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

+972 poll: Joint Arab list would raise voter participation

The three Arab lists in the Knesset are expected to run together in response to a raised election threshold. Asked about self-identity, the majority consider themselves Arab, but a growing and significant minority call themselves Palestinian.

Nearly 70 percent of Arabs citizens of Israel intend to vote if the three existing Arab parties run on a joint list, compared to 56 percent who voted in the 2013 elections, a new +972 poll found. But the call to boycott the elections holds powerful sway. A majority of 54 percent says that if there are such calls to boycott the elections, they will decide not to vote, leaving only 46 percent at present who are committed to voting despite such calls.

As the wave of speculation about unification of the three Arab lists swells, there is a flurry of concern about low voter turnout in the Arab community. Since the boycott against elections in 2001 when fewer than 20 percent voted, recent cycles have seen just half of Arab voters participating. The newly raised electoral threshold means that any one Arab party might not be represented in the Knesset, unless they run together.

Click here to read more on the +972 poll here

There has been a presumption that Arab voters are fed up with party politics and ego games just as much as Jewish voters, and that for Arabs, uniting would give people a boost of faith in their representatives’ willingness to put personal interest aside, to better represent the people.

And sure enough, by contrast to other indications that still only half of Arab voters will participate based on the current lists, we found the following:

• When asked “if the parties unite into one list, what are the chances that you will participate in voting?” 68 percent of Arab respondents said they would “definitely” vote, the closest indicator of actual intentions.

• One-third (32 percent) in total responded “possibly,” “there’s a 50-50 chance,” or “I won’t vote.”

Yet against this new finding, the threat of calls to boycott still lurks. Respondents to this survey were very mindful of the possible call to boycott. We asked:

“If leaders in the Arab community call to boycott and not participate in the elections, will you vote despite that, or will you decide not to vote?”

• A high portion, 40 percent,...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

+972 poll: Israelis reject the status quo, fear int'l isolation

Over 70 percent of Israelis are worried about international isolation. Half believe settlements strengthen Israeli security and over half support a breakthrough vision for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – roughly the same rate of support for the traditional two-state paradigm. But one-quarter support an apartheid vision for the future. Half the population supports anchoring Jewish identity in law – but over half either oppose doing so or have no opinion. Fully three-quarters support President Rivlin’s conciliatory approach and criticism of the government.

The contradictions and convictions of Israelis at the end of 2014, and the beginning of the election cycle, in a special +972 Magazine poll. Information about the poll is found at the end.

The conflict: Status quo out, apartheid up, new paradigms in?

+972 Magazine’s survey indicates a sea change in consciousness inside Israel, and a dawning realization that things cannot go on as they are. Ninety percent of the respondents reject the option of continuing the status quo on the conflict.

Roughly since the construction of the separation barrier in the mid-2000s, the notion of a sustainable status quo settled into mainstream Israeli thinking and has held for nearly a decade. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was low on the list of priorities in Israeli survey research.

Since the outbreak of Operation Protective Edge, I have often been asked whether the war would shatter support for the status quo. Until now, there has been no consistent empirical evidence that it has.

We asked people about their preferred general vision for the future of the conflict and gave four options: “Thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which of the following options do you prefer?”

which-arrangement

We now know that 90 percent of Israeli respondents favor something other than the status quo. But in the next graph, this data can also be compared to the polls marked * which were conducted by the organization Blue and White Future with an identical sample for the Jewish respondents and very similar question wording. Note the major changes:

 • Support for a status quo is falling steadily – a process that actually happened between 2012 and 2013; our current survey confirms a real trend.

• Support for a two-state solution remains completely unchanged.

• There is no statistical change in support for an equal one-state solution.

•...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Majority of Israeli Jews support bus segregation, survey finds

Surveys by Israeli Democracy Index and Tel Aviv University find that most Israeli Jews prefer separate buses for Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank; one-quarter of Arab respondents support the torching of Jerusalem’s only mixed Jewish-Arab school. 

As Israel heads into election cycle, a shower of political punditry will yet again distract everyone from the issues that affect people’s lives. That is the main reason, in my opinion, why the prime minister wanted elections. He has exhausted all other means of doing nothing.

Yet it’s worth remembering the issues. The following is a selection of public opinion data from the two recent Israel Peace Index surveys conducted by the Israel Democracy Index and Tel Aviv University.*  I’ve chosen a few themes that will likely be, or should be, central to the coming campaign debates.

Crisis in U.S.-Israel relations

- Sixty-two percent of Israelis think that relations between Netanyahu and the Obama Administration are poor or very poor, and even more, 70 percent, among the Jewish population.

- Forty percent believe this is the fault of the U.S., but 30 percent also blame the Israeli side. Another 20 percent think both are to blame. Thus, half the population believes Israel is at least partly to blame.

- However, a strong majority apparently believes that the tension between Israel and the U.S. is a matter of ebb and flow, rhetoric and posturing, with few consequences. Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) disagree with the idea that continued deterioration of relations will lead to the U.S. no longer being a very close ally.

- Finally, Israelis were asked about concrete American policy steps to pressure Israel. Participants were asked their opinion if, “the United States no longer vetoes anti-Israel Security Council resolutions, greatly reduces its economic support for Israel, and stops providing Israel with the most advanced military equipment.” Nearly half of respondents, 48 percent, said these steps would harm Israel’s security, compared to just over 38 percent who said they could actually strengthen Israeli independence. There was minimal difference between Arabs and Jews regarding those who said it would harm Israeli security. However, more Jews, 40 percent, thought (or hoped) such measures would bolster Israel’s independence from the U.S.

Election time means heightened sensitivities. Taking such steps could easily cause a nationalist backlash against the U.S. that plays into the right. But...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Liberman's de-patriation plan of illusions

Liberman’s proposal to cure Palestinian citizens of their ‘split personality’ violates pretty much everything democracy stands for.

Headlines blazed in Friday’s Yedioth Ahronoth announcing the outlines of a peace proposal released by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman.

It’s not clear what prompted Liberman to release the plan at this moment – campaign considerations, a brief drop in attention as the “Jewish Nation-State Law” took center stage, or a distraction from Israel’s deteriorating foreign relations as yet another European parliamentary debate on Palestinian statehood was held on Friday, this time in France.

But there is nothing new about it for Liberman, who has been pushing his principles for at least four years now. It is not a shift in any political direction. The best that can be said is that it is easy to explain: two states along 1967 lines, and Israel annexes large settlement blocs. The kicker is Liberman’s key condition of “moving boundaries,” such that large swaths of land populated mostly by Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel would become part the Palestinian state.

He writes on the party’s website (my translation):

… the arrangement must include the land and population exchange plan. The arrangement…will allow Arab Israelis who do not identify with the State of Israel to become part of the Palestinian state. This will solve… the problem of Arabs in the Triangle and Wadi Ara…who can become citizens of the Palestinian state without leaving their homes, and it will also allow the Arabs in other parts of Israel, such as Jaffa, Acre, etc., who feel they are part of the Palestinian nation, to solve the problem of dualism and “split personality” they suffer from. They will be able to decide… If their identity is Palestinian, they can give up on their Israeli citizenship and become citizens [of Palestine]. The State of Israel must even encourage them to do so through a system of financial incentives.

It is not totally clear whether Arabs in the Triangle or Wadi Ara will be given a choice, or if they will be summarily de-patriated. It is not clear whether they will be allowed to have dual citizenship, although based on the statement about Arabs of Jaffa it seems not. Maybe the most concrete innovation in this version is the generous offer of financial incentives for Arabs to leave Israel. 

...Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Is the 'Jewish nation-state' bill good for anyone at all?

A law seeking to prioritize and designate Israel as the Jewish nation-state is exposing the crazies in Israel’s government. This proposed basic law would codify and demarcate the state as something that belongs only to a subset of its citizens.

The cabinet on Sunday passed a preliminary reading of a law — with the weight of a constitutional amendment — that would declare Israel to be the nation-state of the Jewish people. In order to pass the vote, Prime Minister Netanyahu put forward 14 principles on which the basic law’s final wording will be based. Democracy is in there as an afterthought, equality treated weakly by guaranteeing individual rights, and allowing all people to preserve their culture and language.

Here are seven of the main reasons why “Basic Law: Israel – the National State of the Jewish People” is wrong for Israel and should not be passed.

No solutions. The prime minister’s 14 articles do not deal with cost of living and they do not protect the residents of Sderot or the woman whose house was burned yesterday by violent Israeli extremists. It doesn’t lower tuition fees for students or the price of chocolate pudding, connect Negev Bedouin to the water grid or create jobs for factory workers laid off in Arad. It doesn’t address the growing chasm with the Western world and the crisis of relations with the U.S. Yet this is what the government is doing while its citizens wait, and suffer.

Freeze a flawed reality. While the proposed basic law will effect little tangible change, it will go a long way toward anchoring the current situation of de facto discrimination into law. I recently got into a big argument with a foreigner who accused Israel of being racist in its “DNA.” I was heated. “Like all human beings, people can change,” I shot back. “Bad regimes can turn to other directions.”

Now the law is making exclusivity and inequality part of Israel’s legal DNA. Yes we are changing – but not in the right direction.

Clinging to crazy. The debate over the proposed Jewish nation-state law exposes the deepening isolationism of the small clutch of extremists at the country’s helm. They long ago isolated Israel from the Western and Arab worlds. Now, just as the prime minister and his henchmen contradict their own security chiefs when the latter don’t fall into line, this bill pits...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

The mentality of conflict: Six steps to avoiding empathy

From Protective Edge to the Jerusalem implosion, the mentality of conflict has been pushed under a microscope. During that time I’ve noticed a few axioms about how Israelis experience these wars. I imagine other sides in other conflicts may share them too, although they require pretty close scrutiny and insider knowledge – so I won’t venture to generalize.

Here is what I’ve seen. “Our” in this case means “Israeli,” since I am one.

1. All our violence against their civilians is a matter of exceptions and anomalies, by bad apples and extremists. When they attack civilians, this represents the true nature of all their people.

2. They don’t believe our facts, because they want to incite their people. We don’t believe their facts, especially when they are filmed, because they are lying.

3. All our violence is justified as response, punishment, or deterrence from further attack. A good example is everything that happened in Gaza this summer. All their violence – such as everything happening in recent weeks – is unprovoked, arbitrary; because they hate us and want to exterminate us.

4. #3 justifies us supporting attacks on them, including civilians. When they support attacks on civilians, it’s proof that they are barbarians.

5. When they kill our civilians, they must condemn them – even when they do, it’s not enough. When we kill their civilians, condemning or even observing the events is the mark of radical leftists and traitors. It warrants cries of “death to Arabs and leftists,” heard frequently.

6. When they say bad things about us , it’s incitement; when we say bad things about them, it’s true.  Primitive, bloodthirsty, beasts, sexual predators, Islam as a religion of blood and death and worse – these are becoming daily fare.

What I am not saying here: There is no condoning terror and violence against civilians, ever.  There is no condoning incitement to terror and violence against civilians. I have nothing to say in support of such things.

But it is becoming maddening to hear and see the very behavior we fear among them, within ourselves, over and over – and lie that we are not doing it. That we are better, superior, above them. Accusing one side without realizing where we too are guilty is nothing other than a...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Israeli petition to European lawmakers: Recognize Palestine

Prominent Israelis call on European parliamentarians to formally recognize a Palestinian state. But what kind of impact can European votes have when the real power broker in Israel-Palestine relations is still the U.S.?

Nearly 700 prominent Israelis, including former ambassadors, academics, IDF officers, top playwrights and poets, winners of the Israel Prize and Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman have signed a letter appealing to the parliaments of various European countries to recognize Palestine in upcoming votes.

We the undersigned, Citizens of Israel who wish it to be a safe and thriving country, are worried by the continued political stalemate and by the occupation and settlements activities which lead to further confrontations with the Palestinians and torpedo the chances for a compromise.

It is clear that the prospects for Israel’s security and existence depend on the existence of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. Israel should recognize the state of Palestine and Palestine should recognize the state of Israel, based on the June 4 1967 borders.

Your initiative for recognizing the state of Palestine will advance the prospects of peace and will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to bring an end to their conflict.

The petition was started just days before a discussion and vote over recognition of the State of Palestine in the UK Parliament in October. “From Thursday night to Sunday morning [before the vote on a Monday – DS], we had over 300 signatures,” explains Alon Liel, formerly an ambassador and later the Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry, who joined with two other Israelis to lead the initiative. With the first critical mass of supporters, he told +972 Magazine, they sent the letter to contacts within the Liberal Democrat party. From there it found its way to others, and made an appearance in the heated discussion in Parliament. Labour MP Grahame Morris said:

At this point, Tory MP Cheryl Gillan added:

That vote passed overwhelmingly by MPs who attended, 274 to 12, in favor of the British government recognizing Palestine alongside the State of Israel. With no binding force the UK government is unlikely to take any action. Meanwhile, Israel tried to deride the vote as a “symbolic” gesture.

But the implication that symbolic equals insignificant is belied by developments in Europe since the vote was taken. Just a few weeks later, Sweden became the most important European country so far to...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

'He should have been a hero, instead he's a murderer'

The parents of Israelis, killed and killers, are crying because they have lost their loved ones. They were betrayed by the lies.

Mother of a murderer? 

A border policeman is arrested for shooting a Palestinian teen at a demonstration in Beitunia with live fire; he faces murder charges. On Wednesday his parents are interviewed. Faces blacked out, the unmistakable sounds of betrayal and anguish pour from the shadows.

The mother’s voice shakes, then sobs. She pleads for the nightmare to end. “It’s tearing me to pieces. I can’t believe this is happening to me, to our family” she weeps. The state has abandoned her son. “He risked his life for the state,” she says over and over. “After all he contributed to the IDF, to the state, this is how they reciprocate?” The father begs: “don’t turn him into a scapegoat.” The mother is bewildered. “It’s a knife in his back.”

I am crushed watching them. They are right. They were told their whole lives that donating their sons to the military is the mission of all Israeli families. The cause of supporting the army to support the state spans the globe, uniting this mother in spirit with Hollywood stars who last week donated $33 million to the IDF. This isn’t just “Friends of the IDF,” it’s a family brought together for the cause of sacrificing its children.

Maybe the family wasn’t told those things explicitly. Who has to say it? This holy mission of the military is an eternal truth for very nearly all Israelis. Every day, the prime minister repeats that Israel is surrounded by actual existential threats. A stone and a nuclear bomb, maybe even a teenage protestor, the video shows, are one and the same.

The killing of the teens in Betunia wasn’t about following or refusing orders. I doubt whether anyone actually told the suspect to fire. In the moral worldview that defines Israel, he did everything right. Except it was wrong. Confused? So is the broken mother. Her son should have been a hero and instead he is a murderer. The prime minister keeps his seat, the Hollywood stars feel good about themselves. Only this family will pay. And of course, the families of the slain teens.

Listening to murder

Noy, the girlfriend of Almog Shiloni, a 20-year old soldier stabbed to death...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

The 'Jerusalem Intifada,' the president and the cliff

When the Left is right.

For years, Cassandras on the Left warned that the festering captivity of the stateless Palestinian population living under military rule would reach a breaking point. There would be a third intifada, maybe a bloodbath. At the very least, said the Left, there would be a drastic collapse of Israel as we know it — the Israel we dreamed of. Israel would become an isolated pariah state with a cruel elite ruling over a desperate, legally inferior people, or else a neutral political entity with no traces of Jewish anything. They said that the two-state window was closing at least five years back.

Now, journalists, diplomats, caring outsiders and erstwhile insiders long gone, ask me regularly if we are reaching these breaking points.

Here is what I see around me: in the last decade there have been four full-out wars and now possibly a fifth as the violence accelerates around Jerusalem. Four of those wars are from the last six years alone; the pace of open hostilities is quickening.

Inside Israel, even as the socio-economic and educational status of Palestinian-Arab citizens improves, racist antagonism is worse than at any time since the end of military rule over Arab citizens in 1966. Now the hostility flows from all directions: from elected representatives, government ministers, and some portions of the public as well.

Abroad, western nations that should have been Israel’s best friends are despairing. The Scandinavian and Western European countries who are so close to Israel in terms of a social-democratic ethos and socially liberal values; yet they are the most alienated by Israel’s policy regarding the Palestinians. They know the painful history, they welcomed Israel into all Western clubs despite the conflict. But younger generations no longer comprehend how the 20th century traumas justify the 21st century political anomaly of eternal occupation. Some are angry that Israel sells itself as a democratic society, then protests that criticism of occupation is anti-Semitic or hypocritical, because Syria is worse.

The representatives of these communities I have met — bureaucrats, civil society and citizens — strike me as neither anti-Semitic nor unsympathetic to Israeli suffering in this conflict. They are simply confounded as to why Israel does not reach the conclusion that seems most obvious: the policy of occupation must end. They do not understand why citizens tolerate it.

European allies are now eyeing policy to...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

100 ex-generals to Bibi: Reach a Palestinian, regional accord now

Security makes a comeback in peace. If the generals avoid mistakes of the past and put action behind words, they could have an impact.

Over 100 retired and reserve generals, brigadier-generals and senior police officials, including a former head of the Mossad, have signed and published a plea to Prime Minister Netanyahu to reach a reach a regional-based two-state diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In impassioned language, they state their credentials as fighters in Israel’s wars who “fought powerfully on behalf of the state,” and were “impressed by your [Netanyahu’s - ds] wise leadership during Protective Edge.”

They then state their fear that the operation over the summer,

Retired IDF Gen. Nati Sharoni, one of the signatories, told +972 Magazine that the historic opportunity relates to the fact that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and various Gulf states are prepared to revive the Arab Peace Initiative following Protective Edge. The letter was published in Yedioth Ahronoth, one of the top-circulating Hebrew daily papers, along with a double-spread article interviewing some of the signatories.

The authors called upon the still-painful memory of the surprise 1973 Yom Kippur War, “a war whose source was diplomatic blindness of the leaders of Israel,” they write. “We are terrified that the same blindness will undermine the opportunity before us.”

The generals make two interesting points. First, they emphasize the regional approach, which seems to be gaining traction in Israeli discourse lately. And tucked into the letter is the assertion that the West Bank and Gaza must be dealt with simultaneously and together – in contrast to the government’s de facto policy of separation.

It is not the first time I have heard senior security figures insist that Gaza and the West Bank must be resolved in an integral way for a diplomatic resolution to advance security. (Gen. Sharoni, like many others, avoids the term “peace,” because he doesn’t believe that idealized peace with Arab states will be achieved any time soon.)

But the overriding theme is that a two-state diplomatic resolution is the real means to security in the region. “The wisdom of leadership is to realize the limits of force. You need to know that there are limits to force,” said Gen. Sharoni.

The writers also push the bar by repeatedly referring to “moderate Arab states,” practically an oxymoron in the mainstream Israeli narrative. While many Israelis still view the...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Israeli president's apology offers a rare hope for coexistence

With his unprecedented and heartfelt speech in Kafr Qassem commemorating the massacre there, President Rivlin has outlined a future of equality, respect and shared identity for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Israeli President Reuven (Ruby) Rivlin visited the Palestinian town Kafr Qassem in the Triangle region of Israel on Monday to commemorate the massacre of 49 of its residents by Border Police in 1956. He was the first president to attend the formal memorial ceremony, and only the second president to visit, according to Haaretz.

After nearly 15 years of a severe deterioration in relations between Palestinians and Israeli Jews, the visit stood out as a good-will gesture rarely seen on the part of any Israeli leaders. During the vicious climate of the war over the summer, the Israeli public became more accustomed to its elected officials calling Arab citizens terrorists, traitors, and trojan horses and calling to boycott Arab businesses (shouldn’t this be made illegal?).

But even before the war, the previous Knesset passed laws targeting Arabs and debated mean-spirited bills; and the bigot Avigdor Liberman’s star has only risen. These developments topped a dark decade that began with the killing of 13 Arab citizens in October 2000 during demonstrations – a traumatic turning point in relations back then.

The Kafr Qassem massacre in 1956 took place amidst escalation on the eastern border with Jordan and the start of the Sinai campaign. A curfew on Arab towns in the Triangle area – much of the Arab population lived under military rule from 1949-1966 – was changed from 9 p.m. to 5 p.m. Anyone violating the order was to be shot. Many of the residents were farmers were out working their fields when the change to the curfew was announced. Military personnel in the other towns realized that residents would be unaware of the new curfew time and concluded that the order was not logical. But in Kafr Qassem, Border Police soldiers opened fire, murdering 49 unarmed civilians returning from the fields.

This terrible chapter may have precipitated some progress. The state takes pride in the fact that Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Halevi tried the killers and set a legal precedent in Israel by decreeing that it is a soldier’s duty to refuse a “manifestly illegal order, on which the black flag of illegality flies.” Soldiers who carry them out can be tried; soldiers...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

What Israelis really mean when we talk about the Left

It is a shameful lie to make opposition to 47-year military rule an issue of supporters or traitors of Israel.

The war in Gaza yielded a large crop of articles about Liberal Zionism. Suddenly numerous authors felt an urgent need to reject, redefine, defend or deconstruct a term that the vast majority of Israelis have never heard of.

However, Israelis are familiar with the same basic concept, except they call it the “Zionist Left,” or national left. They embrace the label “Zionism,” but unlike diaspora-based writers, don’t spend too much time trying to define it.  I can’t recall anything like the floodtide of English LibZi articles in the Hebrew press any time recently.

That doesn’t bother me; as I’ve written, the term Zionism in Israel today has become a shell gutted of meaning, intended primarily to delegimize anyone who is not one. Finance Minister Yair Lapid took this to new heights when, in reacting to a kerfuffle this week over the cost of Israel’s beloved junk-food chocolate pudding – labeled those who sparked the protest “post-Zionists” and “anti-Zionists.” He was reacting to the (literal? figurative?) name of their Facebook group “Move [lit., ‘make aliyah’ - ds] to Berlin!” where the price of a similar product is lower. I wonder if the authors of the English LibZi articles are aware of this particular iteration of the concept in modern Israel as they search their Zionist identities?

Therefore, what I find more troubling is not the meaning Zionism, but the lack of clarity about what it means to be on the left in Israel.

What do Israelis mean when they talk about the “Left”?

In a lengthy Haaretz feature article about the less-savory aspects of Yitzhak (Bougie) Herzog’s political past, I noticed that Israel’s opposition leader was quoted discussing the constellation within Israel that supported Ehud Barak in the 1999 elections:  “This camp, the peace camp, which today they like to call Left…”

Whatever he was implying, I’ll take that as a step in the right direction. At least the person who is supposed to offer an alternative makes a rhetorical link between the Left and peace.

Otherwise, standing on a sidewalk in any given Israeli town, one might not know what many self-described left-wingers do stand for. Although about 15-16 percent of Jews describe themselves as left wing in surveys, the vast majority...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Israel's Left forgot what dissent really means

Dissent means going against the majority when you believe the majority is wrong — and not just to be contrary. That means being unpopular almost by definition; the majority will never send us flowers.

My colleague Mairav Zonszein has written an eloquent piece in The New York Times decrying the state of dissent in Israel, lamenting the persecutions and constraints on those who criticized the latest Gaza war from the left. She points to a number of disgraceful examples.

The article has generated debate, as observed here. However, much of it breaks down along disappointingly predictable lines: those further to the right, such as Tablet Magazine, attack her observations; those on the far left, like Mondoweiss, defend her. The Right rolls out the knee-jerk defense of everything Israeli: lumping the falsehood of the accusation that Israel stifles dissent right along with the falsehood of any culpability for Israel in the conflict at all.

The Left jumps to affirm any critique of Israel, as packaging all criticism together will serve the mission of proving Israel’s culpability in the conflict.

But freedom of expression is a separate issue, and Israelis should analyze it substantively, not as an automatic extension of their “left” or “right”-ness.

Read Mairav’s response to the criticism

No, Israel is not China, not Iran, and not even Azerbaijan. But the Right should take no comfort in that; the Right must not use such unsavory comparisons to justify or trivialize those terrible things that did happen.

But I think some on the Left have mis-characterized these real issues in a distracting way. If Israel was a society that completely controlled or stifled expression, censoring or shutting down websites, closing newspapers or arresting journalists, it would crush both criticism of and information about the conflict. There might be no protest against Israeli policy at all. Although existing criticism has not ended the occupation so far – at least we know that there is a vocal, organized and articulate community of Israelis searching for ways to change course.

Thus a left winger like Noah Efron, looking at it from a very sober perspective, pointed out in Haaretz that Israel is clearly not smothering dissent in ways described above.

Jumping to the convenient accusation that Israel as a state conspires to silence dissent, Efron argues in a point I take to heart, ignores the...

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

+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