left the hands of the small and unrepresentative elites and is slowly returning to the nation.

Of course, this change has created a lot of opposition. Every time transparency was required from these small elite, they argued that this request for transparency is undemocratic. Instead of admitting that this is a fight between the right of the nation to decide its own fate, and a small elite that does not want to lose its power.

Surprisingly, and to their credit, Tamar Hermann and David Newman (“Israel’s democratic veneer”) properly diagnosed the cause for the current struggle in Israel. They properly defined this struggle as a struggle between the sectors which have been left out of the decision making process and the small elite which has decided for them. However, instead of welcoming the fact that those sectors are finally speaking up, they are worried of the consequences of such a trend. Yes, they, like Justice Barak, do not trust the majority.

They describe their fears from the rule of a majority which is formed of, amongst other people, the Hareidim, Mizrachi Jews, Religious Zionists, and Russian immigrants. As a proud Mizrachi (Moroccan) Religious Zionist Jew, who also respects the human rights of Russian immigrants and Hareidim, I am not only insulted at the insinuation that our right to speak challenges the democratic ethos of the State of Israel, but I am also worried that unless we give these groups the right to express themselves and to be part of the decision making process, Israel will stop being a true representative democracy with majority rule.

My answer to Hermann and Newman is simple: Do not be afraid of true democracy. Yes, the elites will change, but Hareidim, Mirazchi Jews, Religious Zionists and Russian immigrants are also allowed to have a say as to the nature of the State of Israel. If we truly seek to have a democracy that reflects all of our views, we must help them get their voice heard and help the State of Israel decide its fate through democratic means, through elections which allow for majority rule, and not through the forced rule of self-appointed elites.

Dan Illouz is the former Overseas Communications Coordinator for Im Tirtzu. He currently blogs at http://www.danillouz.com

Related posts:

1. How Israeli Critics are Hurting International Law
2. True Academic Freedom
3. Democracy in Iran or Regional War

Academic freedom is an essential component of the mission of the academy. Scholars should be able to hold political positions without fearing repression. This is precisely the principle that guided Im Tirtzu’s recent efforts to fight the silencing of Zionist opinions in Israeli academia. Unfortunately, these efforts were met with misinformation, McCarthyism and outright lies. As is often the case when Zionism is attacked, the victims have been portrayed as aggressors while the aggressors were portrayed as victims.

Several months ago, at the request of the Knesset Education Committee, Im Tirtzu published a report revealing frightening information about academia. The report recorded testimonies from students who complained about a strong anti-Zionist bias in universities. Those students also testified about instances in which professors used intimidation and threats to silence Zionist views. Im Tirtzu demanded action be taken to defend the freedom of speech of Zionist students.

As Im Tirtzu demanded the right to free speech for all, the post-Zionist sectors of the academic world accused it of denying their free speech. However, freedom of speech does not include freedom to silence other opinions. In an effort to silence Im Tirtzu, its opponents accused it of McCarthyism and thought policing.

In reality, the whole purpose of Im Tirtzu’s efforts was to remove thought policing from Israel’s academic world.

Im Tirtzu is not the only organization to have dealt with this issue. Over the past few years, Israel Academia Monitor has monitored the anti-Zionist behavior of Israeli academia, building a database of testimonies on-line. NGO Monitor researched the dependency of academics on foreign donors who often hold anti-Israel views.

Most recently, the Institute for Zionist Strategies published a report on post-Zionism in academia that confirmed Im Tirtzu’s findings.

The reaction to all of those reports was identical. Academia didn’t deny the findings. Rather, it focused on accusing these groups of intimidating professors who hold different views.

Of course, the only intimidation practiced was the publication of wellresearched facts that post-Zionist academics did not want published. If those facts were questionable, those who disagree with them could openly rebut them.

Instead, they tried to intimidate the authors of those reports by claiming that their factual reports were a form of intimidation.

LAST WEEK, the story developed further. According to Im Tirtzu’s research, Ben-Gurion University’s Political Science Department is not only homogeneously anti-Zionist, it is also the source of the silencing of Zionist students. As such, Im Tirtzu found it fair to inform donors to the university.

Donors to Israeli universities often find their donation to be an act of Zionism. Helping academic institutions in Israel helps Zionism. Im Tirtzu believed many of those donors would be shocked and dismayed at the findings published in the report. They would feel their donations have become counterproductive. It is the right of those donors to be informed of the situation in the university; a donor is allowed to know where his money goes. Therefore, Im Tirtzu was ready to inform those donors of its findings.

However, in a gesture of goodwill toward Ben-Gurion University, Im Tirtzu sent it a letter giving it a 30-day warning while asking it to use this time to change its policies and remove the need for contacting donors.

The university used this gesture of goodwill against Im Tirtzu, accusing it of threatening it with an ultimatum.

The university, using the media as its proxy, accused Im Tirtzu of threatening it to ensure all donations were stopped unless it “fired leftist professors.”

A quick look at the actual letter showed no such threat.

First, Im Tirtzu does not have any unnatural power over donors – all it “threatened” to do was to share well-researched information which would enable donors to make an informed decision about their donations.

Second, Im Tirtzu never asked that the university fire anyone. Im Tirtzu believes in freedom of speech. All it asked is that a solution be found to the extreme bias found in this department, where only post-Zionist opinions are presented. For example, modifying the syllabi to ensure students are at least informed of a spectrum of opinions would have been an appropriate response.

Third, Im Tirtzu is not a right-wing organization fighting against the Left. Any effort to portray us as such is ridiculous. Im Tirtzu is supported by MKs from Labor, Kadima and the Likud. Our fight is not a fight for the Right but a fight for Zionism.

Post-Zionists like to misrepresent us, making it easier to polarize the public against us. However, their efforts will not work because the facts are against them. Im Tirtzu is a Zionist organization, period.

Many friends of Im Tirtzu, including Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar, have expressed reservations with its campaign. These reservations are legitimate. However, while it is fair to disagree with and even criticize Im Tirtzu, it is unfair to delegitimize it, especially when using lies to do so. All Im Tirtzu did was tell the university that it will use its right of free speech to inform donors of its findings.

This is a legitimate action.

We at Im Tirtzu will continue to fight for the right of every student to speak freely. We will continue to fight for academic freedom which represents all points of view – including the Zionist ones.

We yearn for the day when Israel will be an even more Jewish and democratic state – the day on which the misinformation of the post-Zionists will disappear and give way to a truly free public discourse with no intimidation.

Related posts:

1. True Academic Freedom
2. Right of Reply: When Zionism is portrayed as fascism
3. Bringing Zionism Back to Israel

After the publication of the report, published at the request of the Knesset’s Education Committee, those academic bodies who were investigated responded with ad hominem attacks and claims which fly in face of the reality on university campuses in Israel. Haifa University said that “Im Tirtzu is an organization which uses McCarthyism to threaten freedom of speech.” The spokesperson of Hebrew University told reporters that: “Hebrew University maintains full freedom of expression.” These accusations were also the subject of an opinion piece recently published in the Jerusalem Report.

Im Tirtzu has never demanded that only its opinions are allowed to be expressed. Rather, we, at Im Tirtzu, demand that all opinions be accepted in the academic discourse. We oppose thought policing of any kind. Our complaints are not about the exposure of students to post-Zionist scholarship, but rather on the lack of exposure to the Zionist opinions. A truly free academic environment should be a marketplace of opinions.
Here are some examples of events which Im Tirtzu is trying to combat:

Rachel Avraham, a student at Ben Gurion University, published two critical academic exposes on the content of a lecture given by Ben Gurion University’s Dr. Oren Yiftachel, entitled “Selected Topics in the Geography of the Middle East”. After publishing these exposes, Rachel Avraham was summoned by the head of the Geography department, Prof. Avi Rubin, “to discuss the possible ramifications” of her “defamatory” exposes. An email communication between the two was then started. Rachel Avraham felt threatened by the tone and nature of these emails. Fearing she would be discriminated against for having disagreed with her professor, she hired a lawyer to deal with further communications with the university. Defending Rachel Avraham’s right to disagree with her professor is not an affront to Dr. Oren Tiftachel’s right to free speech. It is not McCarthyism. It is nothing other than the defence of free speech.

In November 2009, Professor Nira Hativa, who was responsible for the computerized feedback provided by students to their professors, wrote that “there are a lot of students that complain and report that they feel significantly hurt by the presentation of facts from a perspective which is contrary to their views but that they are worried to express opposing views because they feel such an expression might reflect badly on their marks or other things which professors have control over.” Professor Hativa continued and wrote: “I was exposed to many complaints from students of professors who express extreme leftist positions in their lectures and attack the State of Israel, the Israel Defence Forces, the Zionist movement and other, even worse, things”.

A PhD student at Hebrew University testified that he was once told that “anything “right of Meretz” was best not spoken aloud or it would have a serious detrimental impact on my career in Israeli academia”.
By now, one can clearly see that Zionist students have many reasons to fear publicly stating their opinions. Our full report contains countless other examples. On the other hand, there are also a lot of incentives for students to continue their research toeing the line to the post-Zionist narrative. For example:
Ms. Tal Nitzan received a distinction from the Israeli Council for Sociology for her paper that claimed that IDF soldiers do not rape Palestinian women because they are racist.

Furthermore, some courses require their students go on field activities with extreme leftist organizations such as Machsom Watch and Yesh Din, two organizations which spend much of their time attacking and criticizing the IDF. Some courses even offered students to get paid to work for these organizations in addition to the credits they would received for the course.

A truly free academic environment is one in which all students feel free to express their ideas and where students are exposed a multiplicity of ideas. Unfortunately, many in the academic world feel that freedom of speech simply means that they are allowed to do whatever they want in their classroom, including intimidating students who disagree with them.

We at Im Tirtzu want to restore true academic freedom in Israel – an academic freedom in which all students will be able to express themselves, including Zionist students. It is painful to see that even in the State of Israel, Zionist students are victims of discrimination.

Im Tirtzu will not allow the stifling of academic freedom to become a reality in Israel. We believe that we can transform the dream that is the State of Israel into a more just, more modern, more democratic and more Jewish place. This latest report is just one step forward on that path.

Dan Illouz is the Overseas Communications Coordinator of Im Tirtzu. He blogs at http://www.danillouz.com

Related posts:

1. McCarthyism and post-Zionism
2. The rise of true Israeli democracy
3. Right of Reply: When Zionism is portrayed as fascism

Let me make one thing clear from the get-go: We all want to see Gilad brought back home safely. Anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest. My disagreement on this issue is not as to our goal, but rather as to the correct strategy to get to that goal. Our goal is one: Bring Gilad Shalit back home! However, many people are using methods which, instead of helping bring Gilad home, are strengthening Hamas’ ridiculous demands.

There is something else I wish to make clear: My argument is not against Noam and Aviva Shalit, the parents of Gilad. If, chas veshalom, I was ever put in a remotely similar situation, I would also probably try every possible solution to save my child. However, while their emotional reaction might be justified, the reaction of the thousands of people who join them in pressuring the government into ridiculous concessions is irrational and dangerous. My argument is with those people.

In the next few paragraphs, I want to go through a thorough analysis of the various reasons why I believe we Israelis need to stop pressuring our government into ridiculous concessions for Gilad’s freedom and rather start pressuring Hamas and the international community to free the illegally captured soldier.

A Little (Only Partial) History

Entebbe, Sabena, Nachshon Waxman – Paying the price for captives

Israel, unfortunately, has a long history of hostage taking and military captives.

Sabena Plane: In May 1972, a plane was taken hostage by terrorists and landed in Tel Aviv’s airport. The Israeli commando, Sayeret Matkal, stormed the plane and freed the hostages. The commando took control of the plane in 10 minutes. One Israeli got killed and some wounded, including Benjamin Netanyahu, our current Prime Minister, who was a soldier on mission.

Operation Yonatan: One of the most famous incidents of hostage taking in modern history took place on July 1976. Terrorists hijacked an Airfrance plane going from Israel to Paris. A rescue mission was then planned through which the hostages were freed. However, 5 Israelis were killed- 4 hostages and one Israeli soldier, Yoni Netanyahu – brother of our current Prime Minister.

Nachshon Waxman: Nachshon was an Israeli soldier captured as he hitchhiked back home from a training course. The terrorists showed a video of him in captivity and gave an ultimatum after which he was to be killed. A rescue mission was organized. The rescue mission failed and Nachshon was killed. The commander of the team charged with his recue was also killed.

Summary: Israel is willing to risk its most precious possession for the freedom of its captured soldiers and hostages: the life of its current soldiers. If a rescue mission is possible, Israel will not hesitate to use it. However, when it is not possible, the question of exchange deals then comes up…

Previous Deals

Jibril Agreement: 1150 security prisoners, including terrorists with blood on their hands, were exchanged for 3 Israeli prisoners. Most of them, as almost all the security bodies concur today, constituted the backbone of the leadership for the first intifada that erupted three years later. Almost half of them returned to engage in terror and to murder dozens of Israelis at their own hands.

Tannenbaum Agreement: Tannenbaum, without going into too much details, was captured and then released in exchange of 400 prisoners, including terrorists. Here are the statistics of the deals: On January 27, 2004, Hamas activist Musaab Hashalmun was released as part of the Tannenbaum deal. On August 31, 2004, only half a year after his release, he was involved in a simultaneous terror attack on two buses in Beersheba. Sixteen Israeli citizens were murdered and more than 100 wounded in these terror attacks. Others released in the Tannenbaum deal led to the murder of: (a) Two young girls and three men in the Stage nightclub in Tel Aviv in February 2005; (b) Two sixteen year-old girls, a soldier in mandatory service and two women in the Sharon mall in Netanya in July 2005; (c) And another woman who was murdered in a terror attack in Dimona in February 2008. Overall those released in the Tannenbaum deal murdered 27 Israelis since their release in 2004.

Summary: Prisoner exchanges can be very dangerous in our situation. It is therefore incredibly unwise to pressure our leadership when it is making such delicate calculations for our national security.

The strategic perspective

There are various strategic issues which need to be considered whenever dealing with prisoner exchanges. These issues are incredibly delicate. Here are some of them:

Freeing terrorists for captured soldiers endangers lives

As we have seen from the Jibril and Tannenbaum deals, prisoners which are freed often go right back to terrorism. Therefore, whenever one frees a terrorist, he has to realize that there is a strong chance that terrorist will cause the death of another individual. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently revealed that he agreed to the terms set by Hamas for the prisoner exchange deal, only requested that the prisoners be released to Gaza or Overseas, where they would not have access to Israeli cities. Hamas refused! Why? Of course, access to Israeli cities is essential for continued terror tactics.

Freeing terrorists for captured soldiers encourages further kidnappings

The logic here is simple: If you make it worth it to kidnap Israeli soldiers, terrorists will kidnap Israeli soldiers. There is no way around this one: By bringing the value of Israeli soldiers up at every single deal, we are asking for more kidnappings. And no, I don’t mean the internal value: “Whoever preserves a single soul, it is as though he had preserved a whole world”. However, when speaking of negotiating strength and national security, we must keep in mind the consequences of our actions. If we are too willing to free high level terrorists for kidnapped soldiers, we are asking for more kidnappings.

A famous story illustrates this point:

Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293 c.e.), known as the Maharam, was one of the greatest of the early Jewish codifiers. At the age of seventy he was taken captive and placed in the Ensisheim prison in Alsace, France. Emperor Rudolf I proceeded to demand an exorbitant sum for his release.

In order to understand the full significance of this act it is important to realize that almost all of the rabbis and leaders of the Jewish communities in that generation were the Maharam’s students. Even the great rabbis of the generation that followed were greatly influenced by the teachings of the Maharam. The most famous of his students was Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, known as the Rosh, whose rulings are cited extensively in Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Arukh. Because the Maharam was such an important a figure, Emperor Rudolf I hoped to extort a huge ransom from the Jewish community. Indeed, the emperor’s evil scheme nearly succeeded. The Maharam’s students and admirers were prepared to raise the sum necessary to free their master. They felt that though the law forbids paying more for a captive than the accustomed amount, when the captive at hand is the leading Torah scholar of the generation, and the entire community is in need of him and his Torah wisdom, it is permissible to pay any fee.

But the renowned Maharam would not permit it to be paid, for he understood that such an act would only encourage the enemies of Israel to imprison other rabbis in the future and demand huge sums for their release. As a result, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg spent the final seven years of his life in the Ensisheim prison — and it was there that he died.

By virtue of his greatness of spirit and his self-sacrifice for the sake of the general good, the Maharam succeeded in preventing a dam from breaking open: He saved the Torah leaders of future generations from captivity, and the Jewish community from gigantic expenses which may well have caused their complete financial ruin.

Freed terrorists constitute the backbone of future terror waves

Israel has managed to secure a delicate status quo where there is no immediate major security threat from the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. As we have seen from the Jibril agreement, releasing experiences terrorists in such an environment is sure to tip the delicate balance we have create and create more bloodshed for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Regionally, we do not want to strengthen Hamas-type regimes

One under-stated reason for caution in prisoner exchange deals is the delicate balance of power within the Arab world in the region. Regional politics oppose Islamic regimes and other extremist Bathist regimes with the more moderate Egyptian and Jordanian-type regimes. While we cannot competely celebrate our ties with either side of this internal Arab ideological battle, it is clear that Egyptian and Jordanian-types of regimes are much friendlier to Israel than the terrorist supporting Iranian and Syrian regimes. By strengthening Hamas, an organization supported by Iran and Syria, we are weakening Egypt and Jordan in the region, and this is bad strategically.

Pressuring the Israeli government reduces the chances of a deal with Hamas

Hamas will not agree to any deal as long as it believes it can get more from Israel. As long as people keep vocally and publically protesting the government to give more irrational concessions, Hamas will keep Gilad locked up without human rights waiting for the government to concede more. If we want Hamas to free Gilad, we have to make them clearly understand that they will not get any better deal than what we currently offer them.

The moral perspective

Many people make moral arguments stating that Israel should give anything to save the precious life of its soldiers. It’s true, the lives of Israeli soldiers is incredibly precious. Nothing in this world is more precious. However, there are also other moral variables that need to be considered.

Gilad Shalit’s life is precious – but the lives of victims of terrorism are also precious

Only in a world as tough as ours can such moral questions come up: Whose life is more precious? Whose blood is redder?

The Talmud establishes that one may not commit murder for self preservation. If a person is threatened that if he does not kill another person, he himself will be killed, he must allow himself to be killed. The Talmud explains that all lives have equal value, and “how do you know your blood is redder than his; maybe his blood is redder than yours”. By killing in order to save his own life, the killer has acted immorally by placing his life on a higher level than that of the victim.

However, if this is true in one direction, it must also be true in the other direction. We cannot save the life of one person if saving his life will mean risking hundreds of other lives. We have both clear experience and intelligence which points to the fact that releasing terrorists with blood on their hands will cause other deaths. Yes, Gilad’s life is invaluable. However, the lives of all the victims of terrorism are just as valuable. We cannot gamble with peoples’ lives.

In many ways, morality demands that we stand the tormenting test of patience and psychological warfare which Hamas is playing with us, while praying for the safe return of Gilad Shalit.

The motivational perspective

Soldiers should not loose motivation from this story

The final argument we will deal with states that Israel must do EVERYTHING to save its soldiers from captivity since Israel is a citizens’ army with mandatory enlistment. If enlistment is mandatory, then it is our responsibility to care for our soldiers. If we stop caring for our soldiers, they will lose all motivation in their military service. While I agree with the gist of this argument, I disagree with its full implications.

I agree that Israel must be ready to sacrifice a lot for the freedom of its soldiers. Yes, this includes dangerous military missions to save its’ kidnapped soldiers. However, it is not a reason to endanger national security. The role of Israeli soldiers is to ensure Israeli national security, at the cost of their own lives. It would be ludicrous for them to weaken it.

The life and responsibility of a soldier is tough. Ruach Tzhahal, an ethical code every soldier carried on in his wallet, describes one of the aspects of military ethics as such:

The loyalty of IDF servicemen is their dedication, in all actions, to their homeland, the State of Israel, its citizens and armed forces, and their constant readiness to fight and devote all their power, even at the risk of their own lives, in the defense of the sovereign State of Israel and the lives and the safety of its inhabitants, according to the values and orders of the IDF, while following the laws and the democratic principles of the State.

Every soldier which enlists in the IDF must take an oath in which he agreed to do everything, “even at the cost of his own life”, to protect the nation and the freedom of Israel.

Yes, every time a soldier dies, it is incredibly heart breaking and sad. I have often cried when hearing such news and it would be inhumane not to do so. However, there is no doubt in my mind that their deaths are not reasons for the IDF to stop protecting its citizens. Quite to the contrary, the very reason why they risked their lives is to protect the nation.

Gilad Shalit is in a different, yet similar, situation. In the public opinion, his case is much more gruelling since it keeps going and going and going. Yet, the sacrifices he made are necessary for the security of the State of Israel. We thank him for his service. We would do a lot to help him – even risk the lives of our soldiers in a rescue mission. However, we cannot hurt national security.

Conclusion

This article was probably one of the most difficult for me to write. When I walked in the streets of Jerusalem last week, seeing the thousands who joined Noam and Aviva Shlait to pressure the government to accept a deal that PM Netanyahu characterized as a real danger to national security, I almost wanted to cry. This is such a difficult situation. On the one hand, the show of solidarity is beautiful. The honesty with which thousands of people gathered in support of a fellow Israeli is amazing.

However, on the other hand, it is dangerously misguided. We must keep our nation safe. Yes, we must pray for Gilad’s safe return. Yes, we must continuously push every option which does not endanger our national security. However, we cannot cross any red line which would put us in danger. By pressuring the government to cross those red lines, you are just weakening Bibi’s negotiating power and strengthening the Hamas government, while endangering Israeli national security by encouraging more kidnappings.

Speech by PM Benjamin Netanyahu on this topic

I found PM Netanyahu’s speech on this topic incredible. It reflects my position perfectly. I am therefore including a link to the translation of the transcript: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2010/PM-Netanyahus-Remarks-at-a-Special-Press-Conference-Regarding-the-Continued-Efforts-to-Release-Kidna.htm

Related posts:

1. Terrorists on Boats
2. How Israeli Critics are Hurting International Law
3. The rise of true Israeli democracy

On June 24th,

Which time is best for you to join in this chat? (Select up to 3 times which you can attend)

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

I realize that June 24th might seem late for some of you, but I want to get everything ready, and I also want you to prepare yourselves by brainstorming ideas. I’d rather come well-prepared and have a serious chat that will have a serious lasting impact than do something unprepared that will be useless.

If you know of  important personalities who might be interested in addressing the chat – please email volunteerforisrael@gmail.com

Related posts:

1. Jewish Chat or Israel Chat

On Monday March 31st, the day of the flotilla incident, I woke up and heard the news. Knowing people serving in accessory roles in the navy, I called them to get our side of the story: the government had not said anything yet. I was told, as I expected, that the news are coming to quick conclusions based on superficial looks but that Israel’s name will be cleared.

I start a facebook page for a nonprofit that would now be dedicated to disseminating the truth about this incident. http://www.facebook.com/israelflotilla

A week later, and with so much more clarity as to the violent nature of those “peace activists” and the great restraint with which the Israeli commando defended its life, the page has 70 000 fans.
Since then, I have been working with the Ministry of Public Diplomacy in order to share material through that page. I am also in the early stages of the development of a non-profit dedicated to defending Israel in the social media.

My early conclusion from this whole experience: Israel needs to upgrade its hasbara to Web 2.0. This allows us to skip the biased media and to tell the truth about our story. If you are an Israel Activist or supporter, it is your responsibility to train yourself in these things.

I ask of all my readers to post resources of relevant material which can be found online for one to learn the art of social media marketing.

Unfortunately, this story is not over. The media is still spreading lies. Also, there will be other flotillas. And if not flotillas, then Jenins. And if not Jenin, then something else which we cannot imagine.

Those of you who have not done so yet should join http://www.facebook.com/dillouzen in order to stay updated about future projects.

Please leave your comments!

No related posts.

I am going to list three reasons why I feel these guys deserve to be called heroes. Please do the same in the comments section:

1. These soldiers were put in an unexpected situation and managed to get out of it. Imagine being place down somewhere where you expect to speak gently to people without any violence and then suddenly getting beat up and stabbed. This could have been a tragedy, but they survived.

2. According to the reports we have until today, only some engaged in violent behaviour against the soldiers were killed. These soldiers did not lose their cool and start shooting everything that came their way. They stayed calm, responded quickly and precisely, killing only those who were a danger to them. Right after the incident, they started providing first aid to the very people who tried attacking them before.

3. After it all, when interviewed by the media, the soldiers did not seek any limelight or credit. Their answer was always: “We only did our job”. This is the modesty of heros.

What are your three reasons? (Feel free to repeat/expand some of mine)

Related posts:

1. Terrorists on Boats

As I looked back at the unveiling of the Flotilla incident, I asked myself a question that I now want to ask you, my readers, and that I want you to ask everyone you know. I ask that question because, on the one hand, it will help us learn about Israel’s mistakes in order not to repeat them. However, I also ask it because I do believe that if we ask that question to our opponents, their answers will either be minor and meaningless, or extreme… By asking them that question, we can make the world understand that Israel had no other choice but to defend itself! Sure, some details could have been handled differently, but the basic fact of self defence was unavoidable. Therefore, the deaths are the responsibility of the attackers (the so called “activists”) and not the defenders (the Israeli soldiers).

Now, I ask you, in all honesty: What would you have done different if you were Prime Minister? Please answer on the comments section of this post!

My Answer: Israel was put in a situation where it had no choice but to defend itself and we should never ask sorry for that. Still, I would have started the public diplomacy campaign in defence of Israel’s actions right after the announcement of the deaths and not a few hours later. Our enemies had already given their lies to the media who had been running them for hours before we came out with a response. I would have also ensured better intelligence before sending the brave soldiers because it would have let me give them more appropriate weapons, and also maybe made me find a way to bring the boat to shore without going in it and then sending the border police who is experienced with rioting.

Please note that I do realize that it is much easier to criticize in hindsight and that I do not intend to criticize the way the situation was handled because I do not know all the variables of the situation.

Related posts:

1. How Israeli Critics are Hurting International Law
2. Guest Post: The Dual Tragedy of The Flotilla
3. Terrorists on Boats

The events off the coast of Gaza in the early hours of Monday morning were a significant moment in the history of the State of Israel. More than that, they were a dual tragedy.

Before we go any further, it must be made abundantly clear that neither I nor anyone I know rejoices in the deaths of these activists. It is not in our nature to celebrate the deaths of anyone, not even those who were part of a group that had earlier chanted “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad saya’ud,” meaning “Jews remember Khaybar, the army of Mohammed is returning,” a reference to a seventh-century Muslim massacre and expulsion of Jews from Khaybar, which is in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Despite this despicable loathsomeness, with the benefit of hindsight, I’d much rather that the ships had safely docked in Gaza than lives being needlessly wasted.

At the time of going to press, 15 people have died as a result of the IDF’s boarding the flotilla as it approached Gaza, but this does not mean that I criticize the actions of the IDF. Neither do I reserve criticism of the actions of these “human rights” activists. Taking a glance at some of the headlines from the world media, one would be forgiven that Israel had stormed aid ships for no particular reason. “Deadly clashes at sea as Israel intercepts Gaza-bound aid ships,” reports the Times of London. “10 Reported Killed as Israel Raids Boats Headed to Gaza” announces the New York Times.

Even reading the headline on the Jerusalem Post, “At least 15 activists dead, dozens hurt in flotilla clashes”, it is hard to get away from the pervading sense of injustice felt from that now all too familiar of situations; Israeli troops acting heavy-handedly and killing unarmed civilians. Irrespective of whether their actions were right or wrong, the balance appears so lop-sided, peace activists on the one hand and soldiers on the other, that most people’s minds are made up well before they read the articles themselves.

But a serious question lies at the heart of the affair. How and why did a supposedly passive peace demonstration turn rowdy to the degree for the military forces who had boarded the boat to feel threatened enough to open fire? The answer has been stated repeatedly of the last few days and stares us in the face: these were no peace activists. These were no human rights activists, these people had a very clear agenda in mind: the delegitimization of Israel.

Much has been said of this deligitimization of Israel, but what is it? What is being delegitimized, exactly? Well, Israel’s right to defense, for one. When every single defense operation is questioned, criticized and consequently condemned, we would do well to realize that we are witnessing the systematic denial of Israel’s right to defend herself.

Similarly, when events like the death of Mohammed Al-Dura in 2000, the so-called “Massacre in Jenin” in 2002, the bombing of Hezballah forces in Qana, Lebanon in 2006, and the “disproportional” Israeli offensive on Hamas in Operation Cast Lead are spun out of all proportion, we must understand that the damage done to Israel’s image is long lasting and its ability to strike out at terrorists is being methodically wiped out.

There’s one question I’ve asked myself repeatedly over the last few years: “And how would you handle it?” I’ve imagined this question being asked of Kofi Annan, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and now I ask it of these activists and their supporters. Maybe Israel’s actions aren’t always correct, but Israel has the sovereign right to act in the way it deems fit. If you don’t like the way we deal with terrorists, how about proposing an alternative solution to prevent Hamas proliferating its stockpile of military grade weaponry? If you don’t like human shields, and you shouldn’t if you care about human rights, how do you propose that the IDF tackles Hamas, an extremist group bent on Israel’s destruction that also happens to make extensive use of this tactic?

News agencies worldwide reported that the Israeli Navy stormed a flotilla carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists and tons of supplies for Gaza on Monday morning. But they didn’t give more than passing mention to the fact that these pro-Palestinian activists had intentionally and deliberately provoked the IDF into acting. Amid reports from the IDF which claims that soldiers were met by well-planned lynch involving concealed handguns, knives, bats and metal pipes, we would do well to note that prior to boarding the flotilla, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, Commander of the Israeli Navy, briefed the forces who participated in the interception of these protest boats, and called on them not be dragged into provocations with the passengers of the ship.

Referring to previous experience with such protesters, Marom explained that no matter what “provocation that they may create, and there are here a number of soldiers that participated in past events, for example to throw cigarettes, spitting, cursing, and so forth; we do not respond to these types of actions.” While Marom correctly identified these “peace activists” as paradoxically unpleasant to deal with, even he could not have predicted that there would be those amongst their number who would attempt to steal the soldiers’ guns, let alone stab them. But that is precisely what occurred. For us to regard these people as genuine peace activists would be a real tragedy.

Gen. Maj. Marom explained that “we have no intention of harming any of these people”, but that was sadly not the case with the activists. Beyond physically hurting the soldiers, their intention to give Israel’s image a good hiding could not be clearer. We may call them pro-Palestinian activists, but that would be a fib, for they had plenty of other options available to them, but instead went for the cheap PR stunt. And yet the PR stunt is the one way that wins. Israel yet again emerges as the loser, it’s entitlement to protect its population damaged. Worse still, this affair sets a dangerous precedent. Even after the criticism has faded and the media move on to the next big story, Israel will be left with at least 15 “Rachel Corries” to explain, 15 more images of Israeli unfairness, injustice, violent excess. No matter whether they foolishly tried to provoke a soldier in their last moments, they will become icons for the anti-Israel movement.

The events off the coast of Gaza in the early hours of Monday morning were a dual tragedy. People died, and for that I grieve. But if Israel’s right to defend itself continues to be eroded, and if a precedent has been set here, more people will die. And that would be an even greater tragedy.

The writer is campus director of Hadar at Hebrew University, where he is studying for his B.A. in Political Science and Journalism. He blogs at http://destinationisrael.blogspot.com/

Related posts:

1. How Israeli Critics are Hurting International Law
2. First Hand Testimony on the Flotilla Mess
3. Terrorists on Boats