Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Occupation increasingly a touchstone for Israeli-German relations

After 50 years of diplomatic relations, the Israeli-German partnership is strained by mounting German dismay over Israel’s settlement policy and reinvigorated anti-Semitism in Germany.

By Angela Gruber

Israel and Germany are marking 50 years of diplomatic relations this week. While most people probably aren’t reeling with excitement in anticipation of the countless festivities (especially on the German side) to mark the occasion, the anniversary does serve as a good occasion to take stock of the relationship between these two countries.

Can Israeli-German relations ever be normal? Should they, after the Holocaust? Is Israel more entitled to German support than other nations? Or is this a poisoned chalice no side should lobby for? And where do the Palestinians stand in that equation?

German Chancellor Willy Brandt once described the relations between Israel and Germany as, “normal relations [that] are very special in nature.” A few decades later, I believe his words still ring true. And yet they mean something different today.

Fifty years after David Ben-Gurion and Konrad Adenauer forged an unlikely partnership, Israel and Germany are partners with strong ties in economy, science, culture, sports, and of course, politics. Not only are diplomatic ties strong between the two countries, there is also deep and broad cooperation between the two civil societies.

Probably most controversially, Germany is a major supplier and funder of Israeli arms, subsidizing up to 50 percent of the costs (for example with the Dolphin-class submarines) of armaments, including the subsidized sale of new warships announced this week. Israel’s security was and still is an essential part of the German Staatsraison, and no German politician has ever grown tired of saying as much.

But in recent years, Germany and Israel’s interpretations of what this cornerstone of foreign policy means and how it should be interpreted in day-to-day politics have drifted apart. Germany is taking baby steps toward being more outspoken about the Israeli occupation, and that is increasingly straining its relationship with Israel (see timeline).

Nevertheless, Khalil Shikaki from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah thinks Germany could support the Palestinians much more, even without hurting its relations with Israel.

“Palestinians want much stronger economic relations with Germany, which is also something Israel should support,” he told me.

Shikaki recently directed a public opinion survey asking Palestinians about their views on Germany. Most...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Israeli-German relations: Timeline of a difficult relationship

Read more here on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Germany.

By Angela Gruber

September 1951: Germany’s Chancellor Konrad Adenauer recognizes his country’s guilt over the Holocaust in his governmental statement [German]: “Unspeakable crimes have been committed in the name of the German people. They oblige us to moral and material reparations.”

September 1952: The “Luxembourg Agreement“ about reparations for the Jewish victims of the Nazi regime is signed. It prompts controversy both in Israel and Germany.

December 1957: In a secret deal, Israel and Germany negotiate military cooperation, with Germany supplying armaments to Israel. It still does today.

May 1965: After increased cooperation and exchanges in the fields of sport, culture, science and economics, Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany establish diplomatic relations. Asher Ben-Natan is Israel’s first ambassador to Germany. Rolf Pauls is named the first German ambassador to Israel.

June 1973: Willy Brandt is the first German Chancellor to visit Israel, describing “normal relations [that] are very special in nature.”

September 1973: Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), receives a warm welcome in East Berlin by Erich Honecker, Chairman of the SED party in East Germany. The German Democratic Republic (DDR), in contrast to its Western sister state, followed an anti-Israel, Arab-friendly foreign policy driven by the Cold War.

July 1975: Yitzak Rabin becomes the first Israeli prime minister to visit Germany.

November 1989: The Berlin Wall falls and paves the way for Germany’s reunification. Israel follows the events with concern. In a letter to Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir calls a reunified Germany “a deathly danger for the Jews.”

March 2008: Israel and Germany initiate governmental consultations to foster relations between the two countries. The same month, Angela Merkel declares in the Knesset: “The security of Israel will never be negotiable for me, as the German Chancellor.”

February 2011: Israeli-German relations are strained, as Germany votes in favor of a UN Security Council resolution calling the Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory illegal. The resolution is vetoed and stopped by the U.S.

November 2012: Germany abstains from a vote granting Palestine the status of a non-member observer state with the UN, while Israeli officials wanted a German “no” vote.

View article: AAA
Share article

So we meet again, Prawer Plan

 In 2013, when the government shelved a plan to displace thousands of Bedouin from their villages, we rejoiced. Now, less than two years on, it’s back on the table. And so is our struggle.

By Huda Abu Obeid

The following is what I wrote in December 2013, when then Minister Benny Begin suspended the Prawer Plan, a government-sponsored proposal to displace thousands of Bedouin citizens who live in “unrecognized” villages:

“Our feeling today is of great relief. It’s a victory nobody expected when we, a group of weak and disenfranchised people, faced up to one of the strongest countries in the world. We never dreamed of expecting a light at the end of the tunnel. The shelving of the Prawer Plan will no doubt strengthen the Bedouin society and prove that a joint effort pays off.”

I hoped these would be the last words I’d ever write about the plan. I knew that there’d be another one – whether better or worse remained to be seen – but it didn’t occur to me that the same plan would again be on the table.

Over the past week, I’ve come to realize that I and my fellow campaigners are facing great challenges ahead, now that the new government looks set to put the notorious Prawer Plan back on the table.

The thought of starting our struggle from scratch doesn’t make much sense, especially when taking into account the fact that the far-right Jewish Home party, who back in 2013 rejected the plan for being too generous to the Bedouin, is the one now insisting on including it in the new coalition agreements.

The only plausible explanation is that Jewish Home, who received the Agriculture portfolio (thus becoming effectively in charge of implementing the plan), reintroduced Prawer as a ploy to legitimize a tougher policy to “deal” with the Bedouin. Given that anti-Prawer protests swept the country, it remains to be seen how it will go down.

We, the Bedouin, hoped that this time a policy would be drafted in conjunction with our community, and would take our input into account. We still call on the government, whom we thought displayed a reasonable degree of good will, to take us up on our offer and come down to meet and negotiate with us, instead of deciding people’s fates in the comfort of their Jerusalem offices.

One thing is clear, though: The State of...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

High Court okays plan to raze Arab village, build Jewish one in its place

By upholding the state’s explicitly racist plan for Umm el-Hiran, the court shows again that it cares more about Israel’s Jewish character than about democracy and justice.

By Amjad Iraqi

One year ago, the unrecognized Bedouin village of Alsira won a major victory when the Be’er Sheva District Court refused to reinstate demolition orders against the entire village. The case set a legal precedent for defending other unrecognized villages threatened by the discriminatory Prawer Plan, which could forcibly displace up to 70,000 Bedouin citizens of Israel living in the Naqab (Negev). That cautious hope was dashed last week, however, when, in a 2-1 ruling, Israel’s High Court of Justice refused to cancel eviction orders against Umm el-Hiran, home to 700 men, women and children of the al-Qi’an tribe.

Bringing an Arab land case to the Israeli courts is always a risky venture, but many believed that Umm el-Hiran, like Alsira, had a strong chance of success. Contrary to the state’s initial claims, the villagers are not trespassers on the land; the Israeli military government transferred them there in 1956, after it displaced them from their original home of Khirbet Zubaleh in 1948. This fact was confirmed by the High Court as well as the lower courts. In other words, there is nothing illegal about the villagers’ presence.

More importantly, the state’s plan for Umm el-Hiran is explicitly racist. It wants to demolish the village and relocate the Bedouin residents to the town of Hura – for the sole purpose of building a new Jewish town called ‘Hiran’ over its ruins. Umm el-Hiran’s adjacent sister village, Atir, will also be destroyed to expand the man-made forest of ‘Yatir.’ The Jewish residents who are slated to move into the new Hiran, who are tied to the West Bank settlement of Susya, are currently living in an encampment in the forest. And while the current residents of Umm el-Hiran have been denied water and electricity for decades, the future residents of Jewish Hiran have already been provided those services by the state and the Jewish National Fund (JNF).

In spite of these facts, the High Court still found a way to defend the state’s discriminatory plan. Justices Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel wrote in the ruling that the villagers’ appeal should have been taken to another body, such as a planning committee, because they saw it as dispute over new...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Ed Miliband is a Jewish leader of historic magnitude

With his refreshingly cool attitude towards Israel, the defeated leader of the British Labour Party heralds the future of Jewish politics in the West.

By Gilad Halpern

Unlike what many predicted, Ed Miliband did not become the first Jewish prime minister of Great Britain. Tendering his resignation after a crushing defeat in last week’s general election, Miliband will probably disappear to the back benches of the Labour Party, only to resurface as a run-of-the-mill cabinet minister when – if, rather – a Labour government is formed. Miliband’s leadership, as well as his heritage, will be cast into oblivion.

Few would think of this as a great loss. Leadership, heritage and other statesmanlike qualities have hardly been associated with “Awkward Ed,” as he became known in the British right-wing press. His pathological lack of charisma was one of the main reasons he failed to garner sweeping support among an electorate that has been largely sympathetic to his policies, and struggled to unite the party behind his leadership.

Miliband’s long-lasting impact on his party, let alone the nation, will be minimal. But this is not where his heritage lies. It lies in his unique disposition as a Jewish leader, namely in his refreshingly cool approach towards Israel.

Miliband was born in London as the younger son of Holocaust survivors, who had made Britain their home. His father Ralph was an eminent Marxist intellectual and, even though socialism was the dominant religion in their home, the Milibands never disavowed their Jewish heritage. “How can my Jewishness not be part of me?” Ed wrote in the pro-Labour magazine The New Statesman shortly after becoming leader. “It defines how my family was treated. It explains why we came to Britain.”

Miliband visited Israel several times. As a child, he would come to spend holidays with his grandmother in Tel Aviv – he still has many relatives living in the country, including West Bank settlements – and as Leader of the Opposition, he made an official visit to Israel, which included the obligatory stop at Yad Vashem. Miliband repeatedly styled himself as a friend of Israel, resolutely committed to the two-state solution. He was even once caught saying that he was Zionist, a statement that he was quick to retract and mindful of not making again.

Despite all this, the 2015 General Election probably saw the smallest...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Violent settlers cleared despite smoking gun (literally)

When the prosecution closes a case for lack of evidence, despite the abundance thereof, we realize how seriously it takes its role.

By Yesh Din, written by Yossi Gurvitz

The location was Qusra, a village in the Shiloh Valley; the date, September 16, 2011. Fathallah Mahmoud Muhammad Abu Rhoda went out with his three sons to pick figs. A short while after reaching their land, they noticed about 10 Israeli civilians standing around their water hole. The Palestinians demanded the Israelis leave the place; the interlopers refused. The residents of Qusra — a village that has already proven it can defend itself against marauders — began heading to the area. An argument ensued, and according to Abu Rhoda’s testimony to the police, three of the settlers (who were armed) opened fire on the Palestinians. One bullet hit Abu Rhoda in the thigh.
Of the three, two were armed with rifles and the other with a handgun. From the police testimony, we see that the handgun’s owner also sicced a dog on the Palestinians. The complainants managed to photograph some of their attackers, among them the handgun owner.

Four days after the incident, Abu Rhoda filed a complaint with the police. Almost three years later, on August 6, 2014, the prosecution informed Yesh Din that it closed the case for lack of evidence. After a series of 14 phone calls, we managed to photocopy the case file on December 15 2014 — more than four months after the case was closed. However, it was immediately apparent some of the material was missing. We continued requesting it until February 2015.

From the evidence we finally received, it turns out that there is more than enough evidence to indict the handgun owner, E. As previously mentioned, E. was identified by the Palestinian victims, and they even supplied the police with photos of him at the scene, which clearly show him holding a handgun in one hand and the dog in the other. The police picked up cartridges from the scene, and a ballistic fingerprinting – which took place on September 27, 2011 – found that one of the cartridges came from a 9mm Glock pistol (the others were fired from rifles.) E. was summoned for questioning, invoked his right to remain silent, but admitted he owned a Glock. The gun was duly turned over to the police,...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

To win, the Israeli left needs to learn from Bibi

Like Netanyahu, who harped on Iran, ISIS, and the Arab citizens voting in droves, the left has a bunch of fears that it can stoke and channel in its favor. All it needs to take its gloves off and go down to business.

By Elie Podeh

The Knesset election results have put the left on the defensive. It has since had to explain why it lost, and the blame was placed on the usual suspects: An ineffective campaign, a lack of charismatic leadership, abandoning peripheral and low-income populations, demographic trends in Israeli society, and more.

The truth of the matter is that the left has been on the defensive since 1977, when the right rose to power. In the first years of independence, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion famously said he would consider any coalition “without Herut and Maki,” effectively demarcating the boundaries of political legitimacy – without Menachem Begin’s Revisionist right on the one hand, and without the radical Left in the form of the Israeli Communist Party, on the other. Years later, when Likud appropriated the term “national camp,” it was similarly meant to delegitimize their political rivals as not sufficiently “national.”

The importance attached to branding was reflected in the Labor Party’s decision, before the last election, to change its name to “the Zionist Union.” It didn’t signal an ideological change, but rather a response to the right, by way of saying: we are Zionists, too. This apologetic step, however, backfired. Not only did it alienate Arab voters, it was also seen as another act of groveling before the nationalist right.

The main error of the Zionist Union was its equivocation on key policies. Evidently, the use of non-radical messaging was meant to attract centrist and right-of-center voters. This pattern was particularly evident in the Zionist Union’s cryptic positions on the Palestinian question.

Another mistake was their inability, or unwillingness, to address the Israeli public’s genuine fears. Benjamin Netanyahu was able to cultivate concerns over Iran, al-Qaeda, ISIS and Arab Israelis voting en masse for anti-Zionist parties. The equally ominous danger presented by a failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was nearly absent from the Zionist Union’s campaign, even though Hamas and the Palestinian Authority weren’t among Netanyahu’s bogeymen.

Yet, the prospect of a third intifada breaking out against the backdrop of a political deadlock is real; the risk of diplomatic, economic and academic boycotts by the international...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Next head of 'Civil Administration' said Palestinians are sub-human

After the Oslo Accords, the Israeli army renamed the Military Government of the West Bank the Civil Administration. MK Eli Ben-Dahan was just appointed to oversee the Administration, which oversees the theft of Palestinian land, settlement expansion and controls the movement of millions of Palestinians.

By John Brown*

“[Palestinians] are beasts, they are not human.” — MK Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, Aug 1, 2013. (Hebrew)

“A Jew always has a much higher soul than a gentile, even if he is a homosexual.” — MK Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, Dec 27, 2013. (Hebrew/English)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finalized the formation of a new government this week when he signed a coalition agreement with far-right settler party Jewish Home. As part of the agreement, Rabbi Ben-Dahan will be Israel’s next deputy defense minister, responsible for the army’s “Civil Administration.”

The Civil Administration is responsible for all aspects the occupation that don’t involve boots-on-the-ground security operations — it administers planning, building, and infrastructure for both Jews and Palestinians in Area C of the West Bank. It also administers the Palestinian population database and is responsible for granting and revoking entry and travel permits for Palestinians, controlling every aspect of their movement.

In other words, the man slated to take charge of an organization entrusted with supervising the theft of Palestinian land and supervising Palestinians’ lives, is a racist who said he does not see them as human, but rather as animals (nothing against animals, of course, but we can be fairly certain Ben-Dahan didn’t mean it as a compliment). That’s more or less like appointing a member of the local Klu Klux Klan chapter to investigate claims of violence and discrimination against the Baltimore Police Department — that is, if Baltimore residents were deprived of citizenship and the right to vote.

But MK Ben-Dahan wasn’t appointed just to continue abusing Palestinians and to advance [Jewish Home party chairman] Naftali Bennett’s apartheid annexation plan, an essential component of which is ethnically cleansing Area C of the West Bank. (Watch Bennett explain his plan here.) The Civil Administration has been quite diligent about that in recent years. For instance, the forced transfer of the entire Palestinian village of Susya (approved this week by the High Court’s settler Justice, Noam Solberg, which is almost as...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

When the police start acting like a gang

A journalist learns that if you photograph Border Policemen committing a felony, you’ll probably end up paying for it.

By Yesh Din, written by Yossi Gurvitz

Near the end of January 2015, Amin Hassan Raneh Alawiya left his home in East Jerusalem’s Al-Azariya neighborhood and made his way to a wedding. As he later described it in his police complaint, upon leaving the house, Alawiya – a photojournalist by profession – noticed a demonstration taking place nearby. Naturally, he picked up his camera and went over to document it. A Border Police officer, whom Alawiya recognized, ordered him to move away. In fact, he gave Alawiya the choice of either moving away, getting arrested or getting shot. Alawiya went back home and photographed from there.

Two policemen then came to the house and called Alawiya to come out. When he did the two cops jumped him. They continued hitting him as he was led to their vehicle, and from what they said on the two-way radio, Alawiya understood that he was to blame for disregarding their instructions. Inside the vehicle, the policemen kept hitting him, one of them shouting, “this is for our friend,” and, “our friend will shoot you,” using the name of a third policeman. One of them also used the opportunity to curse the founder of Islam, Muhammad, until the other one told him to stop.

Who is the third cop? Ah! This is the core of the story. In May 2014, as part of his job, Alawiya documented Border Policemen assaulting a hooded child in East Jerusalem, after he was suspected of throwing stones. The policemen also took photos of themselves with the wounded child. The “friend” is one of those documented in Alawiya’s video, which enjoyed widespread distribution on Al Jazeera and other networks. Ever since, he says, he became a target for the Border Police in East Jerusalem, which he claims prevent him from filming in the city and even broke one of his cameras.

Alawiya’s detention in January was part of the Border Police’s quest for vengeance. One of the problems with police forces, particularly forces that are not subject to serious oversight, is that they tend to become a kind of gang: the permeation of a culture of violence and lies becomes common. We have seen the violence, now let’s deal with the deceitfulness.

After his detention, Alawiya was held, handcuffed and...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

The real reason Netanyahu has the High Court in his crosshairs

The government’s plan to curb the High Court’s authority distracts from the fact that on most of Israel’s discriminatory and anti-democratic laws and policies, the two institutions see eye to eye.

By Amjad Iraqi

In recent weeks, the Israeli media has reported on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plan to propose new legislation that would grant the government more authority over the selection of High Court justices, as well as limit the court’s judicial review power. The plan has been blocked by center-right Kulanu leader Moshe Kahlon as a condition for joining the new coalition, but Likud and its far-right partners have not ruled out re-introducing it in the future. Chief Justice Miriam Naor also denounced the plan at a conference last week, saying that the Court must retain its position as “the last barrier against harm to human dignity” in Israel.

The dispute over the proposed legislation has largely been framed as the latest episode in a long-standing confrontation between right-wing politicians and the judiciary over the extent of the latter’s integrity and independence. This framing is only partly true: the government and the High Court have indeed clashed on many important issues in recent years, including the internment of African asylum seekers at the Holot detention center, and some incidents of Jewish outposts built on private Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.

However, this narrative distracts from the fact that the two institutions actually agree on most of Israel’s discriminatory and anti-democratic laws and policies, in contradiction to the Court’s self-proclaimed role as the vanguard of dignity and liberty in Israel. The cases in which clashes do occur almost never relate to “core” questions involving the Jewish character of the state or the main structures of the occupation. On those core questions, however, the Court has not only allowed the government to pursue its agendas, but has also increasingly endorsed the hostile intentions behind them.

The recent approval of the Anti-Boycott Law is one example of this. In the ruling, several justices actively adopted the discourse of Israel’s politicians that views the civil right to boycott, including against settlements, as a threat to the state. Justice Hanan Melcer wrote that boycotts could amount to “political terror;” Justice Yitzhak Amit remarked that BDS could stand for “Bigoted, Dishonest, Shameful;” and Justice Elyakim Rubinstein wrote, “There is nothing wrong...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

How I became involved with Breaking the Silence

When I ran into an old classmate who suggested that I testify, I told him I had nothing to tell. He insisted, and only then I realized how wrong I was.

By Avihai Stollar

Back in 2008, I ran into Dotan, a former classmate from high school. We started chatting and he told me he was active in an organization called Breaking the Silence. He told me that its members are former soldiers who had served in the Occupied Territories and now strive to expose the Israeli public to the day-to-day reality of the occupation. To this end, he said, they collected testimonies of past and present soldiers.

We spoke at length about the picture they try to paint, and how unaware Israelis are of it. He then asked me whether I’d like to join the organization, and testify about my own experiences as a former IDF soldier in the West Bank. I agreed, but said I had very little to share.

Three and a half years prior, clad in a helmet and a bulletproof vest, I stood inside an abandoned building in the heart of Dura, a Palestinian town in the southern West Bank. My platoon took over the house to carry out the so-called “straw widow” maneuver, a military tactic whereby a sizable contingent ambushes Palestinian militants inside their homes. But a few hours after our arrival, one of the neighbors heard noises and went inside to see what they were. We captured him and latched on to him, so that he wouldn’t reveal our whereabouts.

A few minutes later, another man came in, probably to look for his friend. We captured him as well. When a third person came in, we realized that we had been exposed, but decided to stay put. In the meantime, morning had broken and it seemed like the entire town encircled the building. Dozens if not hundreds of boys were throwing stones at us, and we retaliated by throwing stun grenades through the windows. Soon thereafter, we ran out of stun grenades and were left with no anti-riot weapons, so we started shooting live rounds. We fired everywhere: on street lamps, on windows and doors of the nearby buildings, and in the vicinity of the rioting boys. After a two-hour shooting rampage, our backup finally turned up and we left the town, watching the protesters and...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Chronicle of a tragedy foretold in Gaza

If there’s one takeaway from the newly published Breaking the Silence report, it’s that the IDF is most certainly not the most moral army in the world.

By Ido Even Paz

Breaking the Silence member Idan Barir published an article during last summer’s Gaza war, in which he warned against the firing of artillery into densely populated areas such as the Gaza Strip. The use of a ‘’statistical’’ weapon, he wrote, would bring about disastrous consequences, due to its inherent imprecision.

Now, nearly a year after the last shell of Operation Protective Edge fell silent, it has become clearly evident that the concerns voiced by Idan were well founded.

One of the most deep-seated conventions among Israelis is that their army is “the most moral in the world.” One of the cornerstones of this ethos is the assumption that the IDF does everything in its power to prevent harm to innocent civilians.

That assumption did not come out of nowhere. The Israeli public is force-fed this mantra by the IDF’s official and unofficial spokespersons. Loyal and obedient, they repeat, no questions asked.

The booklet of testimonies published on Monday by Breaking the Silence, a compilation of first-hand accounts of around 70 soldiers who took part in the operation, tells a markedly different story. In effect, it refutes the “most moral army in the world” paradigm entirely. The soldiers’ testimonies paint a disturbing picture of the IDF’s massive use of indiscriminate weapons, directed in some cases at densely populated residential areas. Here is, for example, an excerpt from a lieutenant’s testimony:

With regard to artillery, the IDF let go of the restraints it once had. Ahead of every ground incursion there was a day of scouting and artillery was fired at the houses that formed the front line… I have no doubt that artillery was fired on houses. Tanks, too, were firing a lot in there.

In another testimony, an officer speaks of the inherent problem in using artillery in densely populated areas:

[Artillery is] statistical – it has a 50 meter radius. In the end, that’s one of the problems, too – [mortars are] a statistical weapon and people don’t get that. There is this conception that we know how to do everything super accurately, as if it doesn’t matter which weapon is being used… But...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

+972 is seeking an Executive Director

Five years after its founding, +972 is looking for a new executive director. We view this as a natural progression of the maturation of the website and the entire project, and we look forward to the next phase.

+972’s non-profit organization (“+972 For the Advancement of Citizen Journalism”) operates two online magazines, in Hebrew and in English, managed by collectives of bloggers and photographers, most of them volunteers.

The NGO is committed to values of democracy, opposing the occupation and striving towards peace, equality, transparency and freedom of information. The organization is not connected to any political party or group.


·Shaping and implementing the organizational and content strategy for the NGO.

·Running the business side of the NGO’s operations, including promotion and marketing of the magazines and their publications.

·Preparing and managing the organization’s budget, monitoring its implementation, approving expenditures in accordance with the budget, and managing relations with suppliers.

·Overseeing fundraising, setting goals and monitoring progress, representing the NGO with donors and major stakeholders, including the negotiation of agreements and contracts.

·Managing the NGO’s employees: hiring, accompanying, oversight and evaluation. Constant contact and periodical reporting to the board of directors.


·Identifying with the organization’s values and mission statement (English and Hebrew).

·Acquaintance with the magazines, their content and writers.

·Ability to manage employees and work with volunteers.

·Background in communications, journalism or editing, including writing experience.

·Excellent verbal and written English and Hebrew (Arabic is a significant advantage).

·Ability to represent the organizations with donors and colleagues.

Terms of position: Full time.

Please send C.V. and cover letter, explaining why you are interested in the position, to

Deadline: Applications will be accepted until May 15, 2015

+972 is an equal opportunity employer, and we particularly encourage women, people from different communities and persons with disabilities to apply for this position.

The role of the executive director is creative and diverse – we may consider candidates whose professional experience differs from those specified above, if they suit the organization’s needs.

View article: AAA
Share article
© 2010 - 2015 +972 Magazine
Follow Us

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website powered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel