Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

NGO Monitor steps up the absurdity of its attacks

A lie travels around the world while the truth looks for a Wi-Fi connection. Sometimes, it finds it.

This blog’s favorite fibber organization, NGO Monitor – you may remember them from such classic favorites as distributing Hasbara lies about the UN Human Rights Commission, using a Trojan horse inside Wikipedia, as well as just stupid negligence – pounced on the tunnel that was found this week near Ein Hashlosha. The organization quickly took to twitter, saying “So, #Hamas terror tunnel was built w/concrete from #Israel, sent b/c of UN & NGO pressure. Thanks @Gisha_Access“. Lies have the speed advantage: in a very short time, the libel – if I were to use NGO Monitor’s rhetoric I’d write ‘blood libel,’ was quoted in the Jewish Press as if it were a matter of fact. That is, after all, how libel is done.

https://twitter.com/ngomonitor/statuses/389376816856571904

And then, reality came knocking on the hasbara organization’s door. The tunnel, says the IDF, was started about a year and a half ago and finished about two months ago. It is entirely made out of concrete. The problem is that Israel did not transfer cement to the private sector in the Gaza Strip until September 17th, that is, less than a month ago. The cement used for building the tunnel didn’t come to Gaza from Israel. It came through the tunnels. But these are just facts and NGO Monitor isn’t about facts. They’re about distributing Hasbara lies.

Read more about NGO Monitor on +972

The facts, of course, point to a massive hole in the entire Israeli Gaza siege concept. Until recently Hamas had no trouble getting anything it wanted: cement, steel, explosives. Gaza residents got used to relying on the tunnel economy. The sector that got screwed by the Israeli siege was the third sector (non-profits). Third sector organizations can’t buy building supplies for a school they’re funding through the tunnels because these organizations naturally need receipts, and as it happens, the smugglers don’t provide any. The organizations had to make do with very few supplies, under heavy supervision by Israel’s security forces. Not to mention, considering the “terror tunnel” sat around for two months, doing nothing, one might wonder just how much of a “terror tunnel” it really was. If terrorism is all Hamas cares about, why did nothing happen? Could it be that the other side is somewhat rational and kept the tunnel to be used as a bargaining chip in some future altercation?

But I digress. The issue here is the policy of lies used by an organization that pretends it’s watching human rights NGOs, while making sure it keeps its own money trail to itself.  These lies aren’t limited to Gisha and the attempt to incriminate it in involvement in the Hamas tunnel.

Last Thursday, Yesh Din – full disclosure here: the undersigned provides Yesh Din with blog writing services for a fee, and has been known to hobnob with the organization’s staff members at meetings, and sometimes even at the local pub, and considers some organization staff members to be close friends – published a report about the absence of Israeli legislation against war crimes and the effect this absence has on the judgments issued by courts-martial. The report is available here.

Immediately after the report was published, NGO Monitor quickly issued a press release that contained a bald-faced lie: it argued that the report had been commissioned by the European Union and that the EU had simply contracted Yesh Din to write it. This is utter nonsense. Yes, the EU did fund some of the report, but as one can see on page 3 of the report, (document) – this is no secret.

However, the EU didn’t commission it. On the contrary, Yesh Din, like many other human rights NGOs, decided on a project and then went looking for funding. The EU agreed to provide such. The author of the report, Lior Yavne, pointed out to me that the EU’s involvement was confined to making sure that the money they provided was spent appropriately and as required. They did not know what the report would contain and certainly did not influence it. By the way, NGO Monitor claims that the EU provides two-thirds of Yesh Din’s funding. This is also untrue.  A look at Yesh Din’s donor list (document, and while we’re on the subject, I’d appreciate a similarly accurate and detailed list of NGO Monitor donors), reveals that in 2012, it received NIS 4,508,420 million. The EU’s share was 1.19 million, that is, a little more than a quarter. A quarter, a third, iceberg, Goldberg, what’s the difference, they’re all anti-Semites. Forget about the facts.

The most interesting fact is that NGO Monitor has nothing to say about the report itself. All it says is that it was “commissioned” by the EU, presuming that this libel is enough, that all it takes is to draw a line between a human rights NGO and the EU, because, in the alternate universe where NGO Monitor lurks, there’s no need to even say that the EU is a malevolent anti-Semitic organization whose purpose is to destroy Israel. It’s obvious. As far as NGO Monitor – and a large, ignorant, contingent of the Israeli public – are concerned, a connection to the EU is enough to make you a member of the communist party in the U.S. in the fifties. For NGO Monitor, this has become a method. They don’t criticize the reports any more. They just scream that someone Ben Dror Yemini (a right-wing Israeli journalist) doesn’t like gave money to the organization that wrote the report, and think that’s enough.

If they had bothered to read the report (and they didn’t, there wasn’t enough time between the publication and their response, believe me, I read it), they would have seen that its main conclusion, which is that “considering the practice of the Courts-Martial and the shortage of material offenses in Israeli domestic law, special offenses of war crimes should be incorporated through legislation into Israel’s legal system” – not too radical a text you’d have to agree -  is exactly the Turkel Commission’s Recommendation No. 1 (document, pages 366-369). The Turkel Commission found that there are gaps in Israeli legislation, noting, among other things that Israel should “ensure that there is legislation to transpose clearly into law and practice the absolute prohibition in international law of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment,” in order “to enable ‘effective penal sanction’ for those committing war crimes, as required by international law.”

Was the Turkel Commission also funded by the EU? Considering the fact that Gerald Steinberg’s Flying Circus – a man who, it should be noted here, had no compunction about sabotaging Yesh Din’s Wikipedia entry – actually said this morning that the IDF and the Government of Israel were responsible for the building of “terror tunnels,” maybe that day will also come.

Related:
The pathetic negligence of NGO Monitor and truth from Argentina
EU throws out NGO Monitor case, tells it to pick up the tab
Foreign influence, transparency problems of NGO Monitor 

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Danny

      Gerald Steinberg is a joke. He makes bozos like Caroline Glick and Ronen Shoval look respectable by comparison. I wouldn’t waste an article on him and his “organization”. Come to think of it, I wouldn’t waste a single sentence on anyone from Yigal Amir university.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Jan

      Somehow I ended up on the email list of NGO Monitor. What Steinberg and his cronies put out is just a pile of self serving lies. Even though I point out these lies in emails to them they keep me on the list as they continue to spew their lying hasbara.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Kolumn9

      The author of this article is a paid writer for Yesh Din, whose services are paid for and owned by the same European money that NGO Monitor exposes in its articles. He belongs to a marginal minority on the Israeli left whose voice has any volume only because it is amplified by money received from European and foreign extreme left organizations whose intent is to interfere in Israeli society and politics.

      He is also trying way too hard to dismiss criticism. Starting from the beginning. The author is likely correct that the cement used by Hamas to construct a tunnel that it planned to use to kidnap or kill Israelis was obtained via smuggling from Egypt. NGO Monitor was wrong to tweet that. However, doesn’t the fact that Hamas used smuggled cement to build tunnels logically suggest that cement that Israel allows into Gaza will be used in the future in order to construct tunnels and fortifications to attack Israel and Israelis? Would it then be safe to blame Gisha for future attacks for insisting that all building materials be allowed into Gaza despite the evidence that the author acknowledges that Hamas will likely use them to build tunnels in order to attack Israelis?

      “Could it be that the other side is somewhat rational and kept the tunnel to be used as a bargaining chip in some future altercation?”

      Does the author mean to suggest that Hamas is rational enough to wait for a time when it can maximize the casualties and impact of its terrorist attacks on Israelis? Sure. Hamas is rational enough to try to kill the maximum number of Jews instead of wasting a perfectly good tunnel on just one or two dead Jews. That makes a tunnel whose only value is to give Hamas the capacity to massacre Israelis that much better. Certainly some great reasonable doubt the author raises there. Kudos. We are facing a terrorist organization that wishes to massacre us, but is rational about how it goes about that. Wonderful.

      “Yes, the EU did fund some of the report, but as one can see on page 3 of the report, (document) – this is no secret.”

      Who said it was a secret? It is hard to secretly seek European funding for pretty much anything. The point is that the EU funded the report. Does it matter whether an extreme left-wing organization approached the EU or vice versa? The point is that the EU thought it proper to spend its money on a report whose conclusions were obvious from the get-go written by a marginal extreme left-wing organization with decidedly anti-Israeli positions. This would be somewhat akin to the German government providing funding for a neo-Nazi organization in Brazil seeking to overthrow the existing government, but only because that organization had proposed an interesting report on the dangers of high-crime in the favelas. In any case, is the author seriously making the claim that there could have been much doubt about the conclusions that would be drawn by a report written by Yesh Din or that the Europeans didn’t know what they were sponsoring when they sponsored it? He is either being naive or disingenuous here. My money is on the latter.

      For that matter Europeans provide funding to an organization that uses as its paid mouthpiece a blatantly anti-government and extreme left-wing journalist. Not only that but this is part of a flood of money that comes in from Europe to fund a rainbow of organizations, of which pretty much all are politically active on the extreme left and which oppose the current government if not the existence of the state as a whole (many of them do so as well). These are not acts of friendly governments. As such, there is no particular need to demonstrate that actors behind hostile acts are hostile. Undertaking hostile acts, like funding the extremist internal opposition in a democratic state, is sufficient proof that the Europeans are acting in a hostile way. Whether they do so because they are anti-Semites bent on Israel’s destruction or because they are clueless is a matter of interpretation. That they are undertaking what in every other context would be considered hostile acts is a matter of fact.

      But here the author goes off into an interesting area where his disingenuity is quite apparent …

      “By the way, NGO Monitor claims that the EU provides two-thirds of Yesh Din’s funding.”… “The EU’s share was 1.19 million, that is, a little more than a quarter.”

      He declares that only a quarter of the money for Yesh Din is from the EU. He is indeed correct on that claim. Here is the full list of the donors from his link..

      List of donors 2012

      Donor Donation Amount in NIS
      1,190,775 European Union
      392,800 Irish Aid
      491,300 Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations (ifa), Germany
      Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1,222,826
      Norwegian Refugee Council 409,920
      Oxf 74,800 am – Novib
      United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office 44,895
      Netherlands Embassy in Israel 120,300
      New Israel Fund 128,041
      CAFOD 144,783
      Open Society Foundation 288,000

      Now, best as I can tell from my very basic math skills the overwhelming majority of the funding for Yesh Din comes from European governments in one way or another. Which, by the way, and contrary to what the author claims and argues against, is exactly what is listed on NGO Monitor’s page about Yesh Din with similar language in the press release the author links to:

      “Yesh Din is an Israeli political advocacy NGO, almost entirely funded (94%) by foreign donations. Government funders include the EU, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Ireland, UK, and Germany.The New Israel Fund (NIF) and George Soros’ Open Society Institute are also donors.”

      Overall, I would give this article a failing grade in trying to make the case that Yesh Din is not an organization that functions as a paid European shill, which also makes me question whether the Europeans have indirectly spent their money wisely in paying his salary.

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        I see. We have a similar situation here in the US.

        We have politicians whose services are paid for and owned by the same Israeli money that we try to expose in these articles. They belong to a marginal minority on the American left whose voice has any volume only because it is amplified by money received from Israeli foreign extreme left organizations whose intent is to interfere in US society and politics.

        Not only that but this is part of a flood of money that comes in from Israel to fund a rainbow of organizations, of which pretty much all are politically active on the extreme left and which oppose the current government if not the existence of the States as a whole.

        These are not acts of friendly governments. As such, there is no particular need to demonstrate that actors behind hostile acts are hostile. Undertaking hostile acts, like funding the extremist internal opposition in a democratic state, is sufficient proof that the Israelis are acting in a hostile way. Whether they do so because they are anti-Christian bent on America’s destruction or because they are clueless is a matter of interpretation. That they are undertaking what in every other context would be considered hostile acts is a matter of fact.

        Reply to Comment
        • Marcos

          How did you survive Waco?

          Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Waco was a horrific example bringing international shame on what my government has become. A militarized, xenophobic, iron fist, willing to kill its own on international television.

            Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          I see Mr Average (boringly average), the Jews are the enemies of America? If so, why don’t you send your Jews to us here in Israel?

          But be careful what you wish for though. Once you strip yourself off them nasty joooooooooos, you may not have them available to help you with the likes of the Manhattan project and others will benefit from the joooooooooo’s brain power instead of the likes of you. Hey, maybe that would be a good thing too, don’t you think, Mr Average?

          Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Did you read the post to which I was responding? Did you notice I was turning it around, to emphasize how the same things could be said about Israel? It was about paid mouthpieces and foreign interference. Oh, you didn’t catch on to that. It wasn’t about your views on genetic superiority.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Of course I read your clumsy blood libel. Do you really think you are that subtle? The only thing you didn’t mention is a conspiracy by Joooooooish bankers. Well, not here anyway. But on another blog you did. So if I were you, I wouldn’t mouth off too much about my racism by talking about genetic superiority. I mean it would be somewhat ironic to be accused of racism by someone who wears a white robe, a hood and who burns crosses, wouldn’t it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            It was you who brought up genetic superiority by suggesting “we” would be unable to function without “your” brainpower. It’s insulting. And Jewish bankers? You don’t admit every member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank is Jewish? Same with the IMF? I wonder why no goys in that club. Also, you’re pulling things out of the air to try to support yourself – who said anything about white robes?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “who said anything about white robes?”

            One does not have to. One just has to read what you say about Jews and you are instantly recognizable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Of course, why bother with facts or evidence about whether I wear white robes. Much easier that way to purge me from your pure castle of a country. And you didn’t even touch the banks thing.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You still did not answer my question Average.

            Someone with your views should go back to Europe or wherever your father or grandfather come from. Unless you want to stay hypocrite.

            Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          So… When you mean ‘Israeli money’ you really mean American Jewish money. You are upset that American Jews have a voice in American politics.

          Yeah. You tried ‘turning it around’ and all you demonstrated is that you don’t like Jews.

          Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Do you really believe all the money comes from American Jews? Really?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            I tell you what I believe “Average”. I believe that you pull out all your tripe about jooooooos from the protocols of the elders of Zion. That of course makes you someone who wears a white robe and hood and who burns crosses.

            Unless of course you pull out your tripe from your back side?

            Reply to Comment
    4. That the tunnel was made with material imported from Israel was also reported in the NYT.

      The argument will merely shift from “they imported the material from us” to “they will make even more tunnels if we allow them to import from us.” Material fact is subordinated to truth, the latter being the inherent nature of Gazans, Palestinians, or Hamas, depending on emphasis.

      We all do this, think we’re making a great point, find out our facts are wrong, then talk our way around it to the inherent situation or character of a person, organization. But in a land were violence will come, material fact can never be ignored. Failure to conform to facts will lead to greater misinferences later. Yet for many this conflict is over not material fact but social model, the social model making the required world. To fight the social model is to be an enemy.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Inconvenient as facts may be for you the material truth is that Hamas used massive quantities of concrete to built a massive tunnel whose only logical use is to kidnap or kill Israelis. This is not the first tunnel that Hamas built for the same purpose. That Hamas will likely build more tunnels is not a claim based on ideological bias. It is a claim based on every single shred of evidence available.

        Reply to Comment
        • No, I actually think that was the purpose of the tunnel. It wouldn’t be much use as a bargain chip, as to announce its presence would cause its destruction; so its only use would be in surprise action.

          However, the thesis that the leadership of Hamas might shift, in policy or personnel, upon a lifting of the blockade is a different matter. To invest in such a tunnel under blockade is distinct from doing so upon a lifting of blockade. Although the Southern tunnels do provide material, they do so at higher price through constriction of transport. These higher prices in themselves can motivate planed hostility; in fact, under deprivation (quasi) governments tend to route more material to themselves rather than the populace as a whole. What you did, not unexpectedly, is color this behavior as embedded in the actor rather than as even a possible contingent response. Which was my point, above. NGO Monitor, which really should monitor itself, presented the tunnel in a material falsehood to convert its existence into an unalterable trait of the enemy; that falsehood made it to the NYT, somehow. I have no love for such tunnels at all; but I do recall that the US embassy reported to Washington years ago that Israeli government policy was to keep Gaza “just above starvation levels” of food import. By ignoring this background, you contribute to the coloring of this tunnel as an unalterable attribute of the enemy. I have read your hereon for some time, and have never seen you address this “starvation level” policy. I am not defending the construction of this tunnel; I am holding that material facts should nowhere be suppressed.

          In your rather massive prior comment you say Yesh Din is “a marginal extreme left-wing organization with decidedly anti-Israeli positions. This would be somewhat akin to the German government providing funding for a neo-Nazi organization in Brazil seeking to overthrow the existing government, but only because that organization had proposed an interesting report on the dangers of high-crime in the favelas.” Then, next paragraph, place Yesh Din within “a rainbow of organizations, of which pretty much all are politically active on the extreme left and which oppose the current government if not the existence of the state as a whole (many of them do so as well)”. Every Yesh Din posting on 972 has focused on State denial of effective legal process (if there at all) to West Bank Palestinian residents on a case basis. If this is against government policy I think the reports need wide hearing. State denial of legal process is not the same as a “crime rate.” Your rider that they are against the existence of the State itself you immediately discount by “(many of them do so as well),” thereby weaseling out of direct charge against Yesh Din. Then why make that part of your accusation at all? The only reason is to suggest guilt by false association.

          You seem to say that Western European countries care more about legal process and human rights than you do. You have no problem accepting money from the US, public and private, for your version of what Israel should be, but rail against an indigenous Israeli organization which similarly appeals for assistance. This is a denial of equal rights within Israel itself. Let the market place of ideas decide the outcome of Yesh Din, which, in the their case, have nothing to do with the promotion of direct violence. Given recent electoral outcomes and public opinion polls, your views seem to be doing quite well. Calm down and let the mouse voices be.

          By the way, my prior comment was made before yours appeared.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            The leadership of Hamas has been making efforts to kill Israelis long before the policy of blockade was in place. It came to power in Gaza when there was no blockade. The blockade is a reaction to the hostility of Hamas towards Israel and its willingness to use any and all means to attack Israelis. The movement has not fundamentally changed its ideology or goals in a way that would suggest that it would stop treating Israel as an enemy to be confronted and attacked were it to acquire additional resources and means. Trying to assign the blockade or ‘high prices’ as the cause of Hamas’ hostility is historically blind and deaf.

            I don’t have a particular problem with Yesh Din operating as an organization. Nor do I have a fundamental problem with the other marginal organizations that operate on the extreme Israeli left. I obviously don’t like their ideology but don’t see any reason why they should be banned or eliminated. They are capable of producing decent reports that may have the capacity of influencing Israeli policy for the better. At present however they are being used by foreign governments and organizations as a form of political warfare against the government of Israel and in many cases against the state itself. There is now a foreign sponsored organization to document and broadcast every possible negative aspect of Israeli society with a primary objective of producing negative propaganda against Israel. Even where criticism is warranted it is often set within a political context and framework guided by the principles of the extreme left which is fundamentally and implacably hostile to the Israeli consensus, government and often the state itself. I don’t have to answer every charge made by these organizations to point out that they operate individually and collectively within a framework made possible by money sent from abroad for the purpose of imposing a particular view of the conflict and a particular view of society on Israeli society and politics or to point out that these groups are often more active in propagandizing against Israel in international forums than in trying to actually be actors for positive change within Israel. Nor do I need to answer every charge to point out that these are marginal extreme left organizations which would have a reasonable and proportional voice in Israeli society were it not for the money they get from abroad that is used to amplify their voices. Given that they are implacably hostile to the government, sponsoring them en masse, as the Europeans are doing, is a hostile act against the state of Israel and not the act of friendly states.

            Hiding behind the pretense that these are ‘human rights’ organizations doesn’t remove the fundamental fact that they are being sponsored by foreign powers for the express purposes of producing negative propaganda against Israel and in trying to impose a marginal worldview on Israeli society. That the Europeans often have an oversized view of themselves as being ‘civilized’ and ‘enlightened’ doesn’t grant them the right to intervene and interfere in the affairs of foreign countries. These sorts of claims on the part of the Europeans are not new and they should be treated with the same scorn as their previous attempts to impose their will on other societies. No indigenous political group has the inherent right to raise money from foreign governments for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the state. No indigenous political group has the inherent right to raise money from foreign governments for the purpose of damaging the economy and international relations of their host state. No indigenous political group has the inherent right to use externally raised funds to amplify their voice within a society. The idea that these kind of actions can be justified on the basis of ‘the marketplace of ideas’ is to confuse the right to voice an opinion with some fictitious right to be funded by foreign governments which in turn are unlikely to be guided by the best interests of the host country.

            That Yesh Din and its like-minded ilk have had a marginal influence on Israeli society doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to continue being used as tools of foreign powers for interfering in Israeli society and politics or for generating negative portrayals of Israel internationally. This is a ridiculous state of affairs and no, it should not be allowed to continue to stand. That these groups are being exposed by NGO monitor is a good thing and this response by Yossi is pitiful in how terrible it is in deflecting legitimate criticism of the group he is paid to represent.

            Reply to Comment
          • So, Yesh Din is once again trying to “overthrow the state.” It just can’t stay in the marginalized wacky ineffectual leftist zone.

            Since Yesh Din is peopled by Israeli Jews, it is possible these object to the outside interference of AIPAC or perhaps GOD TV, the latter quite proud to be building a forest in the desert, never mind the pesky Arabs who lived there. These foreign powers are trying to destroy the promise of Israel as said, well, deranged, leftists see it. Once you appeal for nonviolent assistance from the outside, you open the door to all others to do so. That’s equal protection. As usual, you conflate your own demand of what Israel should be to Israel itself, rather than letting process determine the outcome.

            We will never know whether the offer of a 10 year truce by the political wing of Hamas upon legitimate election victory would have altered the trajectory of the conflict (I know, for the worse). We do know that the military wing urged the political wing (the latter also providing food assistance at that time) not to participate in the election. There was a public breach between them. The 10 year truce doesn’t sound very military either. All I know is that the sanctions began shortly after the election, with your vile European Union participating. While they still thought they were superior Europeans back then, they were, well, useful.

            Not a word by you of the government’s policy of keeping Gaza “just above starvation.” Not a word. People are not abstract entities. Well, they are for suicide bombers.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Oh, and yes, it makes sense that you posted before my post appeared. My posts go through moderation because in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ that is 972mag my views are occasionally silenced.

            Reply to Comment
          • No, K9, mine wad delayed too. Both went through moderation as far as I can tell. Let’s form a solidarity alliance!

            Reply to Comment
    5. Isaac Rubinson

      So, where is the Egyptian blockade of Gaza in all this discussion? Egypt has cut-off the smuggling tunnels into Rafah. Why? Because Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical Islamist group that under Morsi tried to reshape Egypt as an Islamic republic. Do progressive and liberal Jews not care about the Muslim Brotherhood agenda, which includes explicit anti-Semitism, racism, misogyny, homophobia and religious intolerance? And, of course, wishes to see Israel destroyed and the Jews dispersed (“ethnically cleansed” to use the favorite phrase of Israel-bashers).

      Reply to Comment
    6. The Trespasser

      By the way, it is only private sector in Gaza which was prohibited from importing cement.

      UNRWA and similar organizations, who are responsible for construction of housing in the Gaza strip had no problem with getting as much cement as they needed from Israel.

      Although it is possible to determine the exact producer of the cement from which concrete was made, such information is still not available to the public, meaning that the leftist bunch had no way to determine whether the cement was supplied by Israel to UNRWA and than, accordingly to age-old tradition, stolen, or whether it was indeed smuggled from Egypt.

      But since when the truth is important?

      Reply to Comment
    7. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +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 empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel