Israeli and pro-Israeli propaganda: Nuttier every day!
"The Pope and the cardinals of the Vatican help organize tours of Auschwitz for Hezbollah members to teach them how to wipe out Jews...""When I see a human rights organization try to raise money in Saudi Arabia, it speaks to the collapse of the human rights community..."
These are just two of the nuttier arguments currently being made by Israeli and extremist pro-Israeli propagandists. The first is a claim from a pamphlet that was distributed to IDF troops for some months, until recently. The second, which simply assumes that all his listeners will share his own inherent racism against citizens of Saudi Arabia, is an argument made by Ron Dermer, director of policy planning for Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu.
You could say that the increasing nuttiness of the arguments made by propagandists/hasbaristas close to Israeli official circles is an indication of their panic and desperation, now that it's become clear that some of their earlier claims won't hold up to the light of day. ("The Israeli army is the most moral army in the world"; "No-one wants peace more than the government of Israel"; etc etc.)
That interpretation of what's happening may well be valid. But we should remember two other things, too. First, there are apparently plenty of well-connected pro-Zionist people both in Israel and elsewhere who apparently believe claims as outlandish as these ones. Second, Israel's pro-settlement extremists still command plenty of real coercive power-- and they seem increasingly inclined to use it as it becomes clear their claims to be allowed to roam freely and settle over all of the West Bank are meeting an unprecedentedly firm challenge from the US government.
On the extent of the belief in the hasbaristas' outlandish claims, Haaretz's Ofri Ilani tells us that the booklet containing the one about the "Vatican-Hizbullah" connection
was published by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, in cooperation with the chief rabbi of Safed, Rabbi Shmuel Eliahu, and has been distributed [to troops in some IDF units] for the past few months...."The book is distributed regularly and everyone reads it and believes it," said one soldier. "It's filled with made-up details but is presented as a true story. A whole company of soldiers, adults, told me: 'Read this and you'll understand who the Arabs are.'"
... The IDF Spokesman's Office said in a statement: "The book was received as a donation and distributed in good faith to the soldiers. After we were alerted to the sensitivity of its content, distribution was immediately halted."
Ilani reports that the "story" in the booklet,
is narrated by a man named Avi, who says he changed his name from Ibrahim after he left Hezbollah and converted to Judaism. Avi says he was once close to Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, and describes Hezbollah's purported close relationships with the Vatican and European leaders.
In the booklet, "Avi"-- who quite likely doesn't exist, and never has; scroll down to Richard Silverstein's comment about him-- also purports to describe the close links between Hizbullah, various rich European organizations and individuals, and
all sorts of Israeli organizations that erode the standing of the IDF ... We have a special budget for encouraging [Israeli] politicians and journalists who serve our purposes. Every opinion piece that conforms to our position is rewarded generously.
So right there we see the "Avi" booklet embodying in its own text a link with the campaign we have seen being waged for a while now by official and semi-official bodies in Israel against the human rights groups-- some of them, gasp, European-financed!-- that have been working to document the rights abuses by all sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
To claim that because a human rights organization raises money from Saudi citizens (while also working with them to build their capacity to improve their government's rights performance), that in itself makes the work of the organization suspect-- or, in Ron Dermer's ridiculously overstated words, that it "speaks to the collapse of the human rights community"-- is equally nutty. But this argument, too, is perhaps believed by significant numbers of people in Israel and elsewhere who have been fed on a steady diet of anti-Arab racism for many years now.
Regarding the continuing, actual capability and propensity of extremist Zionist groups to accompany their anti-Arab propaganda and ideology with acts of clearly racist violence, we need only read this account of what some settler extremists did near Nablus today:
Israeli settlers on horseback set fire on Monday to at least 1,500 Palestinian-owned olive trees in the West Bank as others stoned cars, a Palestinian security official said./ The incident occurred hours after security forces razed a number of structures built in unauthorized outposts in the West Bank....The violence is part of a "price tag" policy in which settlers retaliate to the outpost removals by harassing local Palestinians.
The racist propaganda produced by extremists in and close to Israel's current government authorities is bad enough, in itself (even if it appears to most sane people to be quite plainly nutty.) But the potential of this propaganda to whip up acts of continuing racist violence should also not be under-estimated.
The brochure sounds vile. It's possible it represents desperation on behalf of the pro-settlement side. Religious fanaticism comes in many forms and it is usually not pretty.
However, I disagree with you regarding the HRW solicitation in Saudi Arabia. The issue upsetting some people is not the solicitation/fundraising itself. It is spiel used. Sarah Leah Whitson, the Middle East Director of Human Rights Watch, played one country against another when their mission is supposed to be completely impartial. Worse, it was purposefully inflammatory by insinuating that by financing HRW would help them fight this grand cabal of Jews. Her behavior was highly unprofessional and the play to anti-semitism was thoroughly reprehensible.
July 21, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for Human Rights Watch, read Daniel Levy, either at Huffington Post or at his own Prospects for Peace blog:
http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/
He calls the outrage orchestrated by the Israeli government "swiftboating." I tend to agree.
July 22, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I tend to agree with Levy here (surprised?). My caveat, though, is that HRW undermines itself if, as has been reported, part of their "sales pitch" in SA had to do with its record of success in exposing Israeli abuses.
July 22, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My definition of swiftboating includes mischaracterization or distortion of facts.
I've read Bernstein's original Wall Street Journal piece, Herb Keinon's Jerusalem Post column, and Jeffrey Goldberg's blog on this supposed scandal.
I've seen no actual "reporting" of what Human Rights Watch director Whitson said in Saudi Arabia that was out of line.
Goldberg refers to criticism of "pro-Israel" groups, but doesn't actually claim that he is quoting Whitson. In fact, no-one claims to quote what was said at the meeting. It's all innuendo.
And it's not like HRW's criticisms of both the Israeli and Saudi governments are any kind of secret. I would expect both to be discussed with potential donors in virtually any country.
Both are efforts HRW should be unapologetically proud of.
July 22, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Israeli and pro-Israeli propaganda: Nuttier every day!"
MY COMMENT: Move over Pat Robertson and John Hagee!
July 21, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Nuttier every day!
A RELATED ARTICLE: "Israel and the Nutbar Factor", by Justin Raimondo, 07/22/09
(EXCERPT) ...To come up with an analogous situation, what did the U.S. and the Europeans do when confronted with an Austrian government that included the relatively benign Joerg Haider, who merely advocated withdrawing government subsidies from immigrants and restricting their entry into the country? They established a diplomatic cordon sanitaire around Vienna and refused to deal with the Austrians. Yet Avigdor Lieberman, an open racist and former bouncer who once proposed that Israel should bomb the Aswan dam, is greeted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her European counterparts as if he were a normal, decent human being....
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/07/21/israel-and-the-nutbar-factor/
July 22, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
ANOTHER EXCERPT: "...What we are witnessing in Israel today is the degeneration of a once liberal democracy into a militaristic theocracy, one armed with nuclear weapons – and quite conceivably willing to use them against those they consider less than fully human. And if that doesn’t scare us into cutting them off – financially, at the very least – then we ought to prepare ourselves for the consequences. Because it isn’t going to be pretty..."
July 22, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"IDF censures officer for distributing incendiary religious pamphlets to troops"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059520.html
July 22, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
there are apparently plenty of well-connected pro-Zionist people both in Israel and elsewhere who apparently believe claims as outlandish as these ones
This is, of course, the crux of the problem of the extraordinarily naïve – some would say unbelievably ignorant - support for an extreme, right-wing, political administration and a policy that is patently anti-Jewish and which goes directly contrary to all Jewish teachings and ethics.
Millions of Jews in the US and tens of thousands in the UK, in Paris and in Jewish communities around the world are seemingly unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, via its diplomatic embassies and consulates throughout the world, churns out half-truths, fabrications, denials, rebuttals and rejections of evidence of brutality, gratuitous killings and the inhuman oppression of the indigenous people of what was once Palestine.
Such propaganda is accepted as fact and truth because so many, whether educated or not, are seemingly prepared to believe fiction rather than the factual evidence and verbal testimony of both the oppressed and the IDF oppressors.
There is no logic or reason in man’s blind capacity to follow a faith. The problem is that Zionism is not a faith – it is a political movement. But so many are unable to distinguish the difference - and that is precisely the policy and intent of the Likud government.
And that is where the answer also lies. To make individual Jews aware that they have been drawn into a political ideology that masquerades as a religious tenet.
Israelis have no innate superiority over other races. A Palestinian woman and her child are of equal value to an Israeli woman and her child. There is no biological difference. The only difference is in perception and the awareness of the brutality meted out by one upon the other.
That is changing, slowly but surely with the US government’s realization that without an immediate shift in the paradigm, a third world war will ensue that could engulf us all.
July 22, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Millions of Jews in the US and tens of thousands in the UK, in Paris and in Jewish communities around the world are seemingly unable to distinguish fact from fiction."
GDRiver: Do you seriously believe that Jews have more difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction than any other subpopulation? Or are you saying that Jews are like the rest of the world in this respect?
If the former, your opinion doesn't belong on this web site; however, there are many anti-Semitic web sites that would welcome such views with open arms. If the latter, your statement is a truism that has no relevance to the discussion.
July 22, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive Conscience is right. The statement is either anti-semitic or meaningless. However, PC is incorrect when stating that this is not an anti-semitic site. It very definitely is. Only an anti-semite would deny it. There's no question about it. Each and every day there are articles attacking Jews, each and every one of which has inaccurate and false statements and out-and-out lies in it. (Apparently there is no fact-checking or professional standards of journalism at TPM.) But I can't remember the last time it had an article that was pro-Israel, or even neutral.
July 22, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mikep says: "However, PC is incorrect when stating that this is not an anti-semitic site. It very definitely is. Only an anti-semite would deny it."
This is one of the stupidest things I've EVER read on this site, including things said be real anti-Semites. Good grief, man, how can you type this kind of obvious nonsense.
July 22, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have thought it obvious that to take words out of context is, let us just say, not the cleverest idea. The second paragraph of my post has to be read, obviously, in the context of the entire post and in particular that of the opening paragraph.
If it needs clarification, I will reiterate that Likud policy in the brutal occupation of Palestinian land is completely contrary to Jewish teachings and ethics. I have then made the point that millions of Jews, particularly in America but also in the UK and elsewhere either choose to ignore the teachings of Judaism in preference to Zionist policies of Likud or are confused as to which is correct.
Finally if I wish to determine whether my views belong on this or any other website, I will probably avoid seeking your opinion which is to immediately label opinion that is contrary to your own as antisemitic. How banal.
July 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are tell us, in broad strokes, about the invidious beliefs of "millions of Jews" in America, the UK, and elsewhere.
How many Jews do you think there are altogether in the world today? Are you saying that they are all evil, or just most of them? Can you estimate a percentage for us?
I'm not suggesting that you are an anti-semite, God forbid. But these statements you're making are coming uncomfortably close.
July 22, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The second, which simply assumes that all his listeners will share his own inherent racism against citizens of Saudi Arabia, is an argument made by Ron Dermer, director of policy planning for Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu."
Helena's second comment, quoted above, is itself nutty.
Ron Dermer said that raising money for human rights in a regime that has a miserable human rights record, and downplaying that regime's record in the process, bespeaks the collapse of the human rights community. What does this have to do with racism? This claim is just as bizarre as the nutty leaflets that she rightly calls attention to, and is reminiscent of the equally nutty "Zionism is Racism" resolution of the UN.
July 22, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
As will I'm sure this article. that is whip up more anti-Israeli and anti-semitism. What this represents is someone literally searching out the most extreme, fringe, marginal crap they can find(I'll bet anything you can find worse, much worse crap in any Arab(Sunni or Shia) country)and then basically condemning an entire country and people on what the fringes are saying. Would this asshole woman publish this article and say substitute neo-nazi publications and condemn America or say Egypt and jihadist literature and condemn Egypt or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Whoever the hell she is, she represents left wing anti-semitism at its finest.
July 22, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
.How many Jews do you think there are altogether in the world today? Are you saying that they are all evil, or just most of them? Can you estimate a percentage for us?
World Jewry is about 13 million of which I am but one.
Now I wonder where that inflammatory word 'evil' came from? Not from my posting but from yours. I wonder what or who you are endeavoring to incite.
Regretfully, yours is a typical Hasbara inspired posting with the usual insertion of words and meanings that are just not there. But you would like them to be so, eh?
Problem for you is that screaming 'antiSemitism' at every opportunity no longer has the impact that it once had as the term has been devalued by those who use it in the absence of any clear or valid argument. But if it makes you feel good, you carry on using the term.
July 22, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
alan2a - The IDF is not a fringe organization and neither is the Orthodox Union. Yes, I know one can find crazy crap like this in every country not just Israel. However, as a Jew, when my "family" gets out of line I call them on it. When other "families" get out of line I may or may not yell about it. I'm sure you treat your own sons and daughters the same way - it does not matter what their friends can or cannot do.
PS - Helena is not an a...... but a distinquished journalist. That is not language we use here. If you had not just arrived at this Blog with a mission of countering any negatives about Israel, you would understand.
July 22, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know you're deep into loony left territory when every other sentence talks about "racism" when racism has virtually nothing to do with the subject at hand.
It is not "racist" to bemoan the supreme irony of human rights organizations conducting fundraising operations in Saudi Arabia for God's sake, from people whose only interest in human rights is when Israel is in the dock. To Saudis - and the vast majority of Arabs - Palestinian suffering which is at least in part their own fault is a human rights issue. The real human rights violations that go on all around them in their own country are of little concern to them. Or if they are of concern, they would be prevented from doing anything about it in any case by goons from the secret police.
I'll tell you what's racist. It's the idea that Israel is held to western ideals of human rights whereas Arab countries are not. Israel may indeed be guilty of human rights violations. But the idea that it is a worse violator than the Arabs is just absurd. Therefore, the disproportionate attention paid to Israel's transgressions can only be explained by a different standard being applied to both. Compared to Dudley Do-Right countries like Sweden or Canada (that by the way don't have barbaric guerilla insurgencies to deal with), Israel probably doesn't look so good in human rights. But compared to just about ANY part of the world, Saudi Arabia is a human rights trainwreck. And yet in terms of attention by left wingers, there is no comparison which one gets more.
There's the racism for you.
July 22, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
BradtheDad Therefore, the disproportionate attention paid to Israel's transgressions can only be explained by a different standard being applied to both.
The difference is in great part explained by the fact that Israel is a land populated predominately by Europeans and Americans i.e. people with whom we identify and have empathy. Most are Jewish.
Saudi Arabia is populated by Arabs. Most are Muslim.
It is natural to hold the former to account for they claim to be a democracy, just as we are. The Arab states are, for the most part undemocratic with a totally different culture based on the East.
Why, I wonder, do you find it strange that we criticize the claimed 'only democracy in the Middle East' - when it so blatantly not? Why do you find it strange that we criticize the IDF when it claims to be the 'most moral army in the world' when it is is so blatantly not?
Why do you find Israel's policies and actions beyond reproach when it is likely that they will spark another world war? And if you think that statement is alarmist or scaremongering - then you're on your own.
July 22, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, nobody is claiming Israel's policies and actions are beyond reproach. To the contrary, Brad states "Israel may indeed be guilty of human rights violations. But the idea that it is a worse violator than the Arabs is just absurd."
You seem to be confirming what Brad has said, except your version applies its own racial typecasting. You justify the unique focus on Israeli human rights violations (setting aside the fact that Israel, alone among the nations of the region, at least seems to care about human rights) on the ground that the Arab states are "undemocratic with a totally different culture based on the East." Of course! Why should we care about their human rights records? It's just not in their culture!?! Silly me. I thought those principles were universal?
I believe GDR's comment does explain part of the story. But I can't help but believe that anti-semitism (there, I've used the term twice in the last two days after avoiding it all these years - GDR seems to bring it out in me) accounts for some. Paul Berman explains it well in this interview (http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/gaza-and-after%253A-an-interview-with-paul-berman.html):
Of course, the dire prediction that Israel's policies and actions are likely to spark another world war is of a piece with the rest.
July 22, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - I think the reason that the spotlight shines on Israel to a greater degree than other hotspots is the fact that the I/P conflict has gone on many more decades than any other border conflicts. The only one that compares is India and Pakistan but that has been relatively quiet with only occasional flare-ups.
Also, in other border conflicts one side is not populated with stateless people. Look at Pakistan, India, the Kurds vs everyone, the Uighurs and Tibetans all have citizenship in a country. This is something Palestinians lack. Statelessness and the length of the conflict are what make Israel different.
July 22, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
J, I think you're right.
One of the complications, though, is that for much of its history, the "border dispute" was ALSO with other states. The "Israeli side" tends to remember this (perhaps too much) while the other side tends to regard it as long ago, non-existent, or even as a just fight that was lost to Israel. So they've given it up (except perhaps in their hearts, if you see what I mean).
Also, I'm not sure about this, but for much of the time, Israel's foes weren't discussing where Israel's borders were, but whether Israel should exist per se, or whether it should all be Palestine. Now maybe they weren't serious, and always realized that Israel was here to stay, but the rhetoric seemed to be otherwise.
I understand this hasn't been the case for some time, and I'm not trying to build a straw man here.
What you say about stateless Palestinians is interesting and true. It's ironic that this was the situation for Jews that gave rise to Zionism. This could lead us into a discussion about whether every dialect deserves a country, or whether it matters that the Palestinians already had their own land (don't the Kurds?), but I'm not arguing with you at all, just extending the discussion a bit.
July 23, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The British, God bless 'em, drawing lines in the sand 90 years ago brought all this mess. Iraq too. May God help us.
July 22, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG You're cherry-picking only those points you believe you have some cogent argument in answer - which indeed you may have. But you ignore all the rest - even those that are really important. For instance, why do you think that Israel would never use her massive undeclared arsenal of nuclear warheads against Iran, or any other perceived enemy - thereby igniting the Middle East and very possibly Europe and beyond.
It would be illuminating to receive your comment as to why you believe Israel has stockpiled an estimated 200-400 warheads, if not, in perceived extremis, to actually use them.
For anyone to believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal is there merely for window-dressing, must be - let us just say - perhaps a little unrealistic.
July 22, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel may indeed be guilty of human rights violations. But the idea that it is a worse violator than the Arabs is just absurd."
Hm. Should we use long perspective, or short perspective?
Ultra-long perspective: Joshua enters Kana'an and proceeds with a systematic genocide. Arabs quietly dwell in the desert. Mitigating circumstances: according to archaeologists, it did not happen, just a bunch of tall stories.
Long perspective. Beginning of 7th century. King of Kings conquers Syria and Palestine, Jews rejoice and slaughter Christian neighbors. Emperor or Romans re-conquers Syria and Palestine, Christians in Palestine rejoice and slaughter Jewish neighbors. King of Kings returns, Jews rejoice and slaughter, Emperor returns, Christians rejoice (according to Imperial historians), the story really becomes tedious, both states are much worse for the wear, and so are the folks in Palestine. Then the Arabs come, defeat everybody else. They actually look somewhat better than everybody else in that story.
Medium perspective. A religious leader of Palestinians is photographed while amicably chatting with Hitler. Not nice.
Most recent. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel instructs its ambassadors to use the photo while explaining Israeli position. Mercifully, the booklet about a joint plot of Vatican and Hezbollah to follow Hitler example is not sent together with the photo, but even so, one of the most severe violations of Goodwin law by a state actor.
More seriously, in recent years Israel proceeds with a very interesting and original set of human rights abuses that are a bit difficult to compare with the conduct of other states. So I would say that the proposition that "Israel is a worse human rights violator" than Arab states (all? some?) is "debatable" rather then "absurd".
One aspect is that apart from atrocities like killings, torture, mass detention, destruction, which can be quantified in various ways (and Sudan is probably worse than Israel), Israel is engaged in a very elaborate and systematic policy of making the life of subjugated people as miserable as possible, like "dietary restrictions" for Gaza and hundreds of checkpoints and myriad of restrictions in West Bank. This really makes the situation hard to compare.
One last thing. I read that in Egypt it is illegal for a Muslim to be married with a non-Muslim. Yeah, they are backward, aren't they? Surprisingly enough, the same is true in Israel, marriage is allowed only within religious communities, and now they want to reform the situation a bit: if you have no religion, you can marry another non-religious person, provided that the priesthood of the state religion furnishes both of you with their approval (that yeah, both of you are irredeemable black sheep). I mean, here we discuss if gay people have the right to marry, in Israel, it is far from obvious for the het couples!
July 22, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink